Land Use Plan 1991

1 brk
CARTERET COUNTY,
1991 LAND
NORTH CAROLINA
USE PLAN
DCM COPY
nrn
neat Copy
PREPARED FOR
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BY
T. DALE HOLLAND CONSULTING PLANNERS
MARCH, 1991
Adopted by the Carteret County Board of Commissioners: March 11, 1991
Certified by the CRC: March 22, 1991
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.
WK -mf`iM ww

4t N
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management AT4&A
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor'
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E) E H N F=1
Roger N. Schecter, Director
October 6, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Coastal Land Use Plan Recipients
FROM: Michael Lopazanski
SUBJECT: Carteret County Land Use Plan Amendment
The North Carolina Coastal Resource Commission, at its September 23-24,1993 meeting,
has approved an amendments to the 1991 Carteret County Land Use Plan. The
amendment involved changes to County policies regarding development in Coastal
Wetlands (including requirements for mitigation for wetland losses) and Marina and
Floating Home Development.
Changes were approved to the following pages of the 1991 Carteret County Plan:
Page IV-7 Marina and Floating Home Development; Page IV-9 Recreational Resources;
Page IV-10 Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Impacts on Resources; Page IV-11
Marine Resources Areas; and Page V-3 Coastal Wetlands.
Attached to this memo are full page copies of the amendment. Please include these
amended pages in your copies of the 1991 Carteret County Land Use Plan. This
amendment will be used for all permitting and consistency decision, effective
immediately.
The amendment was first adopted locally following a public hearing. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me at [phone].
cc: R. Shaw
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper

CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1991 LAND USE PLAN
PREPARED FOR
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BY
T. DALE HOLLAND CONSULTING PLANNERS
MARCH, 1991
Adopted by the Carteret County Board of Commissioners: March 11, 1991
Certified by the CRC: March 22, 1991
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.

CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1991 LAND USE PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I: ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Page
A. Establishment of Information Base I-1
B. Demographics and Housing 1-4
Carteret County Permanent Population
I-4
a)
Regional and County Population Growth
I-4
b)
Geographic Growth, 1960-1987
I-6
c)
Composition by Age
I-8
d)
Composition by Race and Sex
I-9
Carteret County Seasonal Population
I-12
a)
Introduction and Methodology
I-12
b)
Regional Trends
I-13
c)
Seasonal Population Impact - Carteret County,
1970-87
I-15
d)
Geographic Trends in Carteret County Seasonal
Population, 1970-87
I-16
Carteret County Housing Characteristics
I-21
a)
Number and Type of Private Housing Units
I-21
b)
Tenure and Condition of Year -Round Housing Units
I-22
c)
Single and Multi -Family Units
I-24
C. Economy I-26
1. General Economic Indicators I-26
2. Relative Growth of Industries and Trades I-27
3. Tourism and Recreation I-30
4. Agriculture I-32
5. Manufacturing I-34
6. North Carolina State Ports Authority I-36
7. Commercial Fishing/Marine Research I-38
8. Real Estate and Construction I-41
9. Government and Military Employees I-42
10. Retirees I-43
D. Existing Land Use Summary I-45
1. General Land Use Summary
I-45
2. Land Use by Township
I-50
a) Portsmouth
I-50
b) Cedar Island
I-54
c) Atlantic
I-54
d) Sea Level
I-55
e) Stacy
I-55
f) Davis I
I-55
g) Smyrna
I-56

Page
h)
Marshallberg
I-56
i)
Merrimon
I-57
j)
Straits
I-57
k)
Harker's Island
I-57
1)
Beaufort
I-59
m)
Harlowe
I-60
n)
Morehead
I-61
o)
Newport
I-63
p)
White Oak
I-63
E. Land and Water Use Compatibility Analysis I-66
1. General Discussion I-66
2. Unplanned Development I-66
3. Changes in Predominant Land Uses I-68
4. Summary I-68
F. Development Constraints: Land Suitability I-70
1.
Topography/Geology
I-70
2.
Flood Hazard Areas
I-71
3.
Groundwater Resources
I-73
4.
Areas with Soils Limitations
I-74
5.
Manmade Hazards
I-74
G.
Fragile Areas
I-76
a) Coastal Wetlands
I-76
b) Ocean Dunes
I-81
c) Ocean Beaches and Shorelines
I-81
d) Estuarine Waters
I-81
e) Estuarine Shorelines
I-81
f) Public Trust Areas
I-82
g) Maritime Forests
I-82
h) Historic and Archaeological Sites
I-83
i) 404 Wetlands
I-84
j) Natural Resource Fragile Areas
I-84
k) Outstanding Resource Waters
I-90
1) Slopes in Excess of 12%
I-90
m) Excessive Erosion Areas
I-91
7.
Areas of Resource Potential
I-91
a) Agricultural and Forest Lands
I-91
b) Public Forests
I-92
c) Public Parks
I-92
d) Public Gamelands
I-92
e) Private Wildlife Sanctuaries
I-92
f) Valuable Mineral Resources
I-92
g) Marine Resources
I-92

Page
G. Development Constraints: Public Facilities I-96
1.
Water Supply
I-96
2.
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
I-96
3.
Transportation
I-100
a) General
I-100
b) Roads
I-101
c) Navigable Waters
I-103
d) Air Transportation
I-104
4.
Solid Waste Disposal
1-104
5.
Educational Facilities
I-105
6.
Parks and Recreation
I-108
7.
Other County Facilities
I-108
H. Current Plans, Studies and Regulations I-111
Plans
I-111
a)
1985 Carteret County Land Use Plan
I -ill
b)
A Plan for Parks and Recreation in
Carteret County, 1974
I-111
c)
Transportation Plan
I-111
d)
Regional Sewer Plan
I-111
e)
Beach Access Plan
I-111
f)
Hurricane Evacuation, Hazard Mitigation, and
Post -Disaster Recovery Plan, 1984
I-112
Regulations
and Ordinances
I-112
a)
Carteret County Subdivision Regulations
I-112
b)
Carteret County Zoning Ordinance
I-112
c)
Carteret County Mobile Home Park and Camp Park
Ordinance
I-112
d)
Group Housing Ordinance
I-112
e)
Outer Banks Land Protection Ordinance
I-113
f)
North Carolina State Building, Electrical,
Plumbing, and Mechanical Codes
I-113
g)
Septic Tank Regulations
I-113
h)
National Flood Insurance Program
I-113
i)
Carteret County Billboard Ordinance
I-113
j)
Junkyard Control Ordinance
I-113
k)
CAMA Minor Permit Program
I-114
1)
North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act
I-114
m)
National Fire Prevention Regulations
I-114
n)
"404" Wetlands Regulations
I-114
Consistency
of Local Policies and Ordinances with
the
Land Use Plan
I-114
Implementation/Effectiveness
of the 1985 Land
Use
Plan Update
I-115

Page
SECTION II: PROJECTED LAND DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
A. Projected Population Growth and Residential Development II-1
1. General Discussion II-1
2. Year -Round Population Projections II-1
3. Seasonal Population II-5
4. Projected Housing Characteristics I1-8
B. Projected Economic Development Trends and Related Land Use
Issues II-10
1. General Economic Projections II-10
2. Tourism and Recreation II-12
3. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing II-13
4. Manufacturing and Import/Export II-14
5. Real Estate and Construction II-14
6. Wholesale and Retail Trade and Services II-15
7. Government Employment II-15
C. Public Facilities Development Needs and Land Use Issues II-16
1.
Water Supply
II-16
2.
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
II-17
3.
Storm Drainage
II-19
4.
Transportation
II-19
5.
Solid Waste Disposal
II-20
6.
Educational Facilities
II-21
7.
Parks and Recreation
II-21
8.
Other County Facilities
II-22
D. Redevelopment Issues II-23
SECTION III: RELATIONSHIP OF POLICIES AND LAND CLASSIFICATIONS
A. Developed Class III-1
B. Urban Transition Class III-1
C. Limited Transition III-1
D. Community Class III-2
E. Rural with Services Class III-2
F. Rural Class III-2
G. Conservation Class III-2
SECTION IV: POLICY STATEMENTS
A. Introduction to Policy Statements IV-1
B. Resource Protection Policy Statements IV-3
C. Resource Production and Management Policies IV-9
D. Economic and Community Development IV-12
E. Continuing Public Participation Policies IV-18
F. Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post -Disaster Recovery, and
Evacuation Plans IV-20
SECTION V: LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM V-1

APPENDICES
Appendix I Demographic Methodology
Appendix II Proportionate Extent of Carteret County Soils
Appendix III Attachment to Hazardous Material Map of Carteret
County
Appendix IV Classification and Water Quality Standards for SC
Waters in Carteret County
Appendix V Alternative Policy Statements
Appendix VI Citizens' Participation Plan
Appendix VII Storm Hazard Mitigation Policies
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Total Population and Percent Change for
CAMA-Regulated Counties, 1960-87 I-4
Table 2: Total Year -Round Population and Percent Change
by Township and Municipality - Carteret County, 1960-87 I-7
Table 3: Total Population by Age and Percent Change,
Carteret County, 1970-87 I-8
Table 4: Percentages of Total Population by Age Group,
Carteret County, 1970-87 I-9
Table 5: Number and Percent Increase by Race and Sex,
Carteret County, 1970-87 I-10
Table 6: Percentages of Total Population by Race and Sex,
Carteret County, 1970-87 I-11
Table 7: Summary of Seasonal Housing Units for Coastal
Counties in Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study Area,
1980-87 I-13
Table 8: Summary of Peak Seasonal Population for Coastal
Counties in Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study Area,
1980-87 I-15
Table 9: Relationship of Seasonal/Permanent Population,
Carteret County, 1970-87 I-16
Table 10: Peak Seasonal Population and Percent Increase
by Township and Municipality, Carteret County, 1970-87 I-17
Table 11: Total Peak Population and Percent Change by
Township and Municipality - Carteret County, 1970-87 I-19

Page
Table 12: Number and Percentage Increase of Year -Round
and Seasonal Private Housing Units, Carteret County,
1970-87 I-21
Table 13: Total and Average Annual Number of New
Year -Round and Seasonal Private Housing Units, Carteret
County, 1970-87 1-22
Table 14: Household Size and Tenure of Year -Round
Housing Units, Carteret County, 1970-87 I-22
Table 15: Housing Conditions - Carteret County, 1970-80 I-23
Table 16: Total Housing Units and Percent Increase by
Units in Structure - Carteret County, 1970-80
Table 17: Summary of Economic Indicators, Carteret County,
1970-88
Table 18: Relative Growth of Income -Producing Industries
and Trades, Carteret County, 1970-88
Table 19: Rank of Industry by Employment and Earnings,
Carteret County, 1970 and 1988
Table 20: Carteret County Estimated 1988 Tourist
Visitation
Table 21: Recent Growth of Travel and Tourism -Related
Activities, Carteret County
Table 22: Growth of Personal Farm Income and Harvested
Cropland, Carteret County, 1970-87
Table 23: List of Manufacturing Facilities, Carteret
County, 1989-90
Table 24: Total Tonnage Handled, 1980-89, and Gross
Revenue, 1986-89; N.C. State Port Terminal, Morehead
City
Table 25: Commercial Fishing Landings (Pounds and
Dockside Value) by Area and Species - Carteret County,
1980 and 1988
Table 26: Total Commercial Fishing Landings for Estuarine
and Offshore Waters, Carteret County, 1980-88
I-24
I-26
I-27
I-29
I-30
I-32
I-33
I-34
I-38
I-40
I-41

Page
Table 27: Estimated General Land Use in Carteret County -
1973, 1981, and 1989 I-45
Table 28: Agricultural Farmland, Soil Association and
Management Limitation Rate I-91
Table 29: Outline of Municipal Wastewater Systems,
Carteret County I-97
Table 30: Public/Private Package Treatment and Disposal
Systems in Carteret County I-99
Table 31: Enrollment in Carteret County Schools,
1984-89 I-105
Table 32: Total Year -Round Population Projects by
Township and Municipality, Carteret County, 1987-2000 II-2
Table 33: Average Annual Year -Round Population Growth
Rate and Percent Change, Carteret County, 1980-2000 II-3
Table 34: Total Population by Age and Percent Change,
Carteret County, 1987-2000 II-4
Table 35: Population and Percent Increase by Race and
Sex, Carteret County, 1987-2000 II-4
Table 36: Peak Seaonal Population Projections by
Township and Municipality, Carteret County, 1987-2000 II-6
Table 37: Total Peak Population by Township and
Municipality, Carteret County, 1987-2000 II-7
Table 38: Number and Percentage Increase of Year -Round
and Seasonal Private Housing Units, Carteret County,
1987-2000 II-8
Table 39: Relative Growth of Income -Producing Industries
and Trades, Carteret County, 1988-2000 II-10
Table 40: Rank of Industry by Employment and Earnings,
Carteret County, 1988 and 2000 II-12

LIST OF MAPS
Carteret
County Location
Map
Map
1 -
Carteret
County
Zoning Areas
Map
2 -
Carteret
County
Existing Land Use Map
Map
3 -
Carteret
County
Pollution Point Source Discharges (since
January,
1984)
Map
4 -
Carteret
County.Development
Activity
Map 5 - Carteret County Townships
Map
6 -
General Soil Map, Carteret County
Map
7 -
Carteret County Military Aviation Restricted Area
Map
8 -
Carteret County Areas of Environmental Concern
and Other Fragile Areas
Map
9 -
Carteret County Flood Hazard Areas
Map
10 -
Carteret County Natural Resource Fragile Areas
Map
11 -
Carteret County Marine Resources
Map
12 -
1987 Annual Average Daily 24-Hour Volume on Hard Surface
Roads - Carteret County
Map
13 -
Location of County -Maintained Parks and Recreation
Facilities
Map
14 -
Community Services
Map
15 -
Carteret County Land Classification Map, Western Carteret
County
Map
15A
- Carteret County Land Classification Map, "Down East"

The preparation of this map was
financed In part through a grant
provided by the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program,
through funds provided by the
Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972, as amended, which Is
administered by the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Scale in Miles
0 25 50 75 100
CARTERET COUNTY LOCATION MAP
T COUNTY

SHOISIaNOO ONISSIXZ aO SIS7,7V1V
I NOISOaS

A: ESTABLISHMENT OF INFORMATION BASE
The North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) requires
that development policies outlined in land use plans for coastal areas
be based on an objective analysis of development trends and con-
straints to development. The methodology for presenting this analysis
is clearly outlined in Subchapter 7B, "Land Use Planning Guidelines",
of the North Carolina Administrative Code (amended October 25, 1989).
The outline of this land use plan update for Carteret County
follows the general planning analysis suggested by the CAMA planning
guidelines. Section I of the plan, an analysis of existing condi-
tions, first identifies demographic and economic trends that have
directed land development patterns with the county over the past
twenty years (IB and IC). The results of continuing development are
then summarized in a quantitative summary of existing land use county-
wide, and a narrative description of existing land use by township
(ID). The description of existing land use is followed with an analy-
sis of significant land use incompatibility issues currently facing
the county (IE). The discussion of existing conditions also includes
an outline of physical constraints to development (IF and IG), con-
sisting of a summary of fragile land and water areas, a summary of
areas with resource potential, and a summary of existing community
facilities. The summaries of existing constraints to development
include discussions of land development/environmental conflicts and
community facility needs and issues that are to be addressed by the
policy statements. The discussion of existing conditions concludes
with an outline of existing local plans and policies that regulate
development.
Section II of the land use plan summarizes the expected impact of
continued land development during the planning period within the
framework of the physical constraints discussed in Section I. Pro-
jected permanent and seasonal population growth, housing development
trends, and economic growth (IIA and IIB) are summarized and analyzed
within the context of previously -defined land use issues. Community
facilities (IIC) are discussed in terms of what services will be
required to meet anticipated public demand, whether or not existing
community facilities are adequate or deficient in light of projected
demand, and how construction of new community facilities will be
impacted by, and impact, fragile areas and existing patterns of land
use. Section II concludes with a discussion of redevelopment issues.
The identification of development trends and physical constraints
to development required to complete this update was accomplished
through the use of four major reference sources. First, the Office of
State Budget and Management, State Data Center provided a wealth of
demographic and economic data. Second, the Carteret County Planning
Department proved to be a useful source of information throughout the
entire process of compiling data on existing and proposed public
facilities, existing land use patterns, land use classifications, and
I-1

local policies. The Land Use Plan Advisory Committee offered numerous
comments concerning specific pieces of technical information. ,The
committee also referred the planning consultant to several useful
reference sources not originally considered. Finally, the staff of
the Division of Coastal Management provided needed clarification of
issues and regulations throughout the data -gathering process, and also
provided the consultant with references to other state agencies and
state -maintained planning data.
A complete summary of the data sources and specific reference
material utilized to prepare the information base for this land use
plan update is outlined below.
DATA SOURCES
- Carteret Community Action
- Carteret County Department of Environmental Health
- Carteret County Department of Health
- Carteret County Department of Social Services
- Carteret County Economic Development Council, Inc.
- Carteret County Fire Marshal
- Carteret County Manager's Office
- Carteret County Planning Department
- Carteret County Schools
- North Carolina Department of Commerce, Business/Industry Development
Division
- North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Coastal Management
- North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater
Section
- North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Health Services, Solid Waste Management
Branch
- North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
- North Carolina Division of Aging
- North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
- North Carolina Division of Shellfish Sanitation
- North Carolina Division of Travel and Tourism
- North Carolina Division of Veterans' Affairs
- North Carolina Employment Security Commission, Labor Market
Information Division
- North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
- North Carolina State Ports Authority, Morehead Terminal, General
Manager's Office
- Office of State Budget and Management,
- United States Army Corps of Engineers,
- United States Department of Commerce, B
- United States Fish and Wildlife Service
- United States Marine Corps, MCAS Cherry
Liaison Office
I-2
State Data Center
Wilmington District Office
ureau of the Census
Point, Community Plans and

LIST OF REFERENCES
Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study. 1990 Carteret County Water Use
Plan. Raleigh, NC: Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study, 1990.
Armingeon, Neil Alan. An Analysis of Coastal Growth and Development
in North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management, 1989.
Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Draft
Environmental Impact Statement - Mid -Atlantic Electronic W,
Range (MAEWR) within Restricted Airspace R-5306-A. Norfol:
c Divis
Carteret County Planning Department. Carteret County Evacuation Plan.
Beaufort, NC: Carteret County Planning Department, June, 1984.
Carteret County Planning Department. Carteret County Land Use Plan -
1985. Beaufort, NC: Carteret County Planning Department, 1985.
Carteret County Planning Department. Carteret County Storm Hazard
Mitigation Plan and Post -Disaster Reconstruction Plan. Beaufort,
NC: Carteret County Planning Department, June, 1984.
LeGrand, Harry F. Geology and Groundwater Resources of the Wilmington
- New Bern Area. Raleigh, NC: 1960.
Management Assistance Office, MCAS Cherry Point,'United States Marine
Corps. 1990 Economic Impact Analysis. Cherry Point, NC:
Management Assistance Office, MCAS Cherry Point, 1989.
McDavid Associates. Environmental Impact Statement for Carteret
County Wastewater Disposal Alternatives. Beaufort, NC: Carteret
County, 1989.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. Draft Report
Coastal Outstanding Resource Water Intensive Study. Raleigh,
N.C. Division of Environmental Management, March 14, 1989.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. Public Water
Supplies of North Carolina, Part 5, Southern Coastal Plain.
Raleigh, NC: Division of Environmental Management, 1977.
The Practice of Local Government Planning, Frank S. So, Editor.
Washington, DC: International City Management Association, 1988.
Town of Cape Carteret. Cape Carteret 1987 Land Use Plan Update. Cape
Carteret, NC: Town of Cape Carteret, 1987.
Tschetter, Paul D. "Characterization of Baseline Demographic Trends
in the Year -Round and Recreational Populations in the Albemarle -
Pamlico Estuarine Study Area." Greenville, NC: East Carolina
University, 1987.
Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. Carteret County, North Carolina, 1989
Data Pamphlet. Washington, DC: Woods and Poole Economics, Inc.,
1989.
I-3

B. DEMOGRAPHICS AND HOUSING
Carteret County Permanent Population
a) Regional and County Population Growth
All except two of the twenty North Carolina counties regulated
by the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) experienced a net
permanent population growth from 1960 to 1987, as Table 1 indicates.
Table 1: Total Population and Percent Change
for CP.MA-Regulated Counties,
1960 - 1987111
County
Total Population
Percent
Change
1960
1970
1980
1987
60-70
70-80
80-87
60-87
Carteret
27,438
31,603
41,092
50,485
15.2
30.0
22.9
84.0
Currituck
6,601
6,976
11,089
13,689
5.7
58.9
23.4
107.4
Dare
5,935
6,995
13,377
19,992
17.9
91.2
33.1
236.8
Hyde
5,765
5,571
5,873
5,796
- 3.4
5.4
- 1.3
0.5
Beaufort
36,014
35,980
40,355
42,754
- 0.1
12.2
5.9
18.7
Bertie
24,350
20,477
21,024
21,132
-15.9
2.7
0.5
-13.2
Camden
5,598
5,453
5,829
5,984
- 2.6
6.9
2.7
6.9
Chowan
11,729
10,764
12,558
13,535
- 8.2
16.7
7.8
15.4
Craven
58,773
62,554
71,043
80,272
6.4
13.6
13.0
36.6
Pamlico
9,850
9,467
10,398
10,830
- 4.2
9.8
4.1
9.9
Pasquotank
25,630
26,824
28,462
30,466
4.7
6.1
7.0
18.9
Pergiimans
9,178
8,351
9,486
10,725
- 9.0
13.6
13.1
16.9
Tyrrell
4,520
3,806
3,975
4,144
-15.8
4.4
4.3
- 8.3
Washington
13,488
14,038
14,801
14,658
4.1
5.4
- 1.0
8.7
Gates
9,254
8,524
8,875
9,686
- 7.9
4.1
9.1
4.7
Hertford
22,718
23,529
23,368
23,862
3.6
- 0.7
2.7
5.0
Brunswick
20,278
24,223
35,777
49,631
19.4
47.7
38.7
144.8
New Hanover
71,742
82,996
103,471
116,337
15.7
24.7
12.4
62.1
Pender
18,508
18,149
22,262
26,277
- 1.9
22.7
18.0
42.0
Onslow
82,706
103,126
112,784
125,642
24.7
9.4
21.8
53.1
Total
470,075
509,406
595,899
675,897
8.4
13.1
13.4
43.8
Source: State Data Center, N.C. Office of State Budget and Management
[1l 1987 was chosen as the base year from which to measure past
population growth since it is the last year for which the N.C.
State Data Center had published population estimates by county and
municipality at the time of this study. Population projections
will also use 1987 as a base year, with estimates for 1990 and 2000.
The notable increase in population growth in the coastal
counties since 1970 is reflective of the well -documented national
trend of migration to non -metropolitan areas which began in the late
1960s. By the early 1970s, coastal North Carolina felt the impact
of this migration. Some of the factors influencing the growth of the
I-4

coastal region include expansion of military facilities, industrial
decentralization, and in particular, the development of recreation
and retirement centers.
The impact of growing retirement and recreation centers is impor-
tant in this study for three reasons. First, Table 1 shows that the
highest rates of permanent population growth from 1960 through 1987
occurred in the CAMA-regulated counties with the most attractive
shoreline resources. In fact, five of the six coastal counties with
the highest population growth rates from 1960-87 are oceanfront
counties. The abundant shoreline resources of Carteret and other
oceanfront counties have played the most significant role in attract-
ing migrating population over the past twenty years.
Second, the development of the coastal region as a recreational/
retirement center requires an analysis of seasonal or peak population
as an integral part of any land use or community facilities study.
Many decisions affecting land use and community facilities in ocean-
front counties such as Carteret must be based on an informed apprais-
al of seasonal population trends and projections.
Finally, the growth of Carteret and other coastal counties as
recreational/retirement centers over the past twenty years has had a
significant impact on the composition of the permanent population,
and ultimately, the economic structure of the coastal region. The
average household size has decreased and the median age has increased
as coastal North Carolina has grown as a recreational/retirement
center. Also, oceanfront counties such as Carteret, with high
seasonal populations, have had a noticeable shift toward a non -basic
(service and retail) economy over the past twenty years. Increased
retail trade and growth of service industries are the result of
seasonal demand and retiree in -migration to the coastal region.
The increased military and industrial presence in coastal North
Carolina has also influenced permanent population growth, peak popu-
lation growth, and changes in population composition in Carteret and
other coastal counties since 1960. The appeal of the region to
industry and the military -- availability of open space, low tax and
wage structure, relatively few "urban" problems -- also adds to its
appeal to retirees and seasonal homeowners.
Carteret County is one of the state's fastest -growing counties.
Based on detailed demographic estimates provided by the State Data
Center for counties and municipalities through 1987, Carteret County
was the fourth fastest -growing CAMA-regulated county from 1970-87,
and the fifth in the entire state from 1980-87, ranking only behind
Dare, Brunswick, Wake, and Currituck counties. The rapid growth of
Carteret County's municipalities over the same period is evidenced by
the fact that Morehead City, Emerald Isle, and Atlantic Beach were
all among the top ten in population growth rate for similarly -sized
municipalities from 1980-87.
Carteret County's rate of growth from 1970 to 1980 was twice the
growth rate in the 1960s. However, the annual growth rate from
1980-87 was only slightly higher than the rate in the 1970s.
I-5

b) Geographic Growth - 1960-1987
The rapid population growth of Carteret County from 1960-1987 can
generally be attributed to growth in the incorporated beach communi-
ties and unincorporated areas within or near the extraterritorial
jurisdiction of existing municipalities, notably in Newport, Morehead
City, and White Oak townships. This growth underscores the growing
attraction of Carteret County's recreation -oriented communities.
Table 2 clearly indicates that even during the period from
1970-80, when growth in the county's unincorporated areas was almost
double that of the municipalities, the fastest growth in unincorpo-
rated areas appeared to be centered near areas with established
infrastructure and municipal government. This is demonstrated by the
spurt in municipal growth from 1980-8.7, which was as much the result
of annexation of rapidly -growing unincorporated areas as growth within
established city boundaries. The municipal growth rate in Carteret
County from 1980-87 was over three times as high as the rate for
unincorporated areas.
The three fastest growing townships from 1960-87 were White Oak,
Newport, and Morehead City. There was a dramatic increase in water-
front residential development in and near the beach communities and
along the estuarine shoreline in Morehead City and White Oak townships
during that period. Newport Township serves as a bedroom community
for the Marine Corps Air Station at Cherry Point, and its population
growth is largely the result of base expansion since 1960. Of the
four currently "urbanized" townships (townships containing incor-
porated municipalities), only Beaufort Township had a growth rate
below the county rate for the period.
The most rapidly -growing "rural" townships (townships with no
incorporated towns) in Carteret County from 1960-87 were Sea Level,
Harlowe, and Straits. Most of the growth in these areas, as well as
in the county's other rural townships, can be attributed to new
residential development on or near waterfront areas, particularly
estuarine areas and areas on the shores of the Intracoastal Waterway.
With the exception of Atlantic, all of the rural townships showed
significant population growth from 1960-87. However, the vast
majority of land in the rural townships is still undeveloped.
Population centers are limited to subdivisions and the isolated
unincorporated communities from which many of the "rural" townships
gained their names. There are significant areas in "rural" townships
that pose severe restrictions to development or are undevelopable due
to environmental restrictions. The obvious conflict between these
restrictions and continuing residential growth in the more rural and
isolated portions of Carteret County will be an important focus of
this plan.
RKA

L-I
kV
rt w
O O O M n� W N r _O gy m- -- W ��
rr rr rt y
err vcncncncnro O
c�c n a c w o m rs ry N H-
r *n n w0(rtn a o ' 0.5 rrym rn (rn r�0
r ° H-
ID
n pp77
m y C N 0 0 0 0y o 0 5 m£ 0 ,7C" ro (�* O o 0 0 0 0 0 5 (D O
w a�FaFFrr
wFw�-,,an0ryF-0`7xDC °�a�����H��FaFa
m OOa OOrro 000�p.n OD rr Or� N.
H N CD S
rw*En
(rt CD (DD Frrwr F+ Put
cna� w Frwr rt
ro�o 'D v� o
cn
En (wn (wn ti w
N r
r
J Jl0
r r r
N r O.G
Ut r olwN
r
.�(o(n
J J ON(n W
o)JmOw
Ln W.t� a, W,c N N W (o to
IMD
W WO
Co r(n J(o(om
n mm(n(o
mJ X. r N p)t�Un.G NNO
O
mOm
Ln(p .GNOr J(o mlt� W r ct 00
W M X�m oN of 0 m1 NN
FW-'Or
Nr r
W NrNpl
(_n ` mNJ W
r
m N W
.G J r m r N Ln w
(o r J (o W
N w W (n J m .P N r J W m
1-03
ONJ
(o cl N r of clra
N(o W N(o
W O W NOl W(JI l0 .P Jolr
O
W tD .� mmNmm'i J J N m r c1(o O1O0 W OO cI N(061oJ (o m.t:,
J� N r r
`` w .C• N r c W` cl (o .G ` Ol W W r
o(n(n waam(o(nWm n anmmw� (mrn (o.(n(o(oar w(omm m
N.JG mm ON W (Ln �O Nv OOw mw OW W alb W Fes- mmO mO N W tom 010 Cl
O Iw-' (o (n N r r r o f N CD r F-' M r r N J W I A r
.G O.tl mm J Npl W MG) m NC-i D (w JcIt, of CD CD c1 W m W clm m
m I G W WIt. c 1 W m c 1 (o w r J b P r W O l A m J 0 X- W O (n (O (n l a 0 J
ct mJ N F. N(o J W W r O(om W O Vl NJ Oolr 0) Jm(owmOmm I
N
u
r
J o I I I
I r
I N I I I I
rn
rrr
W Jm rrrJ�NOr.0
to NNN r rr
O
c1N10
loN r.A (or W O(n p NJ mLl I
I rnX �mr ON W r mc1 (p
I
Norm
m W mCD J.0 m OCn m(n Ol (J1
W J r Nr W N J OI.G (,Jm
O
I
W Wr
-j O(nW NN(n
Wal WCn
F�F Nm Nr rr rr
O
O olm
Nr(o W OCn W Ln
I (o wmN W I
I m Wl0 O0m Ja� W W wO
1
p)
W J c1 cn W
J J r c16 (n (o m J to of cl
O
r
1
N r W
W r O W r r
N r r
N (n o f t r r
O
NN W
Ut � N (p m r r pl
F-
I � molM t dlD-
X- X�mO.P (001 W 6l N Cn m0
I
Ol 6lm
Ol O(Jt NOplm lO
J �P al N.G W
r d>N 61 c1 Ul J(n O(p m(pN
�
r
N N
r
r
N a N
r r r r r
�w�
�F
13mmrnm
co
rn(Li(�N) mN)
1 I
I ool M Ln m(oa W olo(Lilo
?
ON)
J W W 61J W rN
(o r(o W J
Jm(o J cn olr I. IA m OI.G
C-JD
(D
n
s
rt
�K O
rt
(D 00 w'
0� o
9 i�
rtaa
ro
koPro
o r- r
(D � rw*
o r N•
coFl-
rrr�
K�
Ia
ro
n
rt

c) Composition by Age
From 1970-87, the percentage of individuals in Carteret County
over 60 years of age increased substantially, and the median age also
increased. These trends directly resulted from increasing investment
in waterfront property in Carteret County by retirees, as well as a
national trend toward a higher median age. Total population by age
for Carteret County from 1970-1987 is shown in Table 3, below:
Table 3: Total Population by Age and Percent Change
Carteret County, 1970-1987
Age
Population by Age
Group
Percent
Change
Overall
1970
1980
1987
70-80
80-87
70-87
0-4
2,625
2,787
3,443
6.2
23.5
31.2
5-19
9,074
9,506
9,939
4.8
4.6
9.5
20-29
4,821
7,455
8,289
54.6
11.2
71.9
30-39
3,590
5,661
8,045
57.7
42.1
124.1
40-49
3,936
4,301
6,072
9.3
41.2
54.3
50-59
3,261
4,616
5,174
41.6
12.1
58.7
60-70
2,535
3,880
5,146
53.1
32.7
103.0
70 & up
1,761
2,886
4,377
63.9
51.7
148.6
Total
31,603
41,092
50,485
30.0
22.9
59.7
Source:
State Data
Center,
N.C. Office
of State
Budget
and
Management
Several important trends in the composition of Carteret County's
population can be identified through a review of Table 3. First, the
three most rapidly -growing segments of the population since 1970 have
been ages 30-39, ages 60-70, and ages 70 and up. Additionally, the
annual growth rate for these three groups was consistent for the two
decades analyzed, in sharp contrast to the other age groups, which
displayed some dramatic contrasts between 170-180 and 180-187. For
example, the preschool and age 40-49 populations showed annual growth
rates from 1980-87 that were over five times the rate from 1970-80;
while the 20-29 and 50-59 age groups' growth rates decreased substan-
tially from 1970-80 to 1980-87. The growth of the 30-39 and over 60
age groups is partially the result of non -migratory demographic
factors including birth and death rates and aging patterns. Also, the
net migration rate for both groups was also very high over the period
1970-1987. In other words, there was a steady influx of elderly
individuals and individuals in their 30's into the county that greatly
exceeded the migration of these groups to areas outside of the
county.
The preschool and school -age population of Carteret County has not
grown nearly as fast as the total population since 1970, and is
shrinking in terms of percentage of total population. The older
working -age population (ages 40-59) has grown at approximately the
same rate as the total population. The younger working population
RE

(ages 20-39), and the age group 60 and above, have grown at twice the
rate of the total population since 1970, and now occupy larger
percentages of the total population than they did in 1970. These
trends are outlined in tabular form below:
Table 4: Percentages of Total Population by Age Group
Carteret County, 1970-1987
Net Change
Age Group 1970 1980 1987 1970-87
Preschool and School Age
Population (0 - 19)
Younger Working Population
'(20 - 39)
Older Working Population
(40 - 59)
Elderly Population
(60 and up)
37.0%
29.9%
26.5%
-10.5%
26.6%
31.9%
32.4%
+ 5.8%
22.8%
21.7%
22.3%
- 0.5%
13.6%
16.5%
18.8%
+ 5.2%
Source: T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners
d) Composition by Race and Sex
The analysis of Carteret County's racial composition is an
important part of this study of recent demographic trends, since
changes in minority population profoundly affect issues such as
housing and local economic and community development in eastern North
Carolina.
I-9

Table 5
Category
Total White
Males
Females
Total Black
Males
Females
Other Minorities
Males
Females
Total Males
Total Females
Total County
Number and Percent Increase by Race and Sex
Carteret County, 1970 - 1987
Total
Population
Percent
Change
Overall
1970
1980
1987
70-80
80-87
70-87
27,985
36,955
45,850
32.1
24.1
63.8
13,814
18,397
22,802
33.2
23.9
65.1
14,171
18,558
23,048
31.0
24.2
62.6
3,498
3,857
4,018
10.3
4.8
14.9
1,719
1,872
1,975
8.9
5.5
14.9
1,779
1,985
2,043
11.6
2.9
14.8
120
280
617
133.3
120.4
414.2
44
120
250
172.3
108.3
468.2
76
160
367
110.5
129.4
382.9
15,577
20,389
25,027
30.9
22.7
60.7
16,026
20,703
25,458
29.2
23.0
58.9
31,603
41,092
50,485
29.2
22.9
59.7
Sources: State Data Center, N.C. Office of State Budget and
Management; Woods and Poole Economics, Inc.: Carteret
County, NC - 1980 Data Pamphlet.
As Table 5 indicates, the black population in Carteret County grew
at a rate well below the white population from 1970-87. However, the
total non -black minority population (orientals, hispanics, etc.) grew
five times as fast as the white population during the same period.
[Note: The substantial percentage increase in non -black minority
population is magnified by the relatively small non -black minority
population in 1970. Nonetheless, the growth trend in this sector of
the population is significant.] The overall male population and the
male populations for all three racial groups listed in Table 5 grew
faster than the comparative female populations from 1970-1987.
In terms of percentage of total population, the most important
population trends from 1970-87 by race and sex were the increase in
white/non-black minority populations and the corresponding decrease in
the black population, as indicated in Table 6.
I-10

Table 6: Percentages
of Total
Population by Race and Sex
Carteret County, 1970
- 1987
Category
Percentage
of
Total Population
Net Change
1970
1980
1987
1970-87
Total White
88.6%
89.9%
90.8%
2.2%
Males
43.7%
44.8%
45.2%
1.5%
Females
44.9%
45.2%
45.6%
0.7%
Total Black
11.1%
9.4%
8.0%
-3.1%
Males
5.4%
4.6%
3.9%
-1.5%
Females
5.7%
4.8%
4.1%
-1.6%
Total Non -Black Minority
0.3%
0.7%
1.2%
0.9%
Males
0.1%
0.3%
0.5%
0.4%
Females
0.2%
0.4%
0.7%
0.5%
Total Males
49.3%
49.6%
49.6%
+0.3%
Total Females
50.7%
50.4%
50.4%
-0.3%
Source: T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners.
The relative decrease in black population since 1970 indicates
that the migratory pattern in Carteret County in recent years has been
dominated by an incoming white population. This is substantiated by
net migration rates formulated for the county by the N.C. State Data
Center. Net migration rate is the net change in area population
attributable to incoming or outgoing (migrating) households. For the
decade 1980-90, the N.C. State Data Center estimates a total net
migration rate of plus 24.45% for Carteret County. However, the
non -white migration rate for the same period is estimated to be plus
1.46%. Since a large portion of the non -white incoming population
must be assumed to be non -black minorities (based on the substantial
growth of those groups since 1970), it is safe to state that black
population growth in Carteret County has been almost entirely
dependent on birth and death rates since 1970. A black population
relatively unaffected by migratory patterns is typical of coastal
North Carolina counties, and is reflective of several socioeconomic
factors such as education, housing availability, and industrial
development, which will be addressed in the discussion of economic
conditions.

Carteret County Seasonal Population*
a) Introduction and Methodology
In CAMA-regulated counties, a study of recreational or seasonal
population is necessary to any overall analysis of demographic trends.
In fact, seasonal population is often more important than permanent
population in defining the impact of growth on community facilities
and fragile areas. Additionally, the recreational population has a
profound effect on the economy of the coastal region, accounting for a
large portion of the non -basic (service and retail) economy and
indirectly impacting more basic industries such as fishing,
agriculture, import/export, and manufacturing.
In the preceding section, population data from the N.C. State Data
Center was utilized to present year-round population trends. The
estimation methods utilized by the N.C. State Data Center for year-
round population (ratio correlation and administrative records) are
not appropriate for estimating seasonal population. Enumeration of
housing units is the most appropriate method of estimating
recreational population. In the housing unit approach, the total
number of housing units is multiplied by the average household size to
obtain estimated population.
The 1985 Carteret County Land Use Plan relied largely on the
number of private housing units to estimate seasonal population. For
this study, extensive use will be made of a demographic analysis of
recreational populations for the Albemarle -Pamlico region prepared by
Paul D. Tschetter of East Carolina University in 1988. The advantage
of the ECU analysis is that it relies on an extensive empirical
enumeration of marina boat slips, motel rooms, and campgrounds in
addition to private seasonal housing units. The study also includes
an excellent approach to estimating average population by type of
individual housing unit. For purposes of the ECU study (and this
demographic analysis), "total seasonal housing units" includes 1) all
single and multi -family private housing units used by the overnight
tourist population rather than the permanent population; 2) all
motel/hotel rooms (including bed and breakfasts); 3) all seasonal and
transient campground sites; and 4) all individual marina wet slips
capable of docking boats of a size and type which can house people
overnight. Marina facilities for fueling/repair only (no overnight
dockage), and those that only dock commercial fishing boats, are
excluded from the enumeration of seasonal housing units.
The ECU study has been used in conjunction with data from the 1985
Carteret County Land Use Plan, a recent CAMA-sponsored study on
coastal development, and permanent population trends to prepare the
following outline of recent seasonal.demographic trends for Carteret
County.
*This section does not address or include figures for "day visitor" usage of
Carteret County recreational facilities, beaches, waters, and natural areas. Thus,
the actual seasonal population figures are higher than those stated in this section.
Accurate "day visitor" data is not available.
I-12

b) Regional Trends
Based on the ECU study of recreational populations, all of North
Carolina's coastal counties experienced dramatic growth in seasonal
housing from 1980-87. The most significant growth observed was in
private seasonal housing in the coastal counties, particularly on the
barrier islands. Predominant in the private seasonal housing growth
trend was the development of large-scale condominium projects. Motel
and hotel growth in the 33 counties surveyed was highest in Carteret,
Dare, and Hyde counties. However, marina development was most
apparent in the soundfront counties of Beaufort, Craven and Pamlico.
The regional seasonal housing trends summarized above are outlined
in quantitative format below for the four oceanfront counties included
in the ECU study:
Table 7: Summary of
Seasonal Housing
Units
for Coastal
Counties
in Albemarle -Pamlico
Estuarine
Study
Area, 1980-87
County/Type of
Numerical
Percent
Seasonal Unit
Number
of Units
Gain
Increase
1980
1987
1980-87
1980-87
Carteret - Total
10,935
16,567
5,632
51.5
Private Housing Units
6,448
11,045
4,597
71.3
Motel/Hotel Rooms
1,527
2,281
754
49.4
Campsites
1,699
1,866
167
9.8
Boat Slips
1,261
1,375
114
9.0
Currituck - Total
1,506
1,785
279
18.5
Private Housing Units
1,134
1,413
279
24.6
Motel/Hotel Rooms
12
12
0
0
Campsites
315
315
0
0
Boat Slips
45
45
0
0
Dare - Total
11,810
16,558
4,748
40.2
Private Housing Units
4,922
8,793
3,871
78.6
Motel/Hotel Rooms
2,816
3,635
819
29.1
Campsites
3,718
3,718
0
0
Boat Slips
354
412
58
16.4
Hyde - Total
933
1,691
758
81.2
Private Housing Units
476
991
515
108.2
Motel/Hotel Rooms
102
278
176
72.5
Campsites
309
309
0
0
Boat Slips
46
113
67
145.6
Source: Tschetter, Paul D., "Characterization of Baseline Demographic
Trends in the Year -Round and Recreational Populations in the
Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study Area"
I-13

According to Table 7, Carteret County's total stock of seasonal
housing grew 51.5% from 1980-87, second only to Hyde of the four
coastal counties surveyed. However, the total numerical increase of
new seasonal units was highest in Carteret County during the period.
Additionally, Carteret County was alone among the four coastal
counties surveyed in posting gains in each type of seasonal unit. In
fact, the numerical gain by Carteret County was the highest for all
types of units except hotel/motel rooms, where it finished slightly
behind Dare County.
This rapid development of all kinds of recreational housing in
Carteret County from 1980-87 is substantiated by another recent study.
"An Analysis of Coastal Growth and Development", published by the
Division of Coastal Management in May, 1989, examined the types and
number of CAMA permits issued since 1980. This report revealed that
in 1986, Carteret County ranked only behind Brunswick County in the
total number of CAMA development permits issued. In 1987, Carteret
moved into first place, accounting for 29.1% of all CAMA development"
permits issued in the state. Significantly, the number of CAMA devel-
opment permits issued for Carteret County (including all municipali-
ties) has risen every year since 1980. The number of residential
building permits issued annually has also increased dramatically in
recent years. In 1976, only 1,276 permits were issued. From 1983-87,
10,090 total residential building permits were issued, for an average
of 2,018 per year. (Source: Carteret County Economic Development
Council, Inc.)
The rapid increase in the number of recreational housing units
since 1980 has been paralleled by the growth of seasonal population in
the coastal counties. Although seasonal population is difficult to
quantify due to rapid fluctuations in occupancy rates, the occupancy
assumptions utilized for seasonal housing units in the ECU baseline
study are based on sound empirical data, and the seasonal population
estimates included in that study will be utilized here. Table 8
outlines estimated seasonal population trends from 1980-87 for the
four counties included in the ECU demographic study.
In the ECU study (and in this demographic analysis), "peak
seasonal population" is defined as the population that would be
enumerated in all seasonal housing units if all of those units were
occupied at full capacity, based on average assumed household sizes
for each type of unit. (One exception is that the ECU study assumed an
85% peak occupancy rate for marina wet slips.) Although "peak
seasonal population" is based on a number of variables, it is a very
useful statistic for planning purposes, since it provides a logically -
derived summary of the possible total occupancy in seasonal units
during peak overnight tourism periods (Memorial Day, Fourth of July,
and Labor Day weekends).
I-14

Table 8: Summary of Peak Seasonal Population
for Coastal Counties in Albemarle -Pamlico
Estuarine Study Area, 1980-87
County/Type of
Peak Seasonal
Percent
Seasonal Unit
Population
Increase
1980
1987
1980-87
Carteret - Total
42,940
67,082
56.2
Private Housing
Units
29,016
49,702
71.3
Motels/Hotels
5,344
7,983
49.4
Campgrounds
5,097
5,598
9.8
Marinas
3,483
3,799
9.1
Currituck - Total
4,852
5,538
14.1
Private Housing
Units
3,742
4,428
18.3
Motels/Hotels
42
42
0
Campgrounds
945
945
0
Marinas
123
123
0
Dare - Total
44,137
64,581
46.3
Private Housing
Units
22,149
39,568
78.6
Motels/Hotels
9,856
12,722
29.1
Campgrounds
11,154
11,154
0
Marinas
978
1,137
16.3
Hyde - Total
3,463
6,671
92.6
Private Housing
Units
2,052
-4,459
117.3
Motels/Hotels
357
973
172.5
Campgrounds
927
927
0
Marinas
127
312
145.7
Source: Tschetter, Paul D., "Characterization of Baseline Demographic
Trends in the Year -Round and Recreational Populations in the
Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study Area"
The percentage increases in seasonal population shown in Table 8
closely parallel the increases in seasonal units depicted in Table 7.
Of the four counties surveyed, Carteret County ranked behind only Hyde
County in rate of seasonal population increase from 1980-87.
c) Seasonal Population Impact - Carteret County, 1970-87
The seasonal population fluctuations in Carteret County, partic-
ularly in the beach communities, create problems for local planners
and administrators. A large amount of municipal services planning
must be based on estimates of explosive growth patterns which affect
only isolated portions of the county. Permanent residents of areas
that are relatively unaffected by seasonal population fluctuations
often feel left out of the planning process, since so much planning is
directed toward serving the seasonal population. The increasing
impact of the seasonal population is depicted in Table 9 which out-
lines the increasing percentage of seasonal population in relation to
permanent population in Carteret County since 1970.
I-15

Table 9: Relationship of Seasonal/Permanent Population
Carteret County,
1970-87
% of
Peak
% of
Permanent
Total Peak
Seasonal
Total Peak
Total Peak
Year
Population
Population
Population
Population
Population[2]
1970
31,603
65.9
16,320[1]
34.1
47,923
1980
41,982
48.9
42,940
51.1
84,032
1987
50,485
42.9
67,082
57.1
117,567
Percent
Increase,
1980-87
59.7
-23.0
311.0
23.0
145.3
Source: T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners
[1] See Appendix IB for explanation of how 1970 seasonal population was
estimated.
[2] "Total Peak Population" is the stun of permanent population and peak
seasonal population.
Table 9 clearly indicates the growing significance of the seasonal
population in Carteret County since 1970. The peak seasonal popula-
tion grew five times as fast as the permanent population from 1970-87,
despite a 50% decrease in the average annual seasonal population
growth rate from 1980-87 compared to 1970-80. The estimated total
peak population of Carteret County in 1987 was almost 2-1/2 times as
large as the permanent population, a fact which causes consternation
among those attempting to provide adequate infrastructure and recre-
ational access while preserving fragile areas. Yet the positive
economic effect of the rapidly -increasing seasonal population gene-
rates a great deal of local support for continued recreational devel-
opment.
d) Geographic Trends in Carteret County
Seasonal Population, 1970-87
Providing an empirical analysis of the trends in seasonal popula-
tion by township and municipality (through observation or systematic
review of building permits, etc.) is beyond the scope of this study.
However, the peak seasonal population derived for the county as a
whole (Table 9) from 1970-87, together with housing data by township
compiled by the Carteret County planning staff for the 1985 Land Use
Plan, and 1970-87 permanent population estimates by township and muni-
cipality (Table 2) have been utilized to prepare the following tabula-
tion (Table 10) of estimated peak seasonal population from 1970-87 by
township and municipality. One basic assumption was made in preparing
Table 10: that the relative geographic growth of marina, campgrounds,
and motel/hotel populations by township and municipality parallel the
geographic growth of private seasonal housing units.

Table 10:
Peak Seasonal
Population and Percent
Increase
By Township and municipality -
Carteret County, 1970-1987
Township
Ymicipality
Peak
Seasonal Population
Percent
Change
Overall
1970
1980
1987[l]
70-80
80-87
70-87
1)
Atlantic
Total Township
179
412
623
130.2
51.2
248.0
2)
Beaufort
Beaufort
843
1,704
2,401
102.1
40.9
184.8
Unincorporated Areas
559
664
843
18.8
26.9
50.8
Total Township
1,402
2,368
3,244
68.9
37.0
131.4
3)
Cedar Island
Total Township
71
131
185
84.5
41.2
160.1
4)
Davis
Total Township
115
249
370
116.5
48.6
221.7
5)
Harkers Island
Total Township
767
1,555
2,270
102.7
'46.0
196.0
6)
Harlowe
Total Township
170
356
525
109.4
47.5
208.9
7)
Marshallberg
Total Township
137
263
377
92.0
43.3
175.2
8)
Merrimon
Total Township
67
133
193
98.5
45.1
188.1
9)
Nbrehead
Atlantic Beach
5,475
13,017
18,434
137.8
41.6
236.7
Indian Beach
0
4,470
7,681
-
71.8
-
Nbrehead City
1,384
2,109
3,261
52.3
54.6
135.6
Pine Knoll Shores
0
3,227
5,546
-
71.9
-
Unincorporated Areas
3,540
1,109
1,283
-68.7
15.7
-63.8
Total Township
10,399
23,932
36,205
130.1
51.3
248.2
10)
Newport
Newport
352
503
1,053
42.9
109.3
199.1
Unincorporated Areas
445
1,483
2,011
233.2
35.6
351.9
Total Township
797
1,986
3,064
149.2
54.3
284.4
11)
Sea Level
Total Township
74
87
99
17.6
13.8
33.8
12)
Smyrna
Total Township
113
207
292
83.2
41.1
158.4
13)
Stacy
Total Township
52
66
79
26.9
19.7
51.9
14)
Straits
Total Township
248
328
401
32.2
22.2
61.7
15)
White Oak
Cape Carteret
346
960
2,560
177.5
166.7
639.9
Emerald Isle
975
8,628
13,435
784.9
55.7
1277.9
Unincorporated Areas
408
1,279
3,160
213.5
147.1
674.6
Total Township
1,729
10,867
19,155
528.5
76.2
1008.9
Total
Municipalities
9,375
34,618
54,289
269.3
56.8
479.1
Total
Unincorporated Areas
6,945
8,322
12,793
19.8
53:7
84.2
Total
County
16,320
42,940
67,082
163.1
56.2
311.0
Source: Carteret County 1985 Land Use Plan; T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners.
[1] See Appendix IC for explanation of how 1987 populations were derived.

As Table 10 indicates, the fastest -growing areas in Carteret
County from 1970-87, in terms of recreational population, were the
barrier island communities and unincorporated area located in White
Oak Township. Additionally, the two new beach communities in Morehead
Township (Indian Beach and Pine Knoll Shores) have had dramatic growth
since 1980, and Newport Township had an overall seasonal growth rate
second only to White Oak Township from 1970-87. The overall growth
rate for municipalities over the period was well over five times the
rate for unincorporated areas, indicating an overall trend toward
development near established services over the 1970-87 study period.
However, the seasonal growth rate for all Carteret County townships
has been substantial since 1970, indicating that recreational develop-
ment has not been confined to built-up oceanfront areas, but is taking
place in rural, isolated areas of the county as well. For example,
the seasonal population growth rate for the majority of the "rural"
townships exceeded the seasonal growth rate of the more urban Beaufort
township from 1970-87. Moreover, a significant reason for the higher
growth rate of the municipalities has been incorporation of two new
towns and significant annexations by more established towns and
Morehead City since 1970. The 1980-87 growth in unincorporated areas
is very close to the municipalities' growth rate for the same period.
This is primarily the result of significant growth in the unincor-
porated areas of White Oak township and relative stabilization of
growth in Atlantic Beach and Emerald Isle since 1980. However, as a
rule, the drops in annual seasonal growth rates for the rural town-
ships since 1980 have not been as significant as the comparative drop
in the municipalities' rates. The average annual growth rate of the
seasonal population in the municipalities dropped from 26.9% during
1970-80 to 8.1% during 1980-87.
In order to demonstrate the relative impact of seasonal population
upon various areas in Carteret County, Table 11 has been prepared.
This table depicts growth in the permanent and total peak population
since 1970, as well as the ratio of total peak population (permanent
plus peak seasonal population) to permanent population by area since
1970. In terms of current impact on land use and community
facilities, the most important data in Table 11 may be the 1987 peak
population ratio, which indicates areas with the highest relative
seasonal impacts. The percentage of peak growth columns indicate the
fastest -developing areas in the county. Also important is the
percentage growth in the peak population ratio since 1970, since this
indicates areas with the greatest potential for future peak impact
problems; i.e., areas where the seasonal population is expected to
continue growing faster than the permanent population.
NEW

{jN�}jyaj jpdj,. 61-I
�J+I lJ OO�I��}} IWp�N �WmW�pp 1yVJ�I tpJ {� VN1 OO���? O1 JJN 1pWJ�
YJ QNJ I4� 9 mNOI OIJJ `� VWi ({ii 0100 W OSNP.J 9p NJIOmp
IIJp� 1 0y IAN� pN�I + Ep�ppp.� {pp{��11 IyyI�� (JAB N poNom� [yN�� ��{�{,Opp,J� O� �UJ�JJ1 llJJ pppp���I ��pp Nypyp ��((J W A �.pp
W At0 N OI�fJA�Of W �v�TOOJN�NNOI�GI�Etl� W
--r+++++--
NAmm m w tp wt!NNt!BN8mmF NNN>NO
��W aN r �W+yl `p a r OIWW
.p {JIy �VI W br+ J VINO W aOI W rW IO WUI+
p ��11 tV1�1 lA Ul 1D OIL N W J A pOI W-JNNONO�W+OitU8 82d m®W AyJ+mi�•+yAr tv4
O�� �JI Nr r+ OIaNO+ OIr W N J W a
pVJ1�mWmW m>JI U1 ��JW�ppIN yyyy im�mpp �mmmmDTI�WpIpIN O�pJ OIO��pppp���� JJ+ifai��mm�11 +aT+
J j� v JOJ ID�NU1�(J V O��OJ�m�OA�N(SS ION W �i
�J +DW�II ANN �J pmp��W N+NNI�yy y +N+pI VI r Sj +p�+N�+I (� �I
W i s p y � p I J W N N J I l! I J i y 1 � y l y✓�� i N� � y 1� N V 1 W J
W 8tJJ J�I y� �]I� llJJ {� I N NN 1
O OI S N W O. W P .G W m N W I I ?I W .D O VNi m J A W W W O
O W m A mONAW NOI W JUI VI W JJ+UI UI UI IO O J'D O1UI
Psaa J>yyy� p A. �
WW+O O N+taJ 11JO J O1W W OIm] J.[J��m W mOmL90J W t+JJ
i wVmi N N G O O m 1a w J V I W W I I J I Jw l l I t J O N m O O\ W
N OOI J mOUlm N+W UI mJA lr ONE W+m +'OmOm
NlJw VIAN rID m OI>g 01 OI A a 9 P OA DOIW OI N VI mO
.�pD Ip�Im m O ttpn;j O mm ZO{J4 Ia�IOnI N A W+{O�I UI OI tPI III J IA O Dm SON
ON W > b01�D W+OImN W b W. Jya W. . . . . . . ID P.
O+N J+OUIO W JApIAO W A W W:TA 201m W OI IO OIP J+
T N
amm .o +Mimaoul }�oa�J pof a to
NVN NJ+OmJ0100W OO OmO O �OVIJ V10101WNWU1N
In VIJ W S W Op W W m�I �pyJ�I N�? A+ W N+1IJJ NIJ W I
�OWO W Ht+aJA+�WmWm I I mBSN VI �Ia+O�ONO
J AI�O 01 OI+t+��J WWW O�m1 ppJm WJJ bIP myJJAA JW 011yD AIO�IO yJ r�
lAlI a INII � J.F {mJI J IO OI W IDJJI�II� I I iOIJ�m�O W mJN V1A IQ
W W W A+ A O J m W A W A J O m + J W:IIJ+IO NN OIm I OCJ+ wry]
WVIm W�W �I++OIA. . . ell NYANlAj1 ft
W NN W UI J 9JJP+SU1 V1+.� lA A U1010 VIA OI OINAr VY'
a0

Based on Table 11, the municipalities in Carteret County
experienced much higher percentage gains in total peak population and
the ratio of peak/permanent population than the unincorporated areas
from 1970-87. The -municipalities most impacted by seasonal/permanent
population fluctuations were the beach communities along Bogue Banks.
In particular, Indian Beach had a peak population 115 times larger
than its permanent population in 1987. However, the unincorporated
area of White Oak Township also had a very high peak/permanent
population ratio in 1987, and the ratio of peak/permanent population
in that area has increased over 70% (second only to Cape Carteret)
since 1970. Among the more rural townships, Harkers Island township
had the largest ratio of peak/permanent population in 1987. All of
Carteret County's townships have experienced substantial growth in
total peak population since 1970, and all areas except Emerald Isle,
Atlantic Beach, and the Sea Level township had percentage increases in
the ratio of peak/permanent population since 1970, indicating that the
seasonal population is generally growing faster than the permanent
population throughout the county.
The tabular data in Table 11 has been summarized below:
Highest Ratios of Peak/Permanent Population, 1987
Municipalities Unincorporated Areas
1)
Indian Beach (115.6)
1)
White Oak (2.11)
2)
Atlantic Beach (12.6)
2)
Harkers Island (2.11)
3)
Emerald Isle (8.66)
3)
Atlantic (1.77)
4)
Pine Knoll Shores (6.95)
4)
Davis (1.73)
5)
Cape Carteret (3.07)
5)
Marshallberg (1.62)
Highest
Percentage of Total
Peak Population
Growth, 1970-87[l]
Municipalities Unincorporated Areas
1)
Emerald
Isle (1284.4%)
1)
White Oak (177.1%)
2)
Cape Carteret
(295%)
2)
Harkers Island (79.1%)
3)
Atlantic
Beach (246.7%)
3)
Sea Level (73.4%)
4)
Newport
(77.7%)
4)
Harlowe (68.7%)
5)
Morehead
City (51.1%)
5)
Merrimon (67.3%)
Hi
Municipalities[1] Unincorporated Areas
1)
Cape Carteret (96.8%)
1)
White Oak (71.5%)
2)
Newport (17.5%)
2)
Atlantic (45.1%)
3)
Morehead City (17.5%)
3)
Harkers Island (43.5%)
4)
Emerald Isle (-3.4%)
4)
Davis (38.4%)
5)
Atlantic Beach (-34.4%)
5)
Marshallberg (28.6%)
[1] Excluding Indian Beach (ranked second and third from
1980-87 -- behind Cape Carteret).
I-20

Carteret Countv Housina Characteristics
a. Number and Type of Private Housing Units
The summary of population trends above indicates that the seasonal
population grew much faster than the permanent population in Carteret
County from 1970-87. This trend is reflected by a higher development
rate for seasonal private housing units than year-round units over the
same period.
Table 12
Number and Percentage Increase of
Year-round and Seasonal Private Housing Units -
Carteret County, 1970-87
Type of Unit
Year-round
Seasonal[2]
Number of Units[l] Percentage Increase
Overall
1970 1980 1987 70-80 80-87 70-87
11,226 17,292 22,998 54.0% 33.0% 104.9%
1,494 6,448 11,045 331.6% 71.3% 639.3%
Total 12,720 23,740 34,043 86.6% 43.4% 167.6%
[1] "Housing Units" is an enumeration of all individual units
within multi -family developments as well as single-family
residential structures.
[2] "Seasonal Units" includes units defined as "vacant - held for
occasional use" as well as units strictly defined as "seasonal" by
the Bureau of the Census.
ources: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce (1970);
Tschetter, Paul D., "Characterization of Baseline Demographic
Trends in the Year-round and Recreational Populations in the
Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study Area" (1980, 1987)
Table 12 shows that the number of seasonal private housing units
grew six times as fast'as the number of year-round private housing
units in Carteret County from 1970-87. The growth in seasonal housing
units from 1970-80 was particularly rapid, with an average annual
percentage increase of 33% over the decade. The annual growth rate
for seasonal units dropped to 10.2% from 1980-87, but was still over
twice the growth rate for year-round units from 1980-87. The average
annual growth rate for year-round units remained near 5% during both
1970-80 and 1980-87 periods. The higher growth rate for seasonal
units since 1970 is reflected in the fact that the ratio of seasonal
units/total units increased from 11% to 32% from 1970-87.
In terms of total housing unit construction, year-round units
accounted for the majority of new units from 1970-1987. Total housing
unit construction over the 1970-87 period is summarized in Table 13.
I-21

Table 13
Total and Average Annual Number
of New Year-round and Seasonal Private Housing Units -
Carteret County, 1970-87
Average Annual Increase
Total New Units of New Units
Total Overall
Type of Unit 1970-80 1980-87 1970-87 1970-80 1980-87 1970-87
Year-round 6,066 5,706 11,723 606 815 690
Seasonal 4,954 4,597 9,600 495 657 565
Total 11,020 10,303 21,323 1,102 1,472 1,255
Source: T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners
The data in Table 13 is significant because it demonstrates that
the number of new housing units constructed annually was considerably
higher from 1980-87 than from 1970-80. The rapid growth rate of new
housing in the 1970s had a significant impact on municipal and county
building inspection and planning agencies' ability to regulate the
housing industry, and to integrate public services with new
residential development. While the growth rate has stabilized in
recent years, the increasing number of new housing starts in recent
years is still a problem with respect to the provision of municipal
services and public facilities planning and development. -
b. Tenure and Condition of Year-round Housing Units
Table 14 shows average household size and tenure for year-round
occupied housing units in Carteret County since 1970.
Table 14
Household Size and Tenure of Year -Round Housing Units -
Carteret County - 1970-87
Total Year -Round Housing Units
Vacant Units
Occupied Units
Renter -Occupied
Owner -Occupied
Average Household Size
1970
1980
1987
11,226
17,292
22,998
1,229
2,164
2,723
9,997
15,128
20,275
2,199
3,734
[1]
7,798
11,394
[1]
3.16
2.72
2.49
[1] Information not available until 1990 Census.
Sources: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce;
LINC System - N.C. State Data Center;
Tschetter, Paul D., "Characterization of Baseline Demographic
Trends in the Year-round and Recreational Populations in the
Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study Area"
I-22

Since 1970, there have been only minor fluctuations in the
relative percentages of total year-round housing units by tenure
status. However, the average household size in Carteret County has
decreased from slightly over 3.16 individuals to 2.49 individuals
since 1970.
The most recent detailed information about housing conditions in
Carteret County is included in 1980 U.S. Census data. The following
table summarizes the condition and age of housing in Carteret County
in 1970 and 1980.
Table 15
Housing Conditions -
Carteret County, 1970-1980
Housing Characteristics 1970 1980
Number % of Total Number % of Total
Total Housing Units[l]
11,275
100%
20,598
100%
Type of Unit
Frame -Built Units
9,898
87.8%
15,619
75.8%
Mobile Homes
1,377
12.2%
4,979
24.2%
Age of Units
0- 1 yr.
665
5.9%
1,204
5.8%
1- 5 yrs.
1,369
12.1%
3,598
17.5%
5-10 yrs.
1,600
14.2%
4,471
21.7%
10-20 yrs.
2,716
24.1%
3,856
18.7%
20-30 yrs.
1,956
17.3%
2,975
14.4%
>30 yrs.
2,969
26.4%
4,494
21.9%
Total Occupied Housing Units
9,997
100%
15,128
100%
Overcrowded/
Incomplete Plumbing 1,476 13.1% 664 3.2%
[1] Includes all year-round units, as well as units defined as
"vacant - held for occasional use" by the U.S. Census Bureau that
have been enumerated as "seasonal" in previous discussions. Does
not include units classified as strictly "seasonal" by the U.S.
Census Bureau.
Source: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Based on Table 15, general housing conditions in the county
improved significantly in the 1970s. The percentage of occupied
housing units with plumbing and overcrowding problems dropped from 13%
to 3% during the decade. Also, the average age of housing units
decreased noticeably during the 1970s. The percentage of total
housing units less than ten years old rose from 32% in 1970 to 45% in
1980. Also, if units defined as strictly "seasonal" by the U.S.
Census Bureau were added to the housing total, the percentage of
I-23

Carteret County's stock that is less than 10 years old would be
appreciably higher than the summary above indicates. The continuing
growth of new residential construction has undoubtedly had a
continuing positive effect on the overall condition of Carteret
County's housing stock throughout the 1980s.
The rapid growth of mobile home development (also includes modular
homes) from 1970-80 was a trend that has impacted zoning, building
inspection, and other planning activities to a significant degree
during the last two decades. From 1970-80, the ratio of mobile homes
to total housing units doubled.
According to the community development plan for Carteret County's
FY86 CDBG application, Carteret County has made important strides in
its efforts to eliminate remaining concentrations of substandard
housing throughout the county. The application stated that in 1986
the Merrimon and North River communities had the most severe substan-
dard housing conditions remaining in the county. CDBG-funded water'
improvements are nearing completion in those two communities. Addi-
tionally, Morehead City has conducted a very active housing rehabili-
tation program in recent years.
c) Single and Multi -Family
Units
Table 16 shows the relative
growth
in single
and multi
-family
housing unit construction from
1970-80.
Table 16
Total Housing Units and Percent
Increase by Units in
Structure -
Carteret
County,
1970-80
% Increase
1970
1980
1970-80
Total Housing Units[l]
11,275
20,598
82.7%
Units in Structure
1
9,012
13,312
47.4%
2
495
836
68.9%
3 & 4
207
450
117.4%
5 or more
190
1,021
437.4%
Mobile Home
1,371
4,979
263.2%
[1] Includes all year-round units, as well as units defined as
"vacant - held for occasional use" by the U.S. Census Bureau that
have been enumerated as "seasonal" in previous discussions. Does
not include units classified as strictly "seasonal" by the U.S.
Census Bureau.
Source: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce
As Table 16 indicates, the growth
home development greatly exceeded the
detached and "townhouse" development
particular, the construction of struc
showed a tremendous spurt of growth o
rate of multi -family and mobile
growth rate of single-family
throughout the 1970s. In
tures with five or more units
ver the ten-year period. Also,
I-24

many of the new housing units constructed from 1970-80 defined as
strictly "seasonal" by the U.S. Census Bureau were undoubtedly part
of multi -unit structures not classified as motels or hotels (condo-
miniums). These units are not included in Table 16. However, it is
important to note that the overwhelming number of new conventional
housing units constructed between 1970 and 1980 in Carteret County
were single-family homes.
According to the Carteret County Planning Department, the growth
trend for multi -family development that occurred in the 1970s con-
tinued through the early 1980s. Unfortunately, easily -accessible data
enumerating the growth of single and multi -family housing development
within Carteret County since 1980 is not available. The growth of
multi -family housing has continued to be an important planning issue
throughout the 1980s in Carteret County, particularly with regard to
regulation of lot density and provision of sewer service. Also, the
regulation of continuing rapid mobile home development in unincorpor-
ated areas of the county has assumed more importance as a planning
issue in recent years.
I-25

C. ECONOMY
General Economic Indicators
Carteret County has the advantage of a very diversified economy.
Manufacturing, agriculture, real estate and construction, tourism,
retail trade, services, the import/export industry, the military,
government, and commercial fishing are all integral to the county's
economic stability. Since 1970, Carteret County has experienced
dramatic increases in per capita income, retail sales, and employed
labor force. Carteret County's average unemployment rate has gene-
rally run at or slightly above the state average (typical of coastal
counties with high numbers of seasonally employed individuals). Since
1980, it has fluctuated between a high of 9.0% in 1983, and a low of
5.3% in 1988. For the first six months of 1989, the unemployment rate
ranged from a high of 7.9% in January to a low of 3.0% in May.
Key economic indicators for Carteret County from 1970-88 are out-
lined in Table 17, below:
Indicator
Per Capita Income
Table 17
Summary of Economic Indicators
Carteret County, 1970-88
% Change
1970 1980 1988 1970-88
2,771
Total Personal Income 88,074
(Thousands of $)
7,644 12,477 342.2%
16,319 637,681 624.0%
Gross Retail Sales 57,376 188,684 430,122 649.6%
(Thousands of $)
Total Employed
Labor Force 11,290 17,100 24,870 120.3%
Source: 1) LINC County Profile, N.C. State Office of Budget and
Management.
2) Woods and Poole Economics, Inc.
In relation to the state's other counties, Carteret County's per
capita income jumped from a rank of 56th in the state in 1970 to 37th
in 1986. Income limits for HUD housing projects published in 1989
indicate that the median income of a Carteret County 4-person house-
hold is $21,500, or slightly above the total state non -metropolitan
median income for 4-person households of $20,900.
The most significant economic indicator in Table 17 may be the
120% increase in employed labor force from 1970-88. This average
annual increase of 6.7% was the third -highest in the state over the
period. Carteret County's permanent population increase over the
1970-88 period was only 61.5%. The relatively high growth rate in
I-26

employed working force compared to total population indicates that the
working age population has grown faster than the 0-19 age group since
1970. It also indicates that significant numbers of retirees are
becoming actively involved with Carteret County's growing economy.
The rapidly -growing employed labor force, as well as the substantial
growth in retail trade and personal income since 1980, all point to a
healthy, diversified local economy, not subject to instability due to -
seasonal or market fluctuations in any single industry. The county's
increasing year-round retiree populace, continued residential
development, the presence of nearby military installations, and the
ongoing growth of both manufacturing and non -manufacturing industry
have largely eliminated the wide swings in seasonal and year-to-year
employment and income experienced by coastal regions that depend more
exclusively on the tourism industry for support.
Relative Growth of Industries and Trades
Preparatory to individual discussions of Carteret County's indus-
tries and trades, the following table displays the relative growth, by
earnings and employment, of the various income -producing industries
and trades in Carteret County from 1970-89.
Table 18
Relative Growth of Income -Producing Industries and Trades
Carteret County, 1970-88
% Change
Industry 1970 1980 1988 1970-88
Personal Earnings [1]
(Millions of 182 $)
Total
Farm Earnings
Non -Farm Earnings
Private Earnings
Agric. Serv.,
Forestry, Fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trans., Comm.,
Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate
Services
Government Earnings
Federal Civilian
Federal Military
State and Local
(incl. education)
146.88
221.30
297.39
102.5%
3.25
3.46
3.03
- 6.8%
143.63
217.84
294.36
104.9%
81.63
130.23
178.72
118.9%
2.47
7.02
3.91
58.3%
0.03
0.63
0.31
933.0%
12.67
19.50
38.02
200.0%
16.54
29.40
29.36
77.5%
15.45
15.54
19.03
23.2%
5.90
9.30
8.15
38.1%
15.51
27.54
43.18
178.4%
2.24
4.63
13.00
480.4%
10.82
16.67
23.76
119.6%
62.00
87.61
115.64
86.5%
31.90
40.47
53.01
66.2%
12.19
17.68
22.69
86.1%
17.90
29.46
39.94
123.1%
(1] Personal earnings are by place of work and exclude dividends,
interest and rent; transfer payments; and social security
contributions. They include proprietors' net income and wages.
I-27

% Change
Industry
1970
1980
1988
1970-88
Employment
(Thousands)
Total
11.29
17.10
24.87
120.3%
Farm Employment
0.52
0.50
0.37
-28.9%
Non=Farm Employment
10.77
16.60
24.50
127.5%
Private Employment
6.71
10.79
17.75
179.4%
Agric. Serv.,
Forestry, Fishing
0.29
0.73
0.95
227.6%
Mining
0
0.01
0.01
-
Construction
0.73
1.23
2.21
202.7%
Manufacturing
1.41
1.93
2.01
42.6%
Trans., Comm.,
Public Utilities
0.99
0.96
1.06
7.1%
Wholesale Trade
0.44
0.64
0.57
29.5%
Retail Trade
1.59
3.06
5.05
217.6%
Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate
0.22
0.63
1.65
650.0%
Services
1.04
1.60
2.23
114.4%
Government Employment
4.06
5.81
6.75
66.3%
Federal Civilian
1.57
1.96
2.45
56.1%
Federal Military
1.16
1.45
1.42
22.4%
State and Local
1.33
2.40
2.88
116.5%
(incl. education)
Sources: 1) State Data Center, N.C. Office of State
Budget
and
Management
2) T. Dale Holland
Consulting
Planners
In general, Table 18 indicates a more rapid trend of growth in the
service, retail trade, construction, and financial -related industries
than in manufacturing, farming, wholesale trade, and utilities -related
industries from 1970-88. The agricultural services industry (includ-
ing commercial fishing) also showed a significant earnings and employ-
ment increase over the period. However, farming showed a net loss in
employment and wages/proprietors' earnings from 1970-88. The number
of individuals employed in manufacturing as a percentage of total
employed dropped from 1970-88, while the number employed in service
and retail trades as a percentage of total employed increased over the
period. Overall government earnings and employment posted strong
increases over the 1970-1988 period, despite the fact that military
employment displayed a relatively minor (22.4%) increase over the
period.
With the exception of yearly earnings fluctuations in the farming,
agricultural services, and mining industries, growth patterns in
employment by individual industry were reflected by corresponding
increases in earnings over the period. The ratio of additional dol-
lars earned to additional employees was significantly higher in the
public sector. In particular, federal military earnings increased
86%, while the number of military personnel increased only 22%.
1I=

Transportation and utilities also posted substantial earnings in rela-
tion to new employees over the period. In 1988, the highest earnings
per job were in mining, federal civilian, utilities, and federal mili-
tary jobs. The lowest earnings per job were in agricultural services
(including fishing), real estate, farming, and retail trades.
Table 19 indicates the rank of industry types in Carteret County
with respect to employment and earnings in 1970 and 1988:
Table 19
Rank of Industry by Employment and Earnings
Carteret County, 1970 and 1988
Employment Rank Earnings Rank
Industry 1970 1988 1970 1988
(13 total)
Farming
Agricultural Services,
Forestry, Fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation, Comm.,
Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate
Services
Federal Civilian
Federal Military
State and Local Government
9
12
10
12
11
10
11
11
13
13
13
13
8
5
6
4
3
6
3
5
7
9
10
11
1
1
12
7
6
4
2
3
5
8
4
2
Source: T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners.
12
8
1
Based on Table 19, the most significant industries in Carteret
County in 1988, in terms of employment and wages/proprietors' net
income, were retail trade, federal civil service, and state and local
government. The total economic impact of some industries is more sub-
stantial than indicated above, since the preceding section is based on
an evaluation of employment and net/wage income rather than gross
revenues by industry. For example, the rental income from farmland
and the percentage of wholesale trade directly attributable to commer-
cial fishing are just two of the many direct and indirect economic
impacts of local industries not addressed above. Many of these
impacts will be discussed in the following sections. Nonetheless,
sources of wage income and employment are perhaps the most important
economic indicators used in gauging the trends of development in a
coastal area with a diverse economy, such as Carteret County.
I-29

It is apparent from the analysis above that the economic trend in
Carteret County is gradually toward a more service/commercial-oriented
economy. This shift is directly attributable to the continuing strong
presence of the military and other institutional employers in and
around Carteret County, as well as the growing appeal of the county as
a retirement center. There is a growing economic impact from income
earned outside the county, and from retail, service and financial
businesses within the county that cater to seasonal and permanent
residential demand.
3. Tourism and Recreation
The abundant shoreline resources of Carteret County make it a
primary vacation area for citizens of North Carolina and visitors from
the entire country. Although the greatest impact of tourism on the
local economy is from May to August, visitation figures maintained by
the Carteret County Economic Development Council (EDC) for tourist
attractions indicate that there is substantial year-round economic
impact from day and overnight visitors.
Table 20
Carteret County
Estimated 1988 Tourist Visitation
Percentage of
Total Annual
Estimated
Month
Visitation
No. Visitors
January
2.2
38,500
February
2.9
50,750
March
4.4
77,000
April
10.0
175,000
May
13.9
243,250
June
15.9
278,250
July
16.7
292,250
August
14.0
245,000
September
6.5
113,750
October
6.4
112,000
November
5.0
87,500
December
2.1
36,750
TOTAL
100.00
1,750,000
Source: Calculations by EDC
Restaurants, motels, the sport fishing industry, retail trade,
services, construction, and the real estate and finance industries are
the primary direct beneficiaries of the continuing influx of overnight
and day visitors. Additionally, a large portion of local and state
government employment is attributable to the need to serve tourists
and the working population involved in tourism and recreation.
I-30

Tourism also has a significant indirect or "multiplier" effect on the
private economy. According to the N.C. State Division of Travel and
Tourism, the indirect number of jobs that "spin-off" from travel
expenditures is 1.66 times the number of primary jobs. In 1986,
Travel and Tourism estimated that 19.80 of Carteret County's employed
work force was directly or indirectly employed as a result of tourism
activities.
It is very difficult to determine the revenue earned from tourism
and recreation in the coastal counties, and estimates from different
sources vary widely. The most reliable source is the N.C. Division of
Travel and Tourism, which estimated total travel and tourism revenues
for Carteret County in 1987 to be $135 million (adjusted to 1984
dollars). This was an 800% increase over 1971 revenues of $14.8
million (adjusted to 1984 dollars). The Division also informed county
leaders in a January, 1984 meeting that the travel dollar turned over
about 3.5 times before leaving the county. The revenue from tourism
and recreation is unquestionably the most important single source of
jobs and income in the county. Also, the attractiveness of Carteret
County as a recreation center is responsible for the immigration of
many retirees, whose local expenditures have a beneficial impact on
local services, trade, etc., not included in the Division of Travel
and Tourism's estimates.
The continuing increase in total travel and tourism revenue in
Carteret County is reflected by recent growth in the motel and restau-
rant industries, visitation to tourist attractions, and the number of
licensed commercial boats for hire. Table 21 outlines the recent
growth of tourism -related activities in Carteret County.
I-31

Table 21
Recent Growth of Travel and Tourism -Related Activities
Carteret County
Hotel, Motel Sales Number of Hotels, Motels
(Millions of $)
1979 1982 1984 1986 1988 1985 1986 1987 1989
9.93 13.41 17.32 24.20 28.98
(192% increase 1979-88)
Restaurant Sales
(Millions of $)
1979 1982 1984 1986 1988
13.40 26.81 30.86 36.31 43.28
(223% increase 1979-88)
Attraction
58 61 65 65
(12% increase 1985-89)
Number of Restaurants
1985 1986 1987 1989
159 187 190 198
(25% increase 1985-89)
Visitation at Major Tourist Attractions
°s
1987 1988 Increase
Fort Macon State Park
1,225,520
1,236,692
1%
North Carolina Aquarium
430,811
484,773
13%
North Carolina Maritime Museum
169,618
179,173
6%
Cape Lookout National Seashore
91,640
106,308
16%
Number of Commercial
Boats for
Hire
1984 1986
1988
35
36 42
(20% increase 1984-88 -
Carteret County ranked 1st in State in 1988)
Source: Carteret County Economic Development Council.
4. Agriculture
As discussed in the general economic narrative, wage and proprie-
tors' net income, and total employed, for the farming industry in
Carteret County dropped appreciably from 1970-88. However, as indi-
cated in the table below, the amount of harvested cropland and total
farm income have increased since 1970.
I-32

Table 22
Growth of Personal Farm Income and Harvested Cropland -
Carteret County, 1970-87
1970 1980 1984 1987 % Increase
Harvested Cropland 11,300 18,100 23,700 21,000 85.8%
(Acres)
Total Personal
Farm Income[1] 3,201 8,380 10,916 11,169 248.9%
(Thousands of $)
[1] Total personal farm income is all sales receipts of farm produce
and livestock and federal payment subsidies to private
individuals. (Corporate farm income is not included.)
Source: LINC County Profile, N.C. State Data Center.
The reason for the significant increase in harvested cropland
since 1970 is that two large corporate farms have been established in
Carteret County since 1970, both of which have utilized a significant
amount of previously non -harvested agricultural land. The Open
Grounds Farm, consisting of approximately 44,000 acres, produces corn,
soybeans and livestock. The 5,000 acre Smyrna Farms produced corn and
soybeans until ending operations in 1988. Thus, while there has been a
general trend of consolidation of private farmland since 1970, result-
ing in a net reduction of farming jobs and farming wages, farming pro-
duction has increased since 1970. In fact, if corporate farming income
is added to private farming income, the Carteret County Economic Devel-
opment Council estimates total Carteret County farm income to be in the
neighborhood of $25 million for 1988. [Note: This EDC estimate also
includes corporate and personal income from sale and harvesting of
timberland, not included in Table 22 above. Wages and proprietors'
income and employment for the forestry industry are included in the
"Agricultural Services" line item in Table 18 in the discussion of
general economic trends above.]
The discussion above shows that the agricultural industry is more
important to the overall county economy than the earlier discussion of
wages and employment would indicate. Additionally, an important por-
tion of the wholesale trade industry is dependent on farming activi-
ties. The continued and substantial increase of total personal farm
income indicates that sales of produce and federal subsidies from crop-
land (unharvested and harvested) are still an important source of
Carteret County's total revenue. Nonetheless, the amount of harvested
cropland has actually decreased since 1984, and the annual percentage
increase in total personal farm income has dropped in recent years (for
example, income decreased from 1984 to 1985). Corporate farm income,
too, has been relatively stable since 1985.
I-33

The primary farm production in Carteret County consists of
tobacco, grain, produce, forestry and livestock. The majority of the
tobacco is produced in the western part of the county; most of the
produce (main crops - cabbage and Irish potatoes) is grown in the
eastern townships. Corn and soybeans are grown all over the county.
Beef production has increased significantly in recent years following
the establishment of Open Grounds Farm. Corn and soybean production
and value increased substantially from 1970-84. The total crop and
livestock value also increased dramatically from 1970-84; however,
total farm production value has fluctuated since 1984, as has the
amount of harvested cropland.
5. Manufactur
Manufacturing has grown both in terms of employment and earnings
in Carteret County since 1970. Although the manufacturing industry
dropped from 3rd to 6th in employment and from and to 5th in private
earnings from 1970-88 (in terms of rank among thirteen ranked employ-
ment sectors), this was entirely due to the rapid growth of the retail
trade and service industries and government employment, since manufac-
turing employment grew by 43%, and earnings by 78%, over that period.
Additionally, the $35 million in wages and proprietors' net income
earned in manufacturing in 1988 does not include corporate manufactur-
ing profits, some of which are expended in Carteret County.
Owens-Corning Fiberglas, a Fortune 500 company, operates major
manufacturing and asphalt facilities in Morehead City. Atlantic
Veneer Corporation, in Beaufort, is the largest veneer operation in
the United States. Seafood processing, boat building, building mater-
ials, and textiles account for most of the manufacturing output of the
county.. The majority of the manufacturing firms are located in or
near Beaufort and Morehead City. However, several other townships
boast one or more manufacturing firms.
According to the Carteret County EDC, there were 62 manufacturing
facilities located in Carteret County in 1989. The North Carolina
Department of Commerce has included most of these facilities in its
1989-90 Directory of Manufacturing Firms. Table 23, below, provides a
listing of Carteret County manufacturing facilities based on the
Department of Commerce Directory.
Table 23
List of Manufacturing Facilities
Carteret County, 1989-90
Facility Name
Fulcher, Clayton Seafood Co
Smith, Luther & Son Fish Co
Aqua 10 Corp.
Beaufort Fisheries Inc.
Location
by Township
Product
Atlantic
Seafood
Atlantic
Seafood processor
Beaufort
Extract chemicals;
agricultural chemicals
Beaufort
Menhaden fish meat
Menhaden fish oil
I-34

Facility Name
Beaufort Ice & Fuel Co.
Bock Marine Builders Inc.
Carteret Quick Freeze Co.
Davis, Charles Seafood Co.
Diversified Concrete Products
East Hardwood Lumber Co.
Garner Inc.
Gillen Crafts Inc.
Hudson Manufacturing Co
Parker Marine Enterprises Inc
Pittman's Seafood Co.
Smith, T.B. Fish House
Southern Skimmer Company
Standard Products Co. Inc.
Thomas Seafood of Carteret
Atlantic Veneer Corp.
Lewis, Luther & Son Crab Co.
Styron, James Fish Co.
Bismarc Inc.
Willis, M.W. & Sons Boat Works
Tom Togs Inc.
Carteret Pallets Inc.
Carteret Publishing Co. Inc.
Eddie's Morehead Machine Shop
Herald Printing Co.
Meridian Seafood Co.
Micro -machine Co.
Morehead Block & Tile Co
Owens-Corning Fiberglas
Owens-Corning Fiberglas
(Trumbull Asphalt)
Taylor Boat Works
Timberworks
Carolina Floats
Hankison Corp.
Hudson Manufacturing Co
Quality Mills Inc.
Tarmac -Lone Star Inc.
Location
by Township
Product
Beaufort
Ice
Beaufort
Steel fishing trawlers
Beaufort
Ice, seafood
Beaufort
Fish and shrimp
Beaufort
Concrete
Beaufort
Millword and lumber
Beaufort
Hospital scrub
uniforms; sportswear
Beaufort
Boats and repairs
Beaufort
Women's & children's
clothing
Beaufort
Fiberglas boats and
products
Beaufort
Seafood processing
Beaufort
Shrimp and fish
Beaufort
Fiberglas boats
Beaufort
Fish meat, fish oil
Beaufort
Crab packing and
processing
Beaufort
Veneer; logs; lumber
Davis
Canned crab meat;
crabs
Davis
Seafood processing;
fish; seafood
Harkers Is.
Fish scraps
Marshallberg
Pleasure boats
Morehead
Sportswear
Morehead
Pallets; lumber
Morehead
Newspaper publishing;
newspaper
Morehead
Machine shop
Morehead
Commercial job
printing
Morehead
Seafood processors
Morehead
Ornamental iron works;
steel
Morehead
Concrete & lightweight
blocks; cement; stone
Morehead
Fiberglas products
Morehead
Asphalt
Morehead
Boats; marine permits;
hardware; lumber
Morehead
Commercial signs;
plywood and redwood
Newport
Parade boats
Morehead
Compressed air and gas
Newport
Women's & children's
clothing
Newport
Sportswear
Newport
Concrete; cement;
gravel; sand
I-35

6. North Carolina State Ports Authority
Morehead City is the location of one of the two deep water ports
in North Carolina. The State Port Terminal, Morehead City, is owned
and operated by the North Carolina State Ports Authority, a state
agency. The Morehead City port has a sister facility in Wilmington,
and shares innovative intermodal shipping terminals in Charlotte and
the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point area with the Wilmington port.
The two intermodal facilities connect both ports with shippers along
the entire Atlantic coast, and provide significant savings in trans-
portation costs.
Located approximately four miles from the open sea, the Morehead
City terminal is situated along the Newport River and Bogue Sound.
The shipping channel is one of the deepest on the east coast, with
water depth in the channel and turning basin maintained at 40 feet,
mean low water. The State Ports Authority supports and is in need of
improvements to deepen the channel into the harbor area.
The terminal currently has 5,250 continuous feet of wharf capable
of berthing eight (8) 600-foot cargo vessels and a single tanker
simultaneously. Dockage includes a 1,000-foot bulk handling berth,
and a roll-on/roll-off ramp. Additionally, four (4) 300-foot barge
berths are available. Double railroad tracks run the length of the
wharf, with depressed tracks serving the transit and warehouse storage
areas.
The Morehead City terminal also offers the following:
- A bulk handling facility, used primarily for phosphate, with a
3,000 ton -per -hour shiploader, 246,000 ton dry storage capac-
ity, and five (5) liquid storage tanks with a total capacity of
61,500 tons.
- A coal handling facility capable of handling 1,500 tons per
hour and a 130,000 ton storage capacity (recently converted to
a wood chip handling capability.)
- Two (2) 115-ton capacity gantry cranes with container handling
capability.
- Two (2) 9,000 cubic foot, fully -mechanized steel fumigation
chambers, with methyl bromide facilities.
- Four fully-sprinklered concrete, steel, and masonry transit
sheds with a 342,500 S.F. total storage area.
- 496,500 S.F. of fully-sprinklered warehouse storage.
- 14 acres of paved, open hardstand accessible by rail or truck.
I-36

The Morehead City terminal functions as Foreign Trade Zone 67,
with four approved foreign trade sites. Services provided by the Port
Authority include 24-hour security, cargo handling, dockage, storage,
fumigation, railroad switching, and miscellaneous support services.
The terminal has certified public truck scales, and railroad service
is provided by Norfolk Southern Railroad.
The Morehead City terminal is the regular port of embarkation for
the Second Marine Division, Camp Lejeune; and the Second Air Wing,
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station.
The North Carolina State Ports Authority is currently involved in
a $70 million expansion and improvement program involving both port
facilities. At Morehead City, recently completed and planned improve-
ments include the reconstruction of Berth 1, a 100,000 S.F. warehouse,
and purchase of a 76-acre tract on Radio Island, directly across from
the existing terminal.
The terminal has experienced net growth in terms of both gross
revenue and total tonnage since 1980. The major export from Morehead
City is phosphate rock, phosphate fertilizer and phosphoric acid from
the Texasgulf operation in Aurora, N.C. The total phosphate exported
has fluctuated widely from year to year. other commodities handled at
the port include logs, wood pulp, lumber, wood chips, tobacco, coal,
veneer/hardboard, salt, fishmeal, potash, colemanite ore, and military
cargo. The amount of these commodities handled each year has also
fluctuated since 1980, and the total amount of commodities handled
since 1987 has not increased significantly.
The most significant recent development at the Morehead City ter-
minal is the $1.8 million conversion of the Morehead City Export
Terminal, previously devoted to coal exporting, to export wood chips
produced in North Carolina. Chips from Weyerhauser in New Bern are
being shipped now. Canal Wood Corporation of Charlotte plans to build
a major wood chipping installation near Wilson, N.C., that will also
ship through Morehead City. According to the general manager of the
Morehead City terminal, the wood chip exporting operation should more
than fill the void left by the declining coal trade, which fluctuated
considerably. The new operation will create additional jobs at the
terminal. Also, local purchases by a single export ship's crew during
a typical dockage can total in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Table 24, below, shows the growth of total tonnage handled at the
port (import and export) since 1980, and the growth of gross revenues
from land rental, storage, and operations since 1986.
I-37

Table 24
Total Tonnage Handled, 1980-89, and Gross Revenue, 1986-89;
N.C. State Port Terminal,Morehead City
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
(Est.)
Tonnage Handled 2.03 2.38 2.19 2.56 3.79 3.40 3.33 4.51 4.76 4.97
(Millions of
short tons)
Gross Revenue - - - - - - 7.68 8.82 8.80 9.57
(Millions of $)
Source: General Manager, Morehead City Terminal,
N.C. State Ports Authority
The continued growth and success of the port's operation is very
important to the wage earners and businesses of Carteret County, many
of whom benefit directly and indirectly from the import/export activi-
ties conducted there. In particular, Carteret County's manufacturing
industry must continue to work closely with port officials and econo-
mic development leaders to integrate the county's manufacturing and
shipping capabilities. The identification of foreign or waterway
imported domestic markets for Carteret County -produced products will
provide an immediate and convenient impetus for increased manufactur-
ing production.
Commercial Fishing/Marine-Research
Since 1977, Carteret County has consistently ranked first in the
state in terms of total licensed commercial fishing vessels, total
seafood landings (pounds), and total dockside value of seafood land-
ings. The dockside value of Carteret County landings tripled from
$7.9 million in 1977 to $23.5 million in 1988. The county accounted
for 30% of the 1988 total dockside value for the entire state. Based
on earnings and employment figures compiled in Table 18, employment
and earnings in commercial fishing have steadily increased in Carteret
County since 1980. However, the impact of commercial fishing extends
far beyond the "agricultural services, forestry, fishing" labor and
earnings category, affecting the wholesale trade, manufacturing,
government, and the service and maintenance industries. Moreover,
many individuals employed in other trades fish commercially part-time,
as evidenced by the estimated 1,067 part-time commercial vessels
licensed in Carteret County in 1988. Estimates vary, but perhaps as
much as 10% of Carteret County's total population is directly or
indirectly involved in the commercial fishing industry.
Much of the wholesale and retail trade in the county is dependent
on commercial fishing. Since 1977, Carteret County has run either
slightly ahead or behind Brunswick County as first or second in the
state in total number of licensed seafood dealers. In 1987, there
were 118 licensed seafood dealers in the county. Thirty percent (30%)
of these dealers were involved in finfish processing, and two dealers
t (2%) were menhaden plants. The remaining 81 dealers (68%) were
I involved in shellfish processing/sales.
I-38

The revenue from menhaden landings is not included in the dockside
values quoted above. Since the only two menhaden processors in the
state are located in Carteret County, revenue from menhaden landings/
processing places the county in an even more secure position as the
state leader in commercial fishing activity. According to UNC Sea
Grant representatives, the 1987 menhaden catch in North Carolina was
56,421,241 lbs., valued at $1,650,528. Carteret County accounted for
about 95% of these landings, plus all of the manufacturing revenue
from the processing.
Many of the manufacturing firms listed in the discussion of the
manufacturing industry are seafood processing firms. Also, several
manufacturing firms in the county are involved in commercial boat -
building. Many -ngine repair and marine service facilities owe a
major portion of their income to the commercial fishing industry.
An important offshoot of Carteret County's standing as a commer-
cial fishing center is the location of five marine science and
research facilities in Carteret County. Three of these facilities are
state-owned, one is owned by Duke University, and the other is
federally -maintained. These marine research facilities are listed
below:
° Beaufort Laboratory - Southeast Fisheries Center
(operated by NOAA)
° Duke University Marine Laboratory
° University of North Carolina Institute of Marine Sciences
° North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Laboratory
° North Carolina Marine Resource Center/Aquarium
The Carteret County EDC estimates that marine research employs
approximately 250 people throughout the county.
In terms of land use policies, commercial fishing in Carteret
County is in a sensitive position because approximately 50% of shell-
fish landings and 20% of finfish landings are from estuarine waters.
Finfish and shellfish in estuarine waters are particularly prone to
pollution from septic tank effluent and built-up surface runoff --
both of which have increased with residential and commercial develop-
ment, despite strict environmental regulations governing septic tank
placement and storm water retention. Of the 11,274 oyster and clam
licenses granted by the state in 1988, 3,326 (29%) were granted for
Carteret County -- by and large the highest percentage of any county
in the state.
Table 25, below, summarizes finfish and shellfish landings (pounds
and dockside value) for the various Carteret County waters in 1980 and
1988. 1980 was picked as a base year because it was the highest total
yield year for Carteret County since the Division of Marine Fisheries
began documentation of landings. A dramatic decrease in total yield
followed in 1981, and the 1988 yield was the highest since that low
yield year of 1981. Table 25 thus gives a clear outline by species
and area of the gradual resurgence in commercial yields since 1981.
I-39

04-I
Riplypillwom
111opplill
� 11
��
PYboYaY
N
oW
JPJJY ti.
a
�
Y:Y
�
N
Y
m
m
q
WUaNNOOY
N
O
UW
m
VGd
O
NUO
J
V
m
JNaiNWJr
N
W
NP
O
dJ
�JdN
J
YmN
n
U
0
.�
N
P
N WU
mN Wm
N
�b
WO
N
a
O
NGO
N
i
�
N
WJ
OmNWY N
P
O
J
U
OPi
q
O
b
O
O��
000000
jeN.q
U
u
NW
JWNWmOYq
b
by
p
WNY
O
JWO
q
N
Op
a
JJUJbNJY
a
W
{/iN
N
WP
ONJ
W
bOY
J
d
m•
Y
WelN
NJc
m
WONv
Ys
Y
Y
mJ d m
JO
m
Nmm
N
NOO
bW
p
a
YN
N
y
O
VO
M aO0
WN
uN
OUYa
bW
pmY
i
m p
Nn d
OJ
P
ON
W
anW
mNP
ba
bW
q• O
N
YyNb
Ijaj
O
OY
JW
y
IJO 0n PYa
Y
T
dY
q
PJ
m
Y
J
Oi•
ON
O
YPPG
OY
NHY
OJ
o
Y
OY
ON JJ NO
mJ
mN
m
nVN
iYOJ
dN
WNY
W
WO
W
yY
W?I
N W
N
q
YJ
W
y
VO
NN* I ?I.
b
O
Wn
NgGO
W
YO
NYO
q
UU
Ni00NNWi
q
PY
N
a0
J
qmY
YgiJ
iN
JWN
1JaJ
d
m
A
J
Nt.H
•a
P
OWJmY a0
q
Y
O
Y
W
Y
N
N
Y
m
an N
0
O
UNW
Nn
N
G
nyl
W
N
dNJgPmO
Y
J
WW
J
Un
0mp
U
NJ
i
N
m
W
o
";YN9
G
U
G
a
Y
Y
1.
m
JWPJb mJ
P
Y
J
J
Ybi
m
U
•
N
O�
mN000NN
Y
qY
O
U
YbY
O
YN
N
V
mm
O
O
NNWNWOW
O
N
WY
W
NW
OOa
J
F•O
O
a
W
N
q
Y d0 N
W
J
N
Y
N
Y
W
N
Y
N Nn P
Y
10
dW
d
i
b
J
Y
�21
q
O
Y a0 N
P
•
m
m
m
N a J
N
N
Y
YN N
WG 2GNi
o�q
q
JJY
U'
o
�•
ONi
W
Od pinY
N
u
N
JU
GrN
N
JmY
O
G
N
JaWOW Y
m
Jq
±
Pa
Wd0
q
Jab
J
b
m
SSS
Nw
JYO
O
Y
1p0 Jm d
•D
b
JN
YJJ
mUN
�fC'••
N aV•
N
W
Y1�1
w
N qW NYY a
Wap
UNWYP N
a
O
bm �+N NJY
aWW Y a
m
G W N
OOJU W{nW WN
a
1�
ap
a Y1+ y
JNWdNGWYJOdWmJOYNOJ
q qJ y
NWJOJW Nb WIWii
PYaU aNgJa Oq
NW
qN4 W10JOpNNdJYNgU1DJN
bWONWm WWUa
O
U OaWjWaYYWr
P
N mPJJmP
a
YOYq�a OGWYOYpNJG VmJG NNJGWNYYW
JNOW aNOw•O N•OmJgYJYaOWmJ0
ym Ja
b JmmbOmNYnaY
O
...........
UPYNJ J1JJaaWa Via aagObNdmUWaagqdmJqWbmmbJ
0
N w Y
N
P PmmalGn uW
W
J
Y q
NWNbNYYbWP.........
qY
WVNWWO NmNm
aam YmaOJ VW
a
HV.
WaaPYdgOYWYJYmV00JN
OObmUI+ JNNO
O
WmN
qN qY
W......I. amNO
O
0
p�Y y�
...... Y...........
VNq
J.......
O
ONiNbNJbWOgOY
O
UJWgNdaNNn�+iNNi ml+mNWJaWNU000Jmm
mIJNNYaO
m
i
y
N

Estuarine fish and shellfish had greater significant net yield
decreases from 1980-88 than offshore species, and the majority of the
resurgence in yields since the low yield year of 1981 is due to
offshore species. These trends are shown in Table 26, below:
Table 2 6
Total Comrercial Fishing Landings for Estuarine and Offshore Waters
Carteret County, 1980-88
Thousands of
Pounds
%
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1986
1988
'80-88
Total Finfish
35,458
17,580
20,713
20,694
24,283
20,664
24,855
20,561
24,454
-31.0%
Estuarine
7,975
4,208
4,035
5,003
5,893
3,815
4,636
3,799
4,538
-43.1%
Offshore
27,483
13,372
16,678
15,691
18,390
16,789
20,219
16,672
19,916
-27.5%
Total Shellfish
12,731
11,233
11,612
9,468
10,003
11,408
7,532
8,831
10,553
-17.1%
Estuarine
7,324
5,372
6,800
5,783
5,296
5,944
4,275
4,197
5,432
-25.8%
Offshore
5,407
5,861
4,812
3,685
4,707
5,464
3,257
4,634
5,121
- 5.2%
Total County
Catch
48,189
28,813
32,325
30,162
34,286
32,072
32,387
29,392
35,007
-27.3%
Source: N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
Table 26 demonstrates the gradually increasing importance of
offshore fishing and shellfishing in Carteret County in relation to
estuarine fishing and shellfishing. In 1980, estuarine yields
accounted for 31.7% of the total commercial yield. In 1988, the
estuarine yield had dropped to 28.4% of the total. Development of
Carteret County's small aquaculture industry may help to revive the
estuarine shellfishing industry. Recent studies by the Governor's
Task Force on Aquaculture pointed out several barriers to effective
development of this industry. Hopefully, the state government will
take steps to encourage the controlled growth and harvest of shellfish
in coastal waters.
8. Real Estate and Construction
As discussed in the section on demographics and housing, the
growth of new residential development has been dramatic in Carteret
County since 1970. Growth in the number of commercial structures has
paralleled residential growth. In 1976, Carteret County's building
permit and issuance rate was 2.5 times greater than the state's
average issuance rate. By 1982, the issuance rate was 4.3 times the
state average. The rate dropped to 1.3 times the state average in
1986. Nonetheless, the county issued 1,369 commercial building
permits with a value of $100.7 million, and 10,090 residential permits
with a value of $343.1 million, between 1983-1987. In 1987, the
county accounted for 29% of all CAMA permits issued for the state, and
in 1988, the Carteret County Planning Commission gave final approval
I-41

to 43 new subdivisions, indicating that the residential development
trend has not slackened. Appraised value of property in Carteret
County grew from $167.8 million in 1970, to $1.19 billion in 1980, to
$3.07 billion in 1989.
This rapid growth of residential and commercial development has
had an immediate impact on all phases of the county economy, through
purchases by new construction and real estate employees, purchases of
building materials, and stimulation of the local banking industry,
which in turn allows expansion and improvement in other segments of
the county economy.
Since 1970, employment in the county's construction industry has
increased over 200%. In 1988, there were an estimated 2,120 employed
in the construction industry -- approximately 10% of the total
employed in the county. The growth in the real estate, insurance, and
finance industry has been phenomenal, with a 650% increase in employ-
ment since 1970 and 1,650 employed in those trades in 1988.
The impact of new construction on the retail trade industry has
been considerable. In 1970, only $9.93 million (182 dollars) was sold
in building materials and hardware stores in Carteret County. In
1988, it is estimated that $36.88 million (182 dollars) of retail
building materials were sold. Furniture and home furnishings pur-
chases rose from $5.34 million to $17.31 million (182 dollars) over
the same period. A significant amount of additional revenue in the
growing wholesale trade industry is also due to building materials and
home furnishings.
9. Government and Military Employees
Although the ratios of government earnings and employment to total
county earnings and employment decreased from 1970-88, government
employment still accounted for 39% of the earnings and 27% of the
employment in Carteret County in 1988. Federal civilian employment
remained first in total earnings over the period, and state and local
government employment displayed substantial growth, rising from fourth
to second in terms of total employed by economic sector. The mili-
tary, too, retained an important role in the county employment picture
through the 70's and 801s. Although dropping from 5th to 8th in
employment rank, the military had a substantial earnings increase over
the 1970-88 period. The military presence also continues to account
for most of the federal civil service jobs held by Carteret County
residents.
In 1988, state and local government in Carteret County employed
2,880 people, or 11.6% of the county total. Approximately 250 of
these employees were county employees. Carteret County had a $21.65
million budget for FY89-90. The other state and local employees are
teachers, municipal employees, or are associated with state agencies
largely involved with planning and development, environmental regula-
tion, fisheries, and transportation.
I-42

Approximately 1,400 military personnel and 2,400 federal civilian
employees resided in Carteret County in 1988. Almost all of the mili-
tary personnel and civilian employees are associated with Cherry Point
MCAS or Camp Lejeune. There are three small military installations in
Carteret County (Navy Port Central Office, MCOLF Atlantic, and ALF
Bogue), but their impact on local employment is minimal compared to
Cherry Point and Camp Lejeune. In addition to civil service
employees, the U.S. Marine Corps estimates that in 1988, at least
1,900 of the civilian contract employees working at Cherry Point MCAS,
with a total $15 million annual payroll, resided in Carteret County.
Many of those individuals are involved in on -base construction. All
of these privately -contracted employees, civil service employees, and
military personnel generate local expenditures and have an important
impact on the Carteret County housing and retail trade industries.
The impact of the military on the county extends well beyond the
employment of military personnel, direct civil service employment,
and contracted civilian employment. Import/export of military sup-
plies through the state port terminal provides a considerable boost to
the local shipping industry. Support goods are bought by the military
from local wholesalers and retailers. Many military and federal civil
service retirees reside in Carteret County and have a major effect on
the retirement housing industry, banking, and the retail and service
industries. The number of military retirees from Cherry Point MCAS
alone who resided in Carteret County in 1988 was estimated by the Base
Community Liaison Office to be 980. Also, according to the North
Carolina Division of Veterans' Affairs, $6 million in VA benefits were
disbursed to 7,220 military verterans in Carteret County in 1988.
10. Retirees
The number of individuals aged 60 and above in Carteret County
jumped almost 150% from 1970-87. This increase in retirement -age
population is directly responsible for much of Carteret County's
growing economic diversity and stability. Many retirees who emigrate
to Carteret County start new businesses or work part-time in local
retail and service businesses. Also, military and civil service
employees from Carteret County often retire at a relatively young age,
and begin second careers in the county. The year-round retired popu-
lace has a substantial impact on the local banking and housing indu-
stry, retail trade, and the service industry. The economic impact of
the elderly population is particularly significant in the incorporated
beach communities, where many individuals build or buy retirement
homes. For example, a survey of permanent residents of Cape Carteret
conducted for the town's 1987 Land Use Plan Update indicated that 70%
of the 120 respondents were retired. The influence of the retirement -
age population on the decision -making process in Carteret County,
particularly in the beach communities, is substantial.
I-43

Much of the public demand for preservation of environmental quality
and controlled development comes from the retirement community. The
retired seasonal and day visitor populations add to the overall impact
of retirees on the Carteret County population. The restrained
lifestyle and recreational appeal of Carteret County attract many
retired individuals who build seasonal homes, and retirees who are
touring the eastern seaboard.
Specific economic data concerning the retired population in
Carteret County is sketchy, since "retirees" are generally not treated
as an exclusive entity in censal and post-censal economic studies.
Review of current information maintained by the N.C. Division of Aging
indicates that the 1979 median per capita income for heads of house-
hold aged 65 and older in Carteret County was $10,793 (1989 dollars).
This was appreciably higher than the state figure of $9,477. However,
provision of adequate housing and health care to Carteret County's
elderly population living on low fixed incomes remains an important
community development issue, particularly in rural areas of the
county. According to the 1980 Census, 22.5% of the county's popula-
tion aged 65 and above was living below the poverty level, compared to
12.9% of the population aged less than 65 who subsided below the
poverty level.
I-44

D. EXISTING LAND USE SUMMARY
1. General Land Use Summar
In most of Carteret County, there have been only minor changes in
land use since the preparation of the 1985 Land Use Plan. The county
continues to have two distinct areas in terms of general land use.
One consists of the "Down East" area which lies east of a line con-
necting the North River and Adams Creek. The other area lies west of
the North River -Adams Creek line and is referred to simply as Western
Carteret County. The factors influencing growth, development and land
use are clearly different for each area. The "Down East" area is pre-
dominantly rural with large areas of wetlands and agricultural land
usage. The population is concentrated in numerous unincorporated com-
munities scattered along the shoreline areas. Western Carteret County
contains the major development and population base. This is concen-
trated in the incorporated areas on Bogue Banks and in sound side
areas along N.C. 24 west of Morehead City. The county's zoned areas
are all in western Carteret County in the areas experiencing the
heaviest growth (See Map 1).
It is impossible to provide detailed statistics on the land areas
committed to particular land uses in a county which is primarily rural
and sparsely populated. The overall pattern of land use is far more
important. Table 27 provides a general analysis of land usage in
Carteret County since 1973.
Table 27
Estimated General Land Use in
Carteret County - 1973, 1981, and 1989[l]
(Acres)
1973 % 1981 % 1989 %
[2]
Federal Non -wetland Areas
70,776
10
92,637
14
92,637
14
Urban and Built Up[3]
6,177
1
15,700
2
25,172
4
Agricultural Land
20,381
3
68,663
10
60,000
9
Forest and Fresh Water
Wetlands
163,230
24
161,778
24
160,969
23
Other Land
78,214
11
0
0
Salt Water Wetlands
55,000
8
55,000
8
55,000
8
Small and Large
Water Bodies
287,310
42
287,310
42
287,310
42
Total Land Area 681,088 100 681,088 100 681,088 100
[1] A complete comparison of each land use category is not possible
because consistent land use categories were not available for all
three years.
[2] Source: 1985 Carteret County Land Use Plan.
[3] Includes incorporated areas.
Federal land holdings have remained unchanged since 1981. The
largest single federal land holding continues to be the Croatan
National Forest with 158,000 acres. The second largest holding is the
Cape Lookout National Seashore which includes approximately 28,400
I-45

I
I
I
iJ
aIk /
CRAVEN COUNTY
06
•• ..,.;. ::� G U E SOUND
•,,, i
i
i
The pre oration of this map was
financed In part through a grant
provided by the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program,
through funds provided by the
Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972, as amended, which Is
administered by the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration,
C
,p,. W-00
A T L A N T I C
NW ORT RIVER
C.
.wr r•m�
CARTERET COUNTY ZONING AREAS
C�
DC11LE
OCEA
N I 0 1 2 ] ♦ WE$
LEGEND
AREAS ZONED M COUNTY
INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT
MACON NOT UNDER CARTERET
COUNTY PLANNING JURISDICTION
14Ap 1 EXTRA -TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AREAS NOT
UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PLANNING
JURISDICTION

acres on Core and Shackleford Banks. Only a portion of these areas
are non -wetlands properties and identified as federal areas in
Table 27. The third largest federal holdings consist of military
properties at Atlantic Airfield, Bogue Airfield, and on Marsh/Piney
Island.
The urban and built-up land use category has been the major land
use change since 1981. Substantial farm land and some wetlands areas
have been converted to intensively developed land uses. Most of the
development has occurred in the Morehead, Newport and White Oak town-
ships. Concentrations of development have been the heaviest along the
U.S. 70 and N.C. 24 corridors. The U.S. 70 development has primarily
been commercial and industrial activity, while the predominant devel-
opment along N.C. 24 has been residential. Development in the "Down
East" area of Carteret County has continued to be very limited. The
areas converted to urban land use have been concentrated in Baymeade-
Onslow-Lynchburg, Atlavista-Augusta-State, and Newhan-Corolla-Beaches
soil associations. While these areas are well drained and suited for
development, they are also some of the county's areas best suited for
agricultural production.
The developed areas of the county are extending well beyond the
municipalities' central water and sewer systems. Some relief to this
problem will be provided in Western Carteret County with the construc-
tion of the West Carteret water system. However, the lack of central
sewer service in rapidly developing areas continues to be a serious
problem.
The development of Western Carteret County is also creating some
transportation problems. The only direct east -west traffic artery is
N.C. 24. Congestion is annually increasing. Further development of
the N.C. 24 corridor will only serve to compound the problem.
Almost all of the 40,000 plus acre increase in agricultural usage
from 1973 to 1981 occurred on the Open Ground and Smyrna Farms prop-
erty and other smaller "Down East" area corporate farms. Since 1981,
a gradual decline in agricultural usage has occurred primarily because
of the conversion of agricultural lands in Western Carteret County to
urban and build-up land uses. Crop land and pasture still comprise
approximately nine percent of the county's total land area.
The largest single land use category in Carteret County is the
forest and fresh water wetlands category. It includes wooded swamps
and bogs or pocosins. The two types of fresh water wetlands occupy
the following approximate acreages:
Wooded Swamps
Bogs or Pocosins
6,600 acres
154,369 acres
Approximately one-third of the pocosin and wooded swamp wetlands
areas are located in the Croatan National Forest. The remaining poco-
sin and swamp areas are scattered throughout Carteret County and are
subject to "404" wetlands regulations. These areas are environment-
ally significant areas and will continue to be deterrents to develop-
ment.
I-47

Coastal wetlands or salt marshes is the final significant land use
category. Most of these areas are subject to CAMA regulations and
permitting requirements. They are extremely important to the marine
ecological system. Because of their environmental importance and
regulatory limitations, the salt marshes will remain primarily
undisturbed.
Existing land use is shown on Map 2. The following provides
definitions for the land use categories:
Urban or Built Up Land - Urban or built-up land includes unin-
corporated communities, villages, strip development along high-
ways, transportation, power and communication facilities, as well
as areas occupied by shopping centers, mills, industrial areas,
commercial complexes, and residential development.
Agricultural Land - Agricultural lands are areas used primar-
ily for producing food and fiber, harvested croplands, pasture,
and generally, land committed in any way to agricultural produc-
tion.
Barren Land - Barren land is comprised of -lands with limited
capacity for supporting life. Those lands include beaches and
sand dunes. All of the county's barren areas are located in the
outer banks areas (included in Table 27 in the Federal Non -wet-
lands category).
Forest Land - Forest lands are stocked with trees which can be
used for the production of timber or other wood products. Forest
lands can also be used for wildlife refuges and recreational faci-
lities including national and state parks and forests. Forest
lands normally occur on either moderately -to -well -drained mineral
soils or ditched -and -managed shallow organic soils. The forest
category may include some scattered "404" wetlands areas. Exact
locations may be determined only through specific in -field site
analysis.
Wetlands - Wetlands are defined as areas where the water table
is at, near, or above the ground surface for a significant part of
most years. Specifically, these areas include coastal wetlands,
wooded swamps, and "404" wetlands as regulated by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of
1972, as amended in 1977. It is emphasized that some areas shown
on Map 2 as wetlands areas may not be wetlands, and that some
areas not shown as wetlands may be wetlands. Specific in -field
determinations are necessary to clearly delineate wetlands areas.
The existing land use map provides only a general indication
(included in Table 27 in the Forest and Fresh Water Wetlands, and
Salt Water Wetlands categories).
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Areas - These areas include
areas within Carteret County which are under the planning juris-
diction of adjacent incorporated areas as provided for under
N.C.G.S. 160A-360. Towns and cities may extend extraterritorial
I-48

P�JE0.
E
NEUS
CRAVEN COUNTY
�A 4
160
j� IV" wPORT R7V
l r t �Ww,
\ t• 1 ) sast3. rr .tr +' r Se0 7� o
} \\ rr + s �yx a ef^ t +j3��As ne srnAns
z F t' ♦y j# ;4 �.- SOUND gr% c l3, e�uto
3 .� '! jb - ♦ ..ate b 'iy?C+ 84L.k azeo
Nw —, J A. m ,nMlauu .LEFT, S�UN�
_. O
/ a
1 SCALE
1 O I 2 3 ♦ MLES
I I, LANTIC OCEAN
CAPE LOONGUT
Q
0
0
PAMLICO SUUND
k"f4
r e4Y
Boy
CARTERET COUNTY
EXISTING LAND USE MAP
MAP 2
TM ppmvirepamtbn of IMa map eras
finanaeo M purl North a ep a
C...wA M the North Carolina
CoaataN Management Pra9r
though Q9ho
29:A.
o
197Z
as amended which b
0.. meted by NM1a Ofliu of
Ocean m t. Nafla Re Ocem
Mftosph nl, Na11oM Oaemiic mk
AtmoapM1erie AMmeahahen
LEGEND
®
URBAN OR BUILT—UP LAND
AGRICULTURAL LAND
C
BARREN LAND
FOREST LAND
C�
POSSIBLE 404 WETLANDS.
----
COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE
INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT
MACON NOT UNDER CARTERET
COUNTY PLANNING JURISDICTION
0
EXTRA —TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
AREAS NOT UNDER CARTERET
COUNTY PLANNING JURISDICTION
TOWN OF CEDAR POINT
CORPORATE LIMIT LINE
NOTE Shockleford Banks, Cape Lookout, Coro
Banks, and Portsmouth Island are a part of the.
National Seashore System and not under the
planning jurisdiction of Carteret County.
NOTE: THE EMERALD ISLE BEACH CORPORATE
LIMIT LINE EXTENDS L2200 FEET INTO BOGUE
SOUND AND PARALLELS THE BOGUE SOUND
SHORELINE.

jurisdiction up to one mile beyond its corporate limits. With the
approval of the state legislature and the County Board of
Commissioners, a town or city of more than 10,000 but less than
25,000 may extend its extraterritorial jurisdiction up to two
miles beyond its corporate limits. (Included in Table 27 in the
Urban and Built Up category.)
Incorporated Areas - These areas include all incorporated towns
and cities. (Included in Table 27 in the Urban and Built Up
category.)
To further define land use patterns within Carteret County, the
existing land use map is supplemented with Map 3, Pollution Point
Source Discharges, and Map 4, Carteret County Development Activity.
The pollution point source map shows shoreline -related or water -
dependent facilities which are also point source waste dischargers.
The development activity map shows all CAMA major permits issued since
January, 1984. According to N.C.G.S. 113A-118, a "major development"
is defined as:
"... any development which requires permission, licensing,
approval, certification or authorization in any form from
the Environmental Management Commission, the Department of
Human Resources, the State Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, the State Department of Adminis-
tration, the North Carolina Mining Commission, the North
Carolina Pesticides Board, the North Carolina Sedimentation
Control Board, or any federal agency or authority; or which
occupies a land or water area in excess of 20 acres; or
which contemplates drilling for or excavating natural
resources on land or under water; or which occupies on a
single parcel a structure or structures in excess of a
ground area of 60,000 square feet."
The data provided by these maps is an excellent indicator of where
growth is occurring and where the impacts of development activity may
be the greatest.
2. Land Use By Township
The existing land use is summarized by township. The land use
descriptions are intended to provide general and not detailed analy-
ses. Map 5 provides a delineation of the township areas. In order to
increase the legibility of the data on the other maps contained in
this plan, the township boundaries were not included. The "Down East"
area includes the Portsmouth, Cedar Island, Atlantic, Sea Level,
Stacy, Davis, Smyrna, Marshallberg, Harkers Island, Straits, and
Merrimon townships. Western Carteret County includes the Beaufort,
Harlowe, Morehead, Newport, and White Oak townships.
a) Portsmouth
The Portsmouth Township is the only township located entirely on
an outer bank area. The township includes all of Core Banks north of
I-50

CRAVEN COUNTY
ATLANTIC
CAPE LOOKOUT
PAMLICO SOUND
CARTERET COUNTY
POLLUTION POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES
(SINCE IANUARY, 1984)
MAP 3
SEPTEMBER, 1989
g... M Ad d
.hlc I.
Offs d W
R....
.d O .. mid
\
1 \
7 S�dhS�
MARINAS
®
FISH PROCESSING FACILITY
®
FISH PACKING FACILITY
®
OTHER FACILITY
-- —
COUNTY BOUNDARY LIVE
INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT MACW NOT
UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PLANNING
JURISDICTION
EXTRA-TERRI FOR1AL JURISDICTION ARE /lS NOT
UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PLANNING
JURISDICTION
TOWN OF CEDAR POINT
CORPORATE LIMIT LINE
NOTE Shockleford Banks, Cape Lookout. Core
BwAM and Portsmouth Wad are a part of the
National Soashom System and not ceder the
plating PRI"dion of Carteret County.
NOTE THE EMERALD ISLE BEACH CORPORATE
LIMIT LINE EXTENDS L200 FEET KM BOGIE
SOUND AND PARALLELS THE BOGIE SOUND
SHORELME
Source: North Carolina Land Resources Information Service

I /
i
CRAVEN COUNTY / #
�y ( a
cOJ /
l � J
t—'s
O . 'o J.�� RT R�VER
' S0UNO
OOUE
ATLANTIC OCEAN
0.tvEP
NE�Se
•
r"� Liey.
uuem r.u1 - � C
ro.y Pscoe sA'9f�EepFO B4CK SO
5c
1 0 1 3 a . ML6
•
PAMLICO SOUND
BAY
U
CARTERET COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
MAP 4
LEGEND
Th. pmparatbn of Nd. map .w
financed In part through a grant
provided by the North Carolina
Coastal man".m.nl Program.
Ihroayyh f.0 Prodd.d by the
Coastal Zone Manopam ' Act of
1972. a. om .d.d. �M h Is
admin't... d by the Office of
OC.= and Coastal R.....
M.nog.mml. National Oceania coal
Wmo.pherlc Admhdstrutlon
Q
� • COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT ACT MAJOR
a,° DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE
q- INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT MACON NOT
UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PLANNING
JURISDICTION
EXTRA—TERRITDIBAL JURISDICTION AREAS NOT
UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PLANNING
JURISDICTION
TOWN OF CEDAR POINT
CORPORATE LIMIT LINE
AUGUST, 1989
NOTE Shockleford Banks, Cape Lookout, Core
Banks, and Portsmouth Island are a part of the
National Seashore System and not under the
planning Jurisdiction of Carteret County,
NOTE: THE EMERALD ISLE BEACH CORPORATE
LIMIT LINE EXTENDS L200 FEET INTO BOGIE
SOLM Am PARALLELS THE BOGIE SOUND
CAPE LOOKOUT
Source: North Carolina Land Resources Information Service

CRAVEN COUNTY
ATLAN-'t�
CAPE LOOKOUT
PAMLICO SOUND
CARTERET COUNTY
TOWNSHIPS
MAP 5
TWP.
The preparation of this map was
financed In part Ihrvugh a grant
provided by the North Cary w
CoastalmlP
llwo h MradobgyraM Coastal Zone Management Ad of
1972. as amended. which Is
.d .t.red by the Offlc. of
0... and Centel Resource
Mamq.m..t. Nallalwl 0,.mdc and
Atmospheric Adedid betlom
LEGEND
TOWNSHIP BOUNDARIES
UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
COUNTY BOUNDARY
INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT
MACON NOT UNDER CARTERET
COUNTY PLANNING JURISDICTION
EXTRA -TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AREAS NOT
UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PLANNING
JURISDICTION
TOWN OF CEDAR POINT
CORPORATE LIMIT LINE
NOTE: Shockleford Banks, Cape Lookout, Core
Banks, and Portsmouth Island are a part of the
National Seashore System and not under the
Planning jurisdiction of Carteret County.
NOTE: THE EMERALD ISLE BEACH CORPORATE
LIMIT LINE EXTENDS 1200 FEET INTO ROGUE
SOUND AND PARALLELS THE BOGUE SOUND
SHORELINE.

U
Drum Inlet and Portsmouth Island. The entire township is included
within the Cape Lookout National Seashore and is considered a fragile
area. The township may be expected to remain uninhabited.
b) Cedar Island
The Cedar Island Township is located at the eastern end of
Carteret County. The majority of the township's 31 square mile area
is occupied by regularly- and irregularly -flooded salt marsh. Approx-
imately 11,000 acres of the township is included in the Cedar Island
Wildlife Refuge area. Other significant natural areas include the
Cedar Island -North Bay Barrier Island, Back Bay area, and Cedar Island
marshes.
The only significant settlement is the Cedar Island community
which is located adjacent to N.C. 12 near the Cedar Island -Ocracoke
ferry terminal. Two marinas, the ferry terminal, and adjacent commer-
cial service facilities are the only economic/employment activities
other than limited farming and commercial fishing. A harbor of safe
refuge is located on the northwest shoreline of Cedar Island Bay.
CAMA major permit activity has been limited, with only four permits
having been issued since January, 1984. Public service facilities
include the Cedar Island volunteer fire department and the Cedar
Island community center.
There are several obstacles confronting development. The township
is at an extremely low elevation and is vulnerable to Atlantic storms.
Wetlands regulations prohibit certain types of development in many
areas of the township, and mosquito control is a perennial problem.
Also, the Marine Corps maintains a major active bombing range in
nearby Rattan Bay. Facilities are proposed for expansion through the
addition of electronic warfare bombing facilities at Piney Island.
The township has severe limitations for septic tank usage. Central
water and sewer facilities are not available, and there is a limited
state road network.
c) Atlantic
The Atlantic Township is located in extreme northeastern Carteret
County adjacent to Thoroughfare Bay and Core Sound. The township
extends across Core Sound to include a section of Core Banks. The
township is primarily composed of wetlands, irregularly and regularly
flooded salt marsh areas, and natural areas. (Refer to Section F.,
Development Constraints.)
The largest concentration of population occurs in the unincor-
porated community of Atlantic. However, the largest single manmade
land use is the Marine Corps outlying field in Atlantic which occupies
1,477 acres. The airfield is located just northwest of the Atlantic
community. Commercial fishing, the primary commercial activity, is
centered in the Atlantic community. Other economic activities include
five marinas. A harbor of safe refuge is located immediately north of
the Atlantic community. Public service facilities are limited to the
Atlantic elementary school and the Atlantic Volunteer Fire
Department.
I-54

CAMA major permit activity has been significant within the town-
ship, with seven permits having been issued since January, 1984. Six
of these have been in the Atlantic community along the Core Sound
shoreline (see Map 4).
There are several obstacles to development. The township is at a
very low elevation and subject to threat from Atlantic storms. The
majority of the township is composed of either inland "404" or coastal
wetlands. Continued use of the Marine Corps Airfield could result in
conflicting land usage. Severe limitations exist for septic tank
usage. There are not any central water and sewer services provided,
and there is limited ground transportation access.
d) Sea Level
The Sea Level Township is located in the northeast section of the
county. The area extends from Long Bay across the northeast land area
to include an area of the Core Sound and a section cf the Core Banks.
With the exception of the unincorporated Sea Level community, the
township is primarily undeveloped. Sea Level is a commercial fishing
village with some limited second home development occuring. The town-
ship's other economic activities include three marinas. The Sea Level
Hospital and the Sailors Snug Harbor are major employers within the
township. Public service facilities include the Sea.Level Volunteer
Fire Department and Eastern Park.
The township has some limitations to development which include
extensive wetland areas, low elevation, and limited transportation
access to land areas. No public water and sewer services are pro-
vided.
e) Stacy
The Stacy Township lies along U.S. 70 adjacent to Core Sound in
the "Down East" area. The township includes a portion of Core Banks.
The population is concentrated in the unincorporated communities of
Masontown and Stacy. The majority of the township's area is owned by
the Open Ground Farms. There are also numerous small farm holdings.
Commercial fishing and farming support the majority of the township's
population. Three CAMA major permits have been issued in the vicinity
of the Stacy community since January, 1984 (see Map 4). Public
facilities are limited to the Stacy Volunteer Fire Department.
Limitations to development include low elevation, wetlands areas,
septic tank limitations, limited transportation access, and a lack of
central water and sewer facilities.
f) Davis
The Davis Township is the most sparsely populated township in the
county. It extends from the Rattan Bay marsh area in Pamlico Sound
south to Core Sound and includes a portion of Core Banks. Almost all
of the township's population is concentrated in the unincorporated
community of Davis, a commercial fishing village. The Rattan Bay area
includes the site of the Piney Island electronic warfare range and an
active Marine Corps bombing range.
I-55

Most of the township is isolated, having very limited ground
transportation accessibility. The economic activity consists primar-
ily of four marinas and one fish processing facility. Much of the
township is being cultivated as a part of the Open Grounds Farm.
Since January, 1984, CAMA major permit activity has been limited to
the issuance of four permits in the Davis community area (see Map 4).
Public service facilities are limited to the Davis volunteer fire
department and the Davis community center.
Limitations to development include the Marine Corps bombing range
and Piney Island, low elevation, wetlands areas, no central water and
sewer facilities, and poor ground transportation accessibility.
g) Smyrna
The Smyrna Township includes a narrow stretch of land generally
lying between the head water of South River and Jarrett Bay, and
extends across Core Sound to include an area of Core Banks. Most of
the township's population is concentrated in the commercial fishing
village of Smyrna. Fishing, farming, and boat building comprise the
main economic activities. The Smyrna Farm, which was the largest
single agricultural activity in the township in 1985, has discontinued
production and is available for purchase. The remaining farming
activity consists primarily of small private farm holdings. CAMA
major permit activity has been limited to three permits along the
Jarrett Bay shoreline since January, 1984 (see Map 4). Public
facilities include Smyrna School and the Eastern Park.
Limitations to development include low elevation, susceptibility
to storm flooding, lack of central water and sewer facilities, limited
ground transportation accessibility, and extensive 11404" wetlands
areas.
h) Marshallberg
The Marshallberg Township is located adjacent to the eastern end
of the Straits and Core Sound. Marshallberg is the county's smallest
township and is composed primarily of the unincorporated community of
Marshallberg. The community has more economic diversity than many
"Down East" communities. Economic activities include boat building
and repair, a marina, fish house facilities, and agricultural -related
activities. Since January, 1984, only three major CAMA permits have
been issued (see Map 4.). Public services are limited to the
Marshallberg Volunteer Fire Department .
Limitations to development consist primarily of low elevation,
susceptibility to storm flooding, and a lack of central water and
sewer facilities.
I-56

i) Merrimon
The Merrimon Township is located in the northwest corner of the
"Down East" area between Adams Creek and the South River. It is the
fourth largest township in the county and is sparsely populated. Most
development activity has occurred in the Sportsman's Village subdivi-
sion on the South River. The largest single land use is the Open
Ground Farms which occupies over one-third of the township's land
area. Most of the remaining land is owned by timber companies. The
township continues to be primarily a commercial fishing and farming
area. Other economic development is limited to scattered commercial/
retail activities. The only public service facility is the South
River-Merrimon Volunteer Fire Department.
There is continuing debate on the impact of the open grounds farm-
ing activity on water quality in Adams Creek, South River, Nelson Bay,
and the Neuse River. This is significant because tributaries in both
Adams Creek, South River, and Nelson Bay are primary nursery areas and
the South River contains numerous oyster cultch sites.
Limitations to development include poor ground transportation
accessibility, lack of central water and sewer service, some erosion
on Adams Creek along the Intracoastal Waterway, wetlands areas, and
limitations for septic tank usage.
j) Straits
The Straits Township is one of the larger townships in Carteret
County. Most of the population is concentrated in the unincorporated
communities of Straits, Bettie, Gloucester, and Otway. Economic
activities include farming, forestry, commercial fishing, and commer-
cial/retail trades. Eleven CAMA major permits have been issued since
January, 1984. Most of these have been issued along the Straits
shoreline (see Map 4). This area has significant marine resources
consisting of primary nursery areas and concentrations of subaquatic
vascular plants. The western edge of the township includes a portion
of the North River marshes which are an important salt water nursery
area. Substantial areas of well drained soils with good conditions
for development exist, especially along areas of the township's shore-
line.
The largest single land use is the Open Grounds Farm which occu-
pies approximately one-third of the township. Public service facili-
ties are limited to the Otway Volunteer Fire Department.
Limitations to development include low elevation, susceptibility
to storm flooding, and a lack of central water and sewer services.
k) Harker's Island
The Harker's Island Township includes Harker's and Brown Islands,
Shackleford Banks, Cape Lookout, and a small portion of Core Banks.
Only Harker's Island is permanently inhabited. Through the years,
I-57

several dwellings have been constructed on Brown's Island. The
Harker's Island unincorporated community is the largest "Down East"
development. In 1980, the island contained approximately 1,900 perma-
nent residents. By 1987, the population had increased to 2,038. The
Island is affected by peak population increase in summer months. The
1987 peak population was estimated to be 4,308, over twice the perma-
nent population. It is anticipated that the peak population will
continue to increase with improved accessibility to Cape Lookout and
the National Park Service lands on Shackleford and Core Banks.
The development on Harker's Island has been largely uncontrolled,
with congestion and conflicting land uses being the result. Approxi-
mately one-half of the 19 miles of roads on Harker's Island are
unpaved. Six hundred acres, or one-third of the Island's 1,800(+)
acres, are utilized for residential purposes. Other urban land uses
occupy only a small percentage of the Island's area. Less than 50
acres of land area is devoted to boat building, marinas, fish houses,
and commercial/retail activities. Water -related developments include
10 marinas, one fish packing facility, and three fish houses. A
harbor of safe refuge is located on the western end of Harker's
Island. Since 1984, a total of fourteen CAMA major development per-
mits have been issued (see Map 4). This is the greatest number of
major development permits issued in the unincorporated areas of any
one township, and is indicative of the increasing pressure for devel-
opment in the Harker's Island township.
Several public service facilities are located on Harker's Island,
including the Harker's Island Volunteer Fire Department and the
Harker's Island elementary school. On the east end of Harker's
Island, the National Park Service maintains a ferry terminal for
service to Cape Lookout and is developing park headquarters for Cape
Lookout National Seashore.
The Harker's Island Township includes a greater concentration of
fragile areas and other areas of environmental concern than any other
township. These include Browns Island, Core Banks, Shackleford Banks,
regularly and irregularly flooded salt marshes, maritime forest areas,
Core Sound outstanding resource waters, Morgan Island, and Middle
Marshes. These areas are described in detail in the Fragile Areas
Chapter. Development pressures will result in increasing conflicts
with environmentally -sensitive areas.
Accessibility to the Harker's Island Township area is limited.
Harker's Island lies across the North River from Beaufort. However,
it is a twenty -mile drive to reach Harker's Island by land. The only
land route is from Highway 70 across the Straits on S.R. 1335. Browns
Island, Middle Marshes, Shackleford Banks and Core Banks are accessi-
ble only by boat.
Harker's Island is unusual for a "Down East" community because it
has a central water system. However, no central sewer system is in
place to serve the increasing development.
Limitations to development include numerous environmentally sensi-
tive areas, lack of central sewer service, limited regional accessi-
bility, low elevation, and susceptibility to storm flooding.
I-58

1) Beaufort
The Beaufort Township lies at the center of Carteret County and is
primarily bordered on the east by the North River and on the west by
the Newport River and the Intracoastal Waterway. It is the eastern-
most township having significant development and population base. The
developed areas are concentrated in and around the Town of Beaufort,
the county seat. Carteret County does not have any planning jurisdic-
tion within the Town or Beaufort or its extraterritorial jurisdic-
tion.
The majority of the township's developed areas outside of the
Beaufort planning jurisdiction are scattered along both sides of
Highways 70 and 101 north of Beaufort. Most of this development
consists of residential usage with some scattered commercial activity.
The township's land area is predominantly forested and considered to
be "404" wetlands. Significant areas of agricultural usage are scat-
tered along Highways 70 and 101 on areas containing some of the town-
ship's better -drained soils. Ten CAMA major development permits have
been issued within the township since 1984, all located along Highway
70 and the Newport River shoreline -Highway 101 area (see Map 4).
The Beaufort Township includes the Michael J. Smith Field, a
general aviation facility, which is located off Highway 101 between
Beaufort and the Newport River. The airport is county -owned and is
managed by the Beaufort -Morehead City Airport Authority. It is locat-
ed within the Town of Beaufort extraterritorial planning jurisdiction.
The facility serves as an important general aviation airport and is
maintained in extremely good condition. Service is provided to
general business, the state port, medical facilities, and the travel-
ing public. If offshore drilling occurs, the significance of the
airport could rapidly increase. The airport is an asset which must be
developed and protected to maximize its future service capability in
Carteret County.
The southern two-thirds of the township within Carteret County
planning jurisdiction is zoned. The majority of the area is zoned
single-family residential. Concentrations of commercial zoning are
scattered along Highways 70 and 101. Some industrial zoning exists
north of the airport and along the Intracoastal Waterway.
There are numerous public service facilities located in Beaufort
Township. However, most of them are located in the Town of Beaufort
or its extraterritorial jurisdiction. Those include the Beaufort
Community Center, Beaufort Fire Department, Beaufort Middle School,
Beaufort Elementary School, Freedom Park, and the Carteret County
Courthouse and Administrative Offices Complex. Public facilities
within the township and within the county's jurisdiction include the
North River Volunteer Fire Department, the North River Community
Center, and the East Carteret High School.
I-59

Several major areas of environmental concern are located within
the township. The Rachel Carson National Estuarine Sanctuary includes
Carrot Island, Horse Island, Bird Shoal, and Town Marsh, and is locat-
ed within the Town of Beaufort extraterritorial jurisdiction. A large
portion of the North River marshes are located on the eastern boundary
of the township north and south of Highway 70. Additionally, exten-
sive "404" wetlands areas exist within the township.
Another area of concern is the 240-acre Radio Island. The island
is located in the Newport River and was created in 1936 as a spoil
area for the dredging of the Morehead City Channel. It also provides
a naval vessel loading/unloading facility. The Navy has considered
constructing a decontamination facility on the island, although the
island has long been viewed as an expansion area for state port facLl-
ities. Most of the island is zoned for port -industrial development.
However, some public interest has been expressed for preservation of
areas of the island for shoreline access.
The Town Creek Marina is located in Town Creek, adjacent to the
southern edge of Michael J. Smith Field. Town Creek is classified as
SC waters and has been closed to shellfishing for many years. The
marina was issued a CAMA permit in 1988. Issuance of the permit had
considerable support within the county. Its location was viewed as
the ideal type of area in which marinas should be constructed, thereby
avoiding marina construction in pristine waters.
The township's limitations to development include the following:
low elevation, susceptibility to storm flooding, wetlands, lack of
central water and sewer facilities outside of the Beaufort extraterri-
torial planning jurisdiction, and accessibility to the northern and
western areas of the township.
m) Harlowe
The Harlowe Township lies north of the Newport River. It is bor-
dered on the east side by the Intracoastal Waterway and on the west by
a line extending south from the intersection of Highway 101 and the
northern Carteret County line to approximately the headwater area of
the Newport River. The township has been primarily devoted to agri-
culture and commercial fishing. Commercial activity is scattered
along Highway 101. One fish house, a boatbuilding facility, and a
marina are located along the Intracoastal Waterway. A gradual
increase in residential development was beginning to occur in the
early to mid-1980s. This trend to residential development should
continue to occur because of the existence of good soil conditions
along areas of Highway 101, the Intracoastal Waterway, and the Newport
River shoreline. Most CAMA major development permit activity has been
located in areas of good soil conditions along the Intracoastal
Waterway and the Newport River shoreline (see Map 4). Increasing
development may infringe on the Sea Gate Woods fragile area which is
located in the northeast corner of the township near the Intracoastal
I-60

Waterway. In addition, some coastal wetlands exist along Harlowe
Creek. None of the township is zoned, although residents of the Sea
Gate community, a mixed residential community along the west bank of
the Intracoastal Waterway, have expressed interest in zoning.
Public service facilities are limited to the North River Community
Center. Fire protection is provided by the Harlowe Volunteer Fire
Department which is located in Craven County on Highway 101.
Limitations to development include 11404" wetlands areas primarily
north and east of Highway 101, fragile areas, and a lack of central
water and sewer facilities. The Sea Gate community is currently
attempting to obtain central sewer service.
n) Morehead
The Morehead Township extends along Bogue Sound from the Newport
River to Broad Creek. There is generally a landward extension north-
ward to Black Creek and the Town of Newport. The township is the most
heavily populated within the county. In 1980, there was a total popu-
lation of 15,803, or 38% of the county's population. By 1987, this
had increased to 20,740, indicating increasing strength in the town-
ship's population growth. Much of the township's population and
development are located in the incorporated areas of Morehead City,
Atlantic Beach, Pine Knoll Shores, Indian Beach, and Emerald Isle.
With the exception of a small section of Bogue Banks lying between the
west and east sections of Indian Beach, all areas of the township
under Carteret County's planning jurisdiction are located on the main-
land. The Morehead City extraterritorial jurisdiction extends west to
the intersection of U.S. 70 and N.C. 24. Thus, county jurisdiction
extends westward along U.S. 70 from the City of Morehead extraterri-
torial jurisdiction to the Newport extraterritorial jurisdiction and
westward along both sides of N.C. 24 to Broad Creek.
Morehead is the most densely populated township within the county.
All areas within the township under county jurisdiction are zoned
except Crab Point. Generally, the area lying one-half mile north and
south of U.S. 70 is zoned for commercial purposes with some industrial
zoning intermixed. The area along N.C. 24 is primarily residential
with some commercial zoning intermixed.
Development pressure within the township has been heavy. This iE
especially true for residential development along N.C. 24 and the
Bogue Sound area. The soils lying along Bogue Sound and N.C. 24 are
generally well drained and this has been a stimulant for development.
In 1990, construction is expected to begin on Phase I of the West
Carteret water system. Phase I will extend from Cedar Point along
N.C. 24 to McCabe Road. The provision of central water service will
serve as an additional stimulant to growth.
I-61

The township has been the strongest area of the county for commer-
cial and industrial development. It is anticipated that commercial
growth will accelerate along U.S. 70 between Morehead City and
Newport. In addition, industrial growth will expand. This growth
will be somewhat contained by the growth of central water and sewer
services within the township. In addition, continued development of
the state port will serve as a stimulant to industrial development.
If offshore drilling does occur, it is anticipated that there will be
a substantial impact on highway and rail transportation facilities
extending westward from Morehead through the township.
CAMA major permit activity has been very heavy in Morehead City
and its extraterritorial area with 25 permits issued after January,
1984. Minor permit activity in the Morehead City area has also been
heavy since 1984. However, major permit activity along Bogue Sound
has been minor, with only four major permits having been issued since
January, 1984 (see Map 4). This is expected to change, with increased
pressure for development occurring along the Bogue Sound area. The
portion of the township's shoreline from west of Gales Creek to Broad
Creek is adjacent to waters designated as outstanding Resource Waters.
The extension of water and sewer services into the township from
the incorporated areas will accelerate growth. In addition, the West
Carteret Water Corporation will extend water service into the western
edge of the township in the Broad Creek area. Densities will increase
and uninterrupted strip development may occur along U.S. 70 and
N.C. 24. Both highways will be subject to increasing traffic conges-
tion. In fact, N.C. 24 may already have become ineffective as a major
throughfare.
Shoreline -related commercial development within the Morehead town-
ship has been extensive, both within and outside of areas under muni-
cipal control. Within Morehead City and its extraterritorial jur-
isdiction, there are nine marinas and numerous fish house facilities.
Within the township area under county jurisdiction, there are seven
marinas, and one fish packing facility. Further development of shore-
line -dependent facilities is expected.
Numerous public facilities and services are located within the
township. However, most are located within Morehead City and its
extraterritorial jurisdiction. These include the Morehead City Fire
Department, Morehead City Community Center, Morehead City Elementary
School, Morehead Middle School, Camp Glenn School, West Carteret High
School, Swinson Park, and the Carteret Community College. Facilities
located within the county's jurisdiction include Broad Creek Middle
School, Broad and Gales Creek Volunteer Fire Department, Broad and
Gales Creek Community Center, and the Salter Path Volunteer Fire
Department.
Morehead Township has only a small portion of its total area
affected by fragile areas. These include the ocean hazard area on
Bogue Banks, wetlands areas (including significant pocosin areas), a
I-62

portion of the Bogue Sound Outstanding Resource Waters area, marsh
areas, and some wooded swamps. The majority of the land within the
township is suitable for development.
The township's limitations to development include increasing traf-
fic congestion on U.S. 70, N.C. 24, and N.C. 58, and some potential
conflicts with the Outstanding Resource Waters designation on a part
of Bogue Sound. Despite recent water system improvements sponsored by
the West Carteret Water Corporation, lack of central water and sewer
service also limits development in the township.
o) Newport
The Newport Township is located in the northern portion of
Carteret County and is centered on the Town of Newport and U.S. 70.
Except for a small portion of the Newport River shoreline, the Newport
Township is located entirely inland. It has less shoreline area than
any other township.
Outside of the Town of Newport and its extraterritorial area, the
township's land use is dominated by the Croatan National Forest. The
National Forest includes the following significant fragile areas: a
portion of Masontown pocosin, Union Point pocosin, limited Newport
River marsh areas, and extensive wooded swamp areas. The National
Forest and related fragile areas will continue to limit development
within the township. (Refer to Section F., Development Constraints.)
The growth within the township outside of Newport's planning
jurisdiction is located almost entirely along the U.S. 70 highway
corridor. This area of the township is zoned. The zoning is primari-
ly commercial with some scattered residential and industrial zoning.
Away from Newport and the U.S. 70 corridor, development is primarily
scattered at low densities. Limited concentrations of residential and
light commercial development exist in the unincorporated community of
Mill Creek, along Ninefoot Road west of Newport, and in agricultural
settlements along Deep and Little Deep Creeks.
Except for the Mill Creek Volunteer Fire Department and the
Newport Prison, all public facilities in the township are located
within the Town of Newport. Those include the Newport Fire
Department, Newport Elementary School, and the Newport Park.
Limitations to development include lack of central water and sewer
facilities, extensive fragile areas, and lack of a developed road
system outside of the U.S. 70 corridor and the Croatan National
Forest.
p) White Oak
The White Oak Township is located on the western end of Carteret
County. It includes 94 square miles and is the county's largest town-
ship. The eastern boundary is delineated by a line extending from
Broad Creek north to the county line. The western boundary is formed
I-63

along the White Oak River by the western Carteret County line. The
township extends across Bogue Sound to include a segment of Bogue
Banks and the Town of Emerald Isle.
The majority of the township's land area lies within the Croatan
National Forest. Development has been concentrated along N.C. 24 and
the Bogue Sound shoreline, and along U.S. 58 and the White Oak River.
Much of the commercial activity lies within the towns of Cedar Point
and Cape Carteret. Cape Carteret and Emerald Isle maintain their own
planning jurisdiction and authority. Cedar Point has contracted with
the county for the provision of planning services. Thus, this plan
will address land classification and policies within the Cedar Point
planning jurisdiction. Development has been encouraged along the
White Oak River and Bogue Sound by the existence of well -drained
soils. The southern half of the township is zoned. The majority of
the area is zoned for low -density residential development with some
scattered commercial zoning along Highways 24 and 58.
Development of shoreline -dependent activities has been limited to
Cedar Point and Cape Carteret where seven and three marinas have been
constructed, respectively. One marina exists on Bogue Bank in Emerald
Isle. A fish processing facility is located on the White Oak River.
Substantial CAMA major permit activity has occurred. There have been
14 permits issued within the area of county planning jurisdiction
since January, 1984 (see Map 4). Except for two permits on the White
Oak River, all have been on the Bogue Sound shoreline or in Cedar
Point. Eight permits have been issued within Cape Carteret and six in
Emerald Isle's planning jurisdiction since January, 1984. Major
development activity may be expected to continue.
The U.S. Marine Corps Air Station operates Bogue Field as an
Outlying Landing Field. The facility is regularly utilized by jet
aircraft. An increasing conflict exists with development near the
airfield, especially residential usage. Close coordination and plan-
ning must be maintained between Carteret County and Marine Corps
officials to prohibit increased land use conflicts and to reduce the
noise impacts from use of the facility.
Central sewer facilities do not exist. However, the West Carteret
Water Corporation will begin construction of Phase I of its water
system along N.C. 24 from Cedar Point to McCabe Road in Morehead
Township in the winter of 1990. A schedule has not yet been esta-
blished for the construction of Phase II along N.C. 58.
The White Oak Township contains extensive fragile areas. These
include the sound and shoreline areas under CAMA jurisdiction, and
extensive inland and fresh water areas. The areas are Croatan
National Forest, wooded swamps, regular and irregularly flooded salt
marshes, numerous pocosins, "404" wetlands areas, Bogue Sound
Outstanding Resource Waters, and numerous islands in the Bogue Sound
and White Oak River. (A detailed description of the fragile areas is
provided in Section F., Development Constraints.) Because of the
I-64

environmentally -sensitive areas and generally poor conditions for
construction, development will continue to be extremely limited in the
area north of N.C. 24 and east of U.S. 58.
Public facilities are limited. Those within the county's area of
jurisdiction include the Stella Community Center and Stella Volunteer
Fire Department. The facilities located within incorporated areas
include the Emerald Isle Volunteer Fire Department, the Cape Carteret
Volunteer Fire Department, and the White Oak Elementary School.
There are numerous limitations to development in the White Oak
Township. Most of the limitations are fragile areas. Others include
the Bogue Sound Outstanding Resource Water designation, lack of cen-
tral sewer facilities, air operations at the Marine Corps Bogue
Outlying Landing Field, and rapidly increasing traffic congestion on
N.C. 24.
I-65

E. LAND AND WATER USE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS
1. General Discussion
The development constraints chapter of this plan will detail the
.importance of Carteret County's water areas. Bogue, Back, Core, and
Pamlico Sounds are all significant marine water resources. These
environmentally -sensitive areas also attract development to Carteret
County. The 1989 designation of Core Sound, the western half of Bogue
Sound, Back Sound, and southeast Pamlico Sound as Outstanding Resource
Waters will have strong implications for the control of development.
In addition, numerous primary nursery areas exist outside of the ORW
designated areas on Bogue Sound, Newport River, West Bay, Long Bay,
South River, Adams Creek, White Oak River, and Neuse River. These
nursery areas are environmentally important and may also limit
development.
Existing land and water use compatibility problems in Carteret
County's planning jurisdiction are summarized as follows:
-- Continued development of scattered point discharge sources of
pollution along the county's shoreline (see Map 3).
-- Continuing marine development (see Map 4).
-- Development in areas not having central sewer service, espe-
cially along the N.C. 24 corridor in Western Carteret County.
-- Conversion of extensive "404" wetlands areas to agricultural
usage and increased agricultural run-off of surface drainage.
-- Increased impervious areas resulting in greater fresh water
run-off.
-- Increased dredging activities associated with marinas and other
shoreline developments.
-- Military air operations over residential areas; water areas
utilized for recreation; commercial fishing; and natural
areas.
2. Unplanned Development
Problems resulting from unplanned development have decreased
during the 1980s. The county has increased the area zoned and has
strengthened both the zoning and subdivision regulations. However,
there are areas scattered within the county's planning jurisdiction
where significant problems have resulted from unplanned development.
The 1985 Carteret County Land Use Plan cited Harker's Island as
having "piecemeal site development and an extensive amount of unpaved
roads." This situation still exists. As traffic increases and the
peak population grows, the problems of congestion and conflicting land
I-66

uses will intensify. The county should consider zoning Harker's
Island to limit density and regulate land usage. On the positive
side, the availability of a central water system helps minimize the
problems associated with uncontrolled growth on Harker's Island.
Also, although no central sewer is yet in place on Harker's Island,
the community has already prepared a sewer feasibility study, and
plans to actively pursue construction of a sewer system.
The N.C. 24 corridor in Western Carteret County is zoned. How-
ever, strip development and numerous residential and commercial
entrances to this highway have been constructed. There has been
little comprehensive transportation planning. A comprehensive carry
capacity study and transportation plan for the N.C. 24 corridor should
be developed. The county should investigate the possibility of
requiring developments to install acceleration and deceleration lanes
at entrances. In addition, planning for the N.C. 24 corridor should
consider the impact of the construction of a third bridge connecting
the mainland and Bogue Banks.
The 1985 plan cited the proliferation of growth along the U.S. 70
corridor as a problem. The following description was included in the
1985 plan and is still considered to be accurate:
"U.S. 70 west of Morehead City is increasingly under pressure
as the main corridor between the Piedmont and the State Ports
Authority Terminal and Bogue Bank beaches, and as the central
commercial resource to support these activities. The corri-
dor also carries the rail line into the port, which limits
the design of left turn areas. The safety hazards along such
a corridor stem primarily from the number of curb cuts used
to serve the many small parcels along the route. If the
number of curb cuts could be curtailed along now developing
portions of U.S. 70, pressures on the highway would be
eased."
The problems stemming from intense development and traffic con-
gestion have increased since 1985. The county should develop a com-
prehensive transportation plan for the U.S. 70 corridor.
Perhaps the county's greatest problem stemming from a lack of
planning is the failure to deal comprehensively with sewage treatment.
Only Morehead City, Beaufort, and Newport provide municipal sewage
treatment. With the exception of shoreline -related development served
by package treatment plants and some areas adjacent to the three muni-
cipalities with existing central sewer systems, the unincorporated
areas of the county are without central sewer service. During 1989, a
Carteret County Water and Sewer Task Force was appointed to investi-
gate and recommend an approach to solving the problem of sewer service
and sewage disposal within the county. The short-term recommendation
for disposal was land application, while the long-term disposal solu-
tion was recommended to be ocean outfall. It was also recommended
that no new public systems should be permitted, and that the existing
I-67

estuarine discharge system should be eliminated within 20 years. In
addition, the task force recommended removing any density bonuses
associated with the provision of centralized wastewater systems.
Regardless of the solution, the comprehensive development of a central
sewer system is crucial to the proper development of Western Carteret
County. Continued low density in most of the "Down East" area will
probably prohibit construction of central sewer systems within the
next five to ten years.
3. Changes in Predominant Land Uses
The general pattern of development in Carteret County will con-
tinue. The "Down East" area will remain primarily a low density area
with large expanses of undeveloped land. Western Carteret County will
intensively develop except in wetlands and other environmentally sen-
sitive areas. Land category changes which may be expected are summa-
rized as follows:
-- Annually, a small portion of "404" wetlands areas will be lost
to either agriculture or development.
-- Agricultural areas adjacent to incorporated areas and along
the N.C. 24 and U.S. 70 corridors will continue to be converted
to urban uses.
-- Residential use in the "Down East" area will increase as the
significance of the area for retirement develops.
-- The Bogue and Core Sound ORW
shoreline developments that
lution discharge.
4. Summary
designations will slow or prohibit
cause additional point source pol-
Carteret County is confronted with the complete range of land use
issues and problems being experienced by North Carolina's coastal
counties. The existing land use section has only highlighted the
problems. To more fully understand the issues, it is necessary to
read this plan in its entirety. The policies included in this docu-
ment must clearly address the following land use issues:
-- Increasing density of development in areas not serviced by
central water and sewer facilities.
-- Increasing marinas and dry stack facilities.
-- Low elevation and sea level rise.
-- Rapidly increasing traffic congestion in the U.S. 70 and N.C.
24 corridors.
B

-- Conflicts between adjacent/nearby land uses and operation of
aircraft at the Atlantic and Bogue Marine Corps Outlying
Landing Fields.
-- Extensive military operations areas and restricted airspace
areas within Carteret County.
-- The desirability of establishing offshore drilling and the
receipt and transfer of oil or natural gas at the state port
facilities.
-- The development of 11404" wetlands areas.
-- The development of a strategy for sewage disposal, including
the county's position on the development of package treatment
plants.
-- Regulation of development in areas adjacent to the Outstanding
Resource Waters in Bogue and Core Sounds.
-- Development of the Piney Island bombing range.
-- Control of development in fragile and other areas of environ-
mental concern.
-- Protection of important commercial fishing areas.
-- Development of the aquaculture industry.
-- Regulation of "corporate" farms and increased run-off of agri-
cultural drainage.
-- Development of alternatives to the existing county solid waste
disposal system.
-- Provision of public shoreline access and shoreline- and non -
shoreline -related recreation areas.
I-69

F. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS: LAND SUITABILITY
This section of the land use plan focuses on those features of the
county's landscape that pose serious limitations, or in some cases,
definite obstacles to development. These areas may be divided into
the categories of physical limitations, fragile areas, and areas with
resource potential. These areas are primarily defined by natural
features and there is very little subjective choice allowed in deter-
mining their locations. These constraints will strongly influence the
preparation of the land classification map.
1. Topography/Geology
Carteret County is located in the south-central part of the North
Carolina coastal plain. In general, the county's land surface is a
plain representing a former sea floor that has been elevated above sea
level in the relatively recent geologic past. The existing plain
slopes toward the Atlantic Ocean at an overall rate of less than three
feet per mile, and the topography is flat and largely swampy. The sea
has gradually returned to cover much of the low ground in the coastal
bays, and extends up the streams to form broad estuaries. Wave and
tidal action have built up a chain of offshore bars or banks, which
border the ocean and are separated from the remainder of the county by
Bogue, Bank, and Core Sounds.
The south-central part of the Carteret County mainland is drained
by the Newport and North Rivers, the western part by the White Oak
River, and the eastern and north -central parts by the,Pamlico Sound
and Neuse River estuary system. Commonly, terraces extending in width
up to a mile border the more inland extent of the rivers, composing
much of the freshwater wetlands in the county. The lower estuarine
system is bordered primarily by saltwater wetlands and ultimately,
sand beaches at the ocean juncture.
The county is underlain by an eastward -thickening wedge of sedi-
mentary deposits of Pleistocene -age, ranging from 2,000 feet thick in
the northwest portions of the county to almost 7,000 feet thick
beneath the easternmost sections of offshore strand. Because of the
depth of the surficial sand/silaceous deposits, little is known of the
composition of underlying deposits. Well logs indicate that shell
fragments and calcareous material are consolidated into a limestone at
a depth of less than 120 feet west of Morehead City, and at increasing
depths further eastward. Microfossils obtained from some well samples
indicate that the uppermost consolidated limestone is probably part of
the Yorktown formation.
I-70

2. Flood Hazard Areas
Carteret County is affected by flooding resulting from storm
surge, local ponding of water, and some limited flooding resulting
from inland water discharge. The county is generally flat. From the
highest inland elevations of 45 feet, the land areas gradually slope
toward the shoreline areas. Approximately 60 percent of the county's
land area lies at fifteen feet mean sea level or less and is
potentially subject to flooding.
North Carolina frequently experiences hurricanes, tropical storms,
and northeasters. Hurricanes normally pass over a coastal location in
a portion of a day, while a northeaster may blow from the same direc-
tion for several days. Flooding from northeasters regularly occurs in
the low-lying areas, in particular, in the "Down East" portion of the
county and along the Outer Banks.
Within the county as a whole, the greater storm surge impact
occurs from hurricanes. Map 9 shows the areas of Carteret County
which may be affected by hurricane -generated storm surge. The various
categories of storm surge areas are defined as follows:
Category 1. Winds of 74 to 95 miles per hour. Damage primarily
to shrubbery, trees, foliage, and unanchored mobile homes. No
appreciable wind damage to other structures. Some damage to
poorly constructed signs. Storm surge possibly 4 to 5 feet
above normal. Low-lying coastal roads inundated, minor pier
damage, some small craft in exposed anchorage torn from
moorings.
Category 2. Winds of 96 to 110 miles per hour. Considerable
damage to shrubbery and tree foliage; some trees blown down.
Major damage to exposed mobile homes. Extensive damage to
poorly constructed signs. Some damage to roofing materials of
buildings; some window and door damage. No major wind damage to
buildings. Storm surge possibly 6 to 8 feet above normal.
Coastal roads and low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising
water 2 to 4 hours before arrival of hurricane center. Consid-
erable damage to piers. Marinas flooded. Small craft in
unprotected anchorages torn from moorings. Evacuation of some
shoreline residences and low-lying island areas required.
Category 3. Winds of 121 to 130 miles per hour. Foliage torn
from trees; large trees blown down. Practically all poorly
constructed signs blown down. Some damage to roofing materials
-- of buildings; some window and door damage. Some structural
damage to small buildings. Mobile homes destroyed. Storm surge
possibly 9 to 12 feet above normal. Serious flooding at coast
and many smaller structures near coast destroyed; larger struc-
tures near coast damaged by battering waves and floating debris.
Low-lying escape route inland cut by rising water 3 to 5 hours
before hurricane center arrives.
I-71

Category 4. Winds of 131 to 155 miles per hour. Shrubs and
trees blown down; all signs down. Extensive damage to roofing
materials, windows, and doors. Complete failure of roofs on
many small residences. Complete destruction of mobile homes.
Storm surge possibly 13 to 18 feet above normal. Major damage
to lower floors of structures near shore due to flooding and
battering by waves and -floating debris. Low-lying escape routes
inland cut by rising water to 5 hours before hurricane center
arrives. Major erosion of beaches.
Category 5. Winds greater than 155 miles per hour. Shrubs and
trees blown down; considerable damage to roofs of buildings; all
signs down. very severe and extensive damage to windows and
doors. Complete failure of roofs on many residences and
industrial buildings. Extensive shattering of glass in windows
and doors. Some complete building failures. Small buildings
overturned or blown away. Complete destruction of mobile homes.
Storm surge possibly greater than 18 feet above normal. Major
damage to lower floors of all structures less than 15 feet above
sea level. Low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising water 3
to 5 hours before hurricane center arrives.
The most severely affected section of the county during a major
storm would be the "Down East" area. A Category 3 storm would
inundate over 50 percent of eastern Carteret County and flood almost
all highways. Only a small area west of the Atlantic community would
be spared flooding. In Western Carteret County, the areas of storm -
induced flood lie along sound and river shoreline areas and on Bogue
Banks.
A long-range flooding problem may result from anticipated sea
level rise. During the past century, the sea has risen approximately
one foot. Generally, experts expect the sea level rise to accelerate
over the next century and rise an additional four to seven feet. If
this anticipated increase in sea level occurs, the impact on Carteret
County will be substantial. The areas shown on Map 9 as the Category
1 and 2 storm surge areas would be almost totally inundated by a seven
foot sea level rise. This will result in the loss of approximately 20
percent of the mainland land area, almost all of Shackleford and Core
Banks, and approximately half of Bogue Banks. With the exception of
the Atlantic community and portions of Harker's Island and Cedar
Island, all "Down East" communities would be inundated. In addition,
substantial salt marsh areas would be lost. The whole issue of sea
level rise has serious implications for Carteret County, and the rate
of rise must be carefully monitored.
I-72

3. Groundwater Resources
In Carteret County, two chief types of geologic water -bearing
formations, or aquifers, exist. The surficial sands that cover the
entire county supply water for most private domestic and commercial
use. The water table in the surficial sand aquifer is within ten feet
of ground level throughout the county. However, in the western
portion of the county, the sands extend only 10-30 feet deep and do
not yield enough water for industrial or heavy commercial use. In the
eastern portion of the county, the surficial sands extend down 300-400
feet. In these areas, well yields of up to several hundred gallons
per minute are possible, provided salt water encroachment is not a
problem at shallow depth. Generally, water from the surficial aquifer
has a high mineral content and is often treated by residents for
potable use.
The surficial sands are underlain by unconsolidated and
consolidated limestone formations. The uppermost formation is the
Yorktown formation, which is underlain by the Castle Hayne formation.
Together, the two limestone formations contain the tertiary limestone,
or artesian, aquifer for Carteret County. Although both formations
contain unconsolidated sand and calcareous sand beds, almost all wells
entering the limestone draw water from consolidated or rock areas.
All existing municipal wells and domestic water association (Bogue
Banks, Harker's Island) wells in Carteret County draw fresh water from
the artesian limestone aquifer.
The potential yield from the limestone aquifer is contingent upon
location. The tertiary limestone layer thickens from 600 feet to
1,400 feet moving eastward through the county; however, depth to the
top of the aquifer and the potential for salt water intrusion increase
in the eastern part of the county. Based on these considerations,
potential yields are highest in the western and central portions of
the county's mainland. In certain areas, yields of up to several
thousand gallons per minute are conceivable. Smaller yields of a few
hundred gallons per minute from limestone artesian wells in the
eastern mainland and southern banks portions are possible, and
artesian wells may provide a suitable resource for small municipal
water associations in these areas.
Water pumped from the artesian limestone aquifer is hard, with
high levels of dissolved calcium and bicarbonate. Test wells have not
indicated an aquiclude or impermeable stratum separating fresh and
salt water layers in the limestone. However, it appears that in the
western and central areas of the county, where yields are the highest,
salt water encroachment is not yet a problem due to the high
permeability of the limestone. Increasing fresh water withdrawal,
resulting in a larger depression of the artesian water surface, will
increase the potential for brackish water intrusion. About 2,500
square miles of the Castle Hayne aquifer, including the portion
underlying Carteret County, have been designated as'a capacity use
area by the N.C. Groundwater Section due to large (68 MGD in 1986)
groundwater withdrawals by the Texas Gulf phosphate mine near Aurora.
I-73

A capacity use area is defined as an area where the use of water
resources threatens to exceed the replenishment ability to the extent
that regulation may be required.
Below the limestone aquifer there is a lower sandy aquifer that
ranges from 1,400 feet thick in the western portion of the county to
over 4,000 feet thick in the east. However, salt water intrusion
makes this aquifer unsuitable for domestic supply.
4. Areas with Soils Limitations
A detailed soils survey has been completed for Carteret County.
There are 53 different soil types in the county. These are identified
in Appendix II. Twenty-three (23) of these are considered hydric
(wet) soils, and only 10 are considered to be soils having only slight
limitations for construction. It is impossible to provide detailed
soils maps in this plan because of map size and scale. However, Map 6
provides a general soils map of Carteret County.
In general, the soils in Carteret County have limitations for many
uses because of wetness, rapid permeability, slow permeability, or low
strength. Most of the soil types, however, are suitable for various
agricultural uses if proper drainage is provided.
With the county's rapidly increasing development and the absence
of centralized sewer service in many areas, the extent of soils suit-
able for urban development and septic tank usage is extremely impor-
tant. These soils are shown on the general soils map as
Area 8/Baymeade-Onslow-Lynchburg Association, and Area 9/Altavista-
Augusta-State Association. Most of these areas are located in Western
Carteret County along the White Oak River, Bogue Sound shoreline,
Newport River, and on Bogue Banks. These will be the areas in the
county most suited for development. The Newhan-Corolla-Beaches Asso-
ciation is located on Bogue Banks and is also suited for development.
5. Manmade Hazards
There are numerous manmade hazards which will serve as obstacles
to development in Carteret County. These include:
Marine Corps Bogue Air Landing Field
Atlantic Outlying Field
Point of Marsh and Piney Island
Bombing and Electronic War Warfare Range
Restricted Air Military Operations Area R-S306A
Radio Island Aviation Fuel Terminal
Beaufort -Morehead Airport
In addition, there are numerous locations throughout the county
where hazardous materials are stored. The specific locations are
provided in Appendix III.
I-74

Each area outlined on this map consists of
more than one kind of soil. The map is thus
meant for general planning rather than a basis
for decisions on the use of specific tracts.
The preparation of this map was
financed In part through a grant
provided by the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program,
through funds provided by the
Coastal Zone Management Act of
-- 1972, as amended, which Is
administered by the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
CRAVEN — r.
2 11 /
7
VET COx> �, 2 ratio I 10 2 A'°>•ert
JO i q tiurl`r _ n GAO 11 •'a' 4 .. ._ rt J 8 2
PRI
4
SOUND
Told el g anus
o • Is
BO�ue n
I a ' 76'50'
0
I
77.00'
t D
� a n
A t l
i
vLL`
N e u s e
R i v e r
B d y
ace`.. I She
a 8
0 76.40' car_-
0 c e a n
Swan Islands
P-a titcico
T
Ronan
3
I
'vim
3
4
.. Lori
(r.�Ltmsnl.W
SOUND
76.10'
GENERAL SOIL MAP
�10/ Th. n1q ¢°`
LEGEND
lay
goy
VERY POORLY DRAINED AND POORLY DRAINED,
11
MINERAL SOILS: ON UPLAN08 ANO TERRACES
d GO
�.i
t
Debisdand.,Maaae: Nearly level. Very
ALlanlic0 0
ina
aramea and oaorty claimed.loamy sanx: on law manne era
stream terraces
3 1,
O
Tarhonte-Partin gains; Nearly level. very poorly aramea
Vlasontow
eales-el 0
ono poorly °rimed. loamy sons: on uoNn°s
�o
3�J
6 2 �n4r
VERY POORLY DRAINED. ORGANIC ANO MINERAL
SOILS: IN SALT MARSHES
+JL
5—34'S0'
3
,
,O
mtl: Hearin level. very poorly
claimed. muck and si
emm�. matey and sanay m Is: in marshes goodee
O _
Inerrancy was salt warar
76'20'
Davis 10
3
EXCESSIVELY DRAINED TO VERY POORLY DRAINED.
IIIIaLOR - C
MINERAL SOILS: ON UPLANDS AND TERRACES
�h
.y
CW8V s Q� m�
IDavis
Leon- Hearty l toand govany
rt�1n�1 A L
`�j li'f{. a•.
weird. wry drained. smara it P c
clone anlrrca, very et have:, and whidnnor poorly
draned. sandy ml,d Nat have a sudma m roan organic
maMrhasamunwted: on uplanas and low marine
1 r3lsland
lerraoes
/]v� b
_ g2 C
o/ ~
®
Mistake SeabrookKureb: Nearly level M gently solving. well
Uramed. moceraRhweN arainaa. and excessively dranwd.
xy
. NYalshallbqe_ G° .` L
sandy will: an uplands and terraces
uth�wo Browns ai `
Islantl t
` 1
VERY POORLY ORAINEO. ORGANIC SOILS AND MINERAL
0 ;ate
SOILS THAT HAVE A MUCKY SURFACE LAYER: ON
`ialsy�E"'sBar'ueh p
UPLANDS AND TERRACES
S a C
OC'vD
EE
Ponaer-Wasda-8elhaM Y; Nearly level. very coonle
, das.
mucky sons: an my marine terraces
34.40'
I a 4 oa /
Crolbn: Nearly level. very Four, drained, mucky Sans: ql
o c
uclems
` 6 30'
WELL DRAINED TO SOMEWHAT POORLY DRAINED.
MINERAL SOILS: ON UPLANDS AND TERRACES
8aymeade.0nskawlynenburg: Nearly level m gently skes-
ing,
dramnC to vmewin hal pta/ aralned, carat andloamyy
ells: on uplands
s
Maimed, mmewmt cantle dreamt. and well drained. sanW
sills: an low marine and iNeam terraces
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, FOREST SERVICE
EXCESSIVELYDRAINEDAND RA WELL
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DRAINED TO SOMEWHAT POORLYRLY DRAINED. MINERAL
SOILS ANO BEACHES: ON THE OUTER BANKS
NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
®
He n-Cordlla�W. Nearly Ill as maderaMy steep.
esckma ly ormned and mWerately all dlemed m elms
CARTERET COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
wort leky dramea. sand, inns and assures: on Me Outer
GENERALSOIL MAP
Banks
CARTERET COUNTY
VERY POORLY DRAINED. MINERAL AND ORGANIC
SOILS: ON FLOOD PLAINS
NORTHCAROLINA
II;
hosersenaorava.: NeaIll leyel.very coarlydramed.
mucky sods°ut are noodled lrenermy: on hood plains
Scale 1:316,800
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles
l
'Me feature given in Me numbered descnmmns rem W
I
Me temre of in. surtam layer of Ne mamr macs.
1 0 5 10 Ken
COMPILED 1986
MAP 6

The most serious conflicts with development are the military air
operations (MOAs) and bombing range facilities. Development near
Bogue Field is causing increasing conflicts, and aircraft operations
have serious noise impacts on developed areas. There is also the
potential for aircraft crashes. Simultaneous with the preparation of
this plan, expansions of the MOAs were being considered which would
increase the manmade hazards. Atlantic Field is partially closed, but
additional activities would cause serious conflict with the Atlantic
community. The bombing range and restricted area R-S306A (see Map 7)
restrict civilian aircraft operations and are incompatible with many
non-military land uses, including recreational and residential uses.
The Radio Island Aviation Fuel Terminal is the largest hazardous
materials facility in the county. The terminal is under county
planning jurisdiction. Shipments of aviation fuel regularly travel by
rail to Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station through Morehead City
and Central Carteret County.
The Beaufort -Morehead Airport is located within the Town of
Beaufort's planning jurisdiction. Presently, the airport's general
aviation activity has limited adverse impacts on surrounding areas.
However, expansion of the airport and the introduction of jet aircraft
could lead to conflicts and increased hazards for surrounding develop-
ment. The establishment of offshore drilling would be a strong
stimulant for airport development.
6. Fragile Areas
Fragile areas are areas which could easily be damaged or destroyed
by inappropriate or poorly planned development. There are numerous
important fragile areas in Carteret County. The areas include both
Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) as shown on Map 8, and natural
resource fragile areas, as shown on Map 10. Most of the inland
fragile areas are located away from high growth areas. However, there
are many conflicts in the coastal/shoreline areas of the county
between development and AECs and fragile areas.
a) Coastal Wetlands
The coastal wetlands are generally delineated on Map 8, Areas of
Environmental Concern. However, it is emphasized that the
specific locations of coastal wetlands can be determined only
through on -site investigation and analysis. Coastal wetlands are
defined as salt marshes regularly- or irregularly -flooded by
tides, including wind tides, provided this shall not include
hurricane or tropical storm tides. This area contains some, but
not necessarily all of the following marsh plant species:
Cordgrass, salt marsh, Black Needlerush, Glasswort, Salt Grass,
Sea Lavendar, Bulrush, Saw Grass, Cat -tail, Salt Meadow Grass, and
Salt Reed Grass. The coastal wetlands are vital to the complex
food chain found in estuaries. They provide marine nursery areas
and are essential to a sound commercial fishing industry. Coastal
wetlands also serve as barriers against flood damage and control
erosion between the estuary and uplands.
I-76

PAMLICO CO.
�l
r
i
i
CITY
/ 11F, J�O
QP�
CARTERET COUNTY
GENERAL DELINEATION MILITARY AVIATION
RESTRICTED AREAS
MAP 7
AUFORT
BOUNDARY RESTRICTED
AREAS
SCALE
0 5 10 20 SCALE OF MILES
The preparation of this map was
financed In part through a grant
provided by the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program,
through funds provided by the
Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972, as amended, which Is
administered by the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.

NOTES:
CARTERET COUNTY
'�A
GOJ
�OrlF.s
1
I
�w
I � �
� Y
O � -
U
IO
0
o .­e3
L All waters under the jurisdiction of Carteret
County are. either Estuarine Waters or Public
Trust Areas as defined in 15 NCAC 7KO206
Estuarine Waters and .0207 Public Trust Areas.
Outstanding Resource Waters areas are Public
Trust Areas of Environmental Concern.
2. In shoreline areas not contiguous to waters
classified as Oustonding Resource Waters by the
Environmental Management Commisson, all land 75
feet landward from the mean high water level or
normal water level am considered to be Estuarine
Shorelines. in shoreline areas contiguous to '
waters classified as Outstanding Resource Waters
by the Environmental Management Commission, all
land 575 feet landward from the mean high water
level or normal water level are considered to be
Estuarine Shoreiines.
3. On all islands under Carteret County jurisdiction
locations of Coastal Wetland areas must be
determined through on -site analysis.
4. Shockleford Banks, Cape Lookout, Core
Banks, and Portsmouth Island are a part of the
National Seashore System and not under the
planning jurisdiction of Carteret County.
5. The Emerald Isle Beach corporate
limit line extends 4200 feet Into Bogus
Sound and parallels the Bogus Sound
shoreline.
6. A portion of the Theodore Roosevelt Natural
Area has been designated a Outstanding Resource
Waters. The designation does not extend Into the
saline waters of Bogue Sound. This entire ORW
Is under the jurisdiction of Pine Knoll Shores and
is not delineated on the Carteret County Land
Classification Map.
S0'JN0
OCEAN
ATLANTIC
P\'4EP
N�056
ftEl?
SU
1 0 1 2 ] 4 NLFS
Yy _.
- �aa
CAPE LOOKOUT
AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
AND OTHER FRAGILE AREAS
MAP 8
PAMLICO SOUND
wesrear _`
_
preparation of this map was
financed in
part through a grant
provided by the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program,
through funds provided by the
Coastal Zone Management Act of
e _
_
1972, as amended, which is
administered by the Office of
--- -_ --
-
Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and
LEGEND Atmospheric Adminlstration.
7,-71
COASTAL WETLANDS
s`-'-
See Note 3
See Note I
ESTUARINE WATERS
See Note 2
ESTUARINE SHORELINE
See Note I
PUBLIC TRUST AREAS
OCEAN HAZARD AREAS
_
PRIMARY NURSERY AREAS
®
OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS
_
FRAGILE AREAS
---
COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE
INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT
MACON NOT UNDER CARTERET
COUNTY PLANNING JURISDICTION
EXTRA -TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
AREAS NOT UNDER CARTERET
COUNTY PLANNING JURISDICTION
HIGH HAZARD FLOOD AREAS: Refer to AEC
Supplemental
Map, MAP
—�
TOWN OF CEDAR POINT
CORPORATE LIMIT LINE,

I rr_pnln
CA
C4
The preparation of this map was
financed in part through a grant
provided by the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program,
through funds provided by the
Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972, as amended, which is
administered by the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
o I z
SC4 E IN "LES
CARTERET COUNTY
FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
MAP 9.

SITES LISTED N THE NATIONAL REGISTER
OF HISTORIC PLACES
L CAPE LOOKOUT COAST GUARD STARON
2. CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHT STATION
3. PORTSMOUTH VILLAGE
CROATAN NATIONAL
. STTES ON THE STUDY LIST FOR FUTURE
INCLUSION M THE NATIONAL REGISTER
L RUFIS BELL HOUSE
2. HANDY CREEK PRIMITIVE BAPTIST CHURCH
3. OCTAGON MOISE
CRAVEN COUNTY
...-..ram...,; /� BI2
A5
.3 ' `'�'' G U E 9 woH•�
A-TLANT)C OCEAN
Pa4ER
B
NEWPoR '0T:
T RIVER •'�7 �3 ¢
�5 '...._.r'' • B6 x
YY.n. � TK STPAl1S
O
n...ea..n. �
a rm B4C"�Le
Sot,%
A7
SAIL
I o 1 2 a ♦ MLO
CAPE LOOKOUT
PAMLICO SOUND
A2
_p
s
Boy
80
CARTERET COUNTY
NATURAL RESOURCE AND FRAGILE AREAS
NAP 10
• C2
/10
TN. w.om.Ho,. of mM moo .e.
Rlmew W parl tf.wlA a pml
prvrM.4 !Y III. Nef1A Co1eY1m
Cee.Nl Meneq.nvnf PrevmL
C.o Z. PmM.4 f A
Comtl Zan. I .,i w ch 1 Atl .1
I972 as em.ne.A .Net I.
am.fNf. fA m. 011k. el
Ocwn vq Cov.W R Oc..
Mmmsphw L N tlm v.A
AImo.PMr14 A6eY1MFe11pL
.
LEGEND
NATURAL AREA LOCATIONS
NATIONAL PRIORITY AREAS
AI CEDAR ISLAND MARSHES
A2 CEDAR ISLAND - NORM SAY BARREA ISLANDA3
CORE BANKS MD PORTSMOUTH ISLAND
A4 CROATAN FOCOSNS
Z=WOODEDSWAWS
AS M LONGLEAF FINE SAVANNAH ANDAS
PATSY FOND NATURAL AREA
AT SNACKLEFORD BANKSTATEWIDE
AND REGIONAL PRIORITY AREAS
BI ATLANTIC NATURAL AREA 012
NNE FOOD ROAD UMESNL
COMPLEX
B2 BROWNS ISLAND
'
83 HAONOT CREEK ON WHITE OAK RIVER 813
SALTER PATH DI1NE5
A3 •.:.
IRREGULARLYSMMRSHFLOODED
B4 AND LONGLEAF
%OD�L
NATIONAL AREA
PONOS
pQ
BS MASONTOWN POCOM B14
WHITE OAK RIVER - CEDAF
REGULARLY FLCODEO
SALT MARSH
e6 NORM LAVER MARSHES
PONT MARSHES -
B7 PRPOLE ROAD. CAROLNA BAYS
NON•WETLAND
86 SEA GATE WOODS
POSSIBLE 404 WETLAND
B9 UNION PONT POCO.SN
r�
AREAS
BID WALKERS ILL POND
all WILDBERBY WOODS
•
WLDML WATERBMD NEST G ISLANDS
CI . BOGUE INLET HERONRY
C2 GORE SOUND (WAINWRIGHT) NESTING ISLANDS
CS DAP ISLAND
C4 MORGAN ISLAM
CS PHILLPS AND AMEX ISLANDS
---
COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE
INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT
TOWN OF CEDAR POINT
MACON NOT UNDER CARTERET
CORPORATE UNIT LINE
COUNTY PLANNING AIRSOIrnON
EXTRA -TERRITORIAL XRLSOICTION
AREAS NOT UNDER CARTERET
CROATAN NATIONAL FOREST:
COUNTY PLANNINGJURSDIrnoN
S4In..eell.nA pareeb en
leeelw nIM te. MuewH..
of Uu C.I. Netle.m Porc.l
NOTE SSocM.f M BON., C.P. LoebuL Con
.N . eel N.4... Vy a.nw
pmp ele
Be k mle ftmme.IA Iwew . 4 pmf of IN.
.
Naliwd See.Mm Sy.f.m a m, Inds S,
Plft Hg N.tndWffen of Ca # Comfy.
NOTE: THE EMERALD ISLE BEACH CORPORATE
LINT LINE EXTENDS U200 FEET INTO BOGIE
SOUND AND PARALLELS THE ROGUE SOLID
SHORELNE

b) Ocean Dunes
Ocean dunes include both primary dunes and frontal dunes. All of
the county's ocean dune areas are located on Bogue, Shackleford,
and Core Banks. The only area under county jurisdiction is
approximately a 3,000 foot stretch of Bogue Banks at Salter Path.
Primary dunes are the first mounds of sand located landward of the
ocean beaches having an elevation equal to the mean flood level
(in a storm having a one percent chance of being equaled or
exceeded in any given space) for the area plus six feet. The
primary dune extends landward to the lowest elevation in the
depression behind that same mound of sand. In areas where there
is a primary dune, that dune shall be deemed to be the frontal
dune. Where there is no primary dune, the frontal dune is deemed
to be the first mound of sand located landward of the ocean beach
having sufficient vegetation, height, continuity and configuration
to offer protective value. The dunes are essential to the protec-
tion of oceanfront areas.
c) Ocean Beaches and Shorelines
Ocean beaches are lands consisting of unconsolidated soil mater-
ials that extend from the mean low water line landward to a point
where either (1) the growth of vegetation occurs, or (2) a dis-
tinct change in slope or elevation alters the configuration of the
land form, whichever is farther landward. The only area of ocean
beach under Carteret County planning jurisdiction is a 3,000 foot
stretch of Bogue Banks at Salter Path.
d) Estuarine Waters
Estuarine waters are generally brackish waters found in coastal
estuaries and bays. Within Carteret County they include waters
located within the Bogue, Core, and Back Bays and southeast
Pamlico Sound ORW areas. (Refer to Page I-90.) They are the
dominant component and bonding element of the entire estuarine
system, integrating aquatic influences from both the land and the
sea. The estuarine waters are among the most productive natural
environments of Carteret County. The waters support the valuable
commercial and sports fisheries of the coastal area which are
comprised of estuarine dependent species such as menhaden,
flounder, shrimp, crabs, and oysters.
e) Estuarine Shorelines
Estuarine shorelines are non -ocean shorelines that are especially
vulnerable to erosion, flooding, or other adverse effects of wind
and water. They are intimately connected to the estuary. The
estuarine shoreline area extends from the mean high water level or
normal water level along the estuaries, sounds, bays, and brackish
waters for a distance of 75 feet landward. For those estuarine
shorelines immediately contiguous to waters classified as Out-
standing Resource Waters, the estuarine shoreline shall extend
landward from the mean high water level for 575 feet. Development
I-81

within the estuarine shorelines
rine life and is subject to the
erosion and flooding.
f) Public Trust Areas
influences the quality of estua-
damaging processes of shorefront
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 state 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 there-
under 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 in 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 in artificially created bodies of water in which the
public has acquired rights by prescription, custom, usage, dedica-
tion, or any other means. In determining whether the public has
acquired rights in artificially created bodies of water, the
following factors shall be considered:
(1) the use of the body of water by the public,
(2) the length of time the public has used the area,
(3) the value of public resources in the body of water,
(4) whether the public resources in the body of water are
mobile to the extent that they can move into natural
bodies of water,
(5) whether the creation of the artificial body of water
required permission from the state, and
(6) the value of the body of water to the public for
navigation from one public area to another public area.
These areas are significant because the public has rights in these
areas, including navigation and recreation. The public trust
areas also support valuable commercial and sports fisheries, have
aesthetic value, and are important resources for economic devel-
opment.
It is impossible to map the public trust area. The areas must be
determined through in -field analysis and definition.
g) Maritime Forests
Maritime forests are areas containing native salt tolerant
vegetation. Exposure to salt spray causes the vegetation to have
a sheared appearance that is shaped according to contours of
adjacent land forms. The forests contain loblolly pine, sweet
gum, live oak, and red maple as the dominant tree types. The
trees grow slowly because of very low available water capacity,
occasional salt water flooding, and exposure to salt spray. The
forests are important animal habitats. The Maritime Forest
Protection Initiative, May 24, 1990, identified the following
major maritime forest sites within Carteret County:
I-82

size/
Site Name
Location
Acres
Ownership
Shackleford
Shackleford Banks
90
Public
Hoop Hole Creek
Atlantic Beach
12
Private
Atlantic Station
Atlantic Beach
45
Private
Ocean Ridge
Atlantic Beach
15
Private
Roosevelt Natural Area
Pine Knoll Shores
310
Pub/Priv
Indian Beach
Indian Beach
33
Private
Salter Path
Salter Path
52
Private
Piney Point
Emerald Isle
50
Private
Emerald Isle Canal
Emerald Isle
64
Private
Emerald Isle Bridge
Emerald Isle
86
Private
Emerald Isle Woods
Emerald Isle
75
Private
None of these sites are under the jurisdiction of Carteret
County.
h) Historic and Archaeological Sites
Carteret County includes many historically significant sites.
However, many of those sites located within incorporated
areas, most notably the extensive historically significant
properties in Beaufort. The following identifies the properties
within Carteret County's area of planning jurisdiction which are
either on the National Register of Historic Places or are being
studied for inclusion (see Map 10):
Sites Listed in the National Reqister of Historic Places
1.
Cape Lookout Coast
Core Banks National
Guard Station
significance
2.
Cape Lookout
Core Banks National
Light Station
significance
3.
Portsmouth Village
Cape Lookout National
National Seashore significance
northern end of
Portsmouth Island
Sites
on the Study List for
future inclusion in the National
Register
1.
Rufus Bell House
West side of N.C. 101, 0.6 mile
north of the junction with S.R. 1155,
Harlowe
2.
Hadnot Creek Primitive
East side of S.R. 1104, 1.5 miles
Baptist Church
north of S.R. 1104's south junction
with N.C. 58, Pelletier vicinity
3.
'Octagon House
North side of N.C. 24, 0.1 mile
east of the junction with S.R. 1214,
Cedar Point vicinity
I-83

There are 245 recorded sites within the county which have archae-
ological significance; however, a complete survey has not been
performed. The recorded sites are generally located along the
sound side shoreline of western Bogue Bank, the White Oak River
shoreline, within Cape Carteret, along Gales Creek, along Harlowe
Creek and ditch, the western shoreline areas of the Newport River,
Fort Macon, Harker's Island, and the Beaufort waterfront. Speci-
fic site locations are not available for release to the general
public. (See North Carolina General Statute 70-5.) Anyone under-
taking land -disturbing activities in these areas should contact
the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History.
i) 404 Wetlands
404 wetlands are areas covered by water or that have waterlogged
soils for long periods during the growing season. Plants growing
in wetlands are capable of living in soils lacking oxygen for at
least part of the growing season. Some wetlands, such as swamps,
are obvious. Others are sometimes difficult to identify because
they may be dry during part of the year. Wetlands include, but
are not limited to, bottomlands, forests, swamps, pocosins, pine
savannahs, bogs, marshes, and wet meadows.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that anyone interested
in depositing dredged or fill material into "waters of the United
States," including wetlands, must apply for and receive a permit
for such activities.
Map 10, Natural Resource Fragile Areas, provides a general
delineation of wetlands areas. However, the specific locations of
wetlands areas must be determined through specific on -site
analysis by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Office.
Wetlands are a significant natural resource because they provide
recharge areas for groundwater; serve as filter traps for sedi-
ment, pesticides and other pollutants; provide non-structural
flood control; buffer against shoreline erosion; serve as buffer
zones between upland activities and valuable aquatic systems; and
provide habitats for numerous furbearing animals, endangered
species, and other wildlife.
j) Natural Resource Fragile Areas
Natural resource fragile areas are generally recognized to be of
educational, scientific, or cultural value because of the natural
features of the particular site. Features in these areas serve to
distinguish them from the vast majority of the landscape.
These areas include complex natural areas, areas that sustain
remnant species, unique geological formations, pocosins, wooded
swamps, prime wildlife habitats, or registered natural landmarks.
With the exception of unique geologic formations and registered
natural landmarks, the above -listed natural resource fragile areas
ME

tend to overlap in Carteret County. Natural resource fragile
areas have been identified by both the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These
descriptions are those which existed on July 17, 1990. The areas
are identified on Map 10, Natural Resource Fragile Areas, and are
described as follows:
NATIONAL PRIORITY AREAS
A-1 Cedar Island Marshes
This site is an exemplary representation of a salt marsh eco-
system. It is on the North Carolina Registry of Natural
Heritage Areas. It contains many natural community types and
is a special wildlife habitat.
A-2 Cedar Island - North Bay Barrier Island
This area contains two miles of estuarine barrier islands with
all the characteristics of an oceanfront barrier island. The
island provides a roosting and feeding area for many water-
fowl including brown pelicans. The site is on the North
Carolina Registry of Natural Heritage Areas.
A-2 Cedar Island - North Bay Barrier Island
This area contains two miles of estuarine barrier islands with
all the characteristics of an oceanfront barrier island. The
island provides roosting and feeding area for many waterbirds
including brown pelicans. The site is on the North Carolina
Registry of Natural Heritage Areas.
A-3 Core Banks and Portsmouth Island
The site is an excellent example of the various stages of
barrier island formation. Extensive berm and shrub -grassland
vegetation exist. The stress of frequent overwash and salt
spray has reduced the floristic diversity. More diverse flora
may be found in the soundside mesic meadows. The area is very
illustrative of coastal dynamics. Nesting areas for the
Atlantic loggerhead sea turtle exist in the area. The site is
on the North Carolina Registry of Natural Heritage Areas. In
summary, the site is extremely important because it includes
natural communities, geomorphic land forms, special wildlife
habitats, and rare species.
A-4 Croatan Pocosins
This area is a wetlands complex dominated by a mix of low and
high evergreen shrub pocosin and pond pine communities. The
low pocosins are considered the finest examples in North
Carolina. There is a low diversity of vegetation. The
wilderness character sustains wildlife such as bear and
I-85

alligator. Vegetative types include the Venus flytrap and
pitcher plants. The site is on the North Carolina Registry of
Natural Heritage Areas.
A-5 Millis Road Longleaf Pine Savanna and Pocosin
The area has exemplary longleaf pine/wiregrass savannah on
sand ridges with pond pine -shrub bog pocosin in inter -ridge
swales. Relict Pleistocene beach ridges exist in the area. A
red -cockaded woodpecker colony is located in the mature long-
leaf stands. The site also includes the largest bachmans
sparrow breeding population in the Croatan National Forest.
Five rare plant species are found in the area including
riverbank sandreed. The area is on the North Carolina
Registry of Natural Heritage Areas.
A-6 Patsy Pond Complex
The complex includes a series of natural ponds, the largest
being Patsy Pond, which support a unique assemblage of plants.
Seven rare plant species are associated with the ponds. The
ponds may be impoundments of old streams among a relic beach
ridge system. The site has both geomorphic and floristic
interest. There is a red -cockaded woodpecker colony on site
in a pine forest. The area is on the North Carolina Registry
of Natural Heritage Areas. The area is suffering serious
damage by illegal and uncontrolled off -road vehicle use.
A-7 Shackleford Banks
The site is a nine -mile long, east -west oriented section of
the Outer Banks. The orientation results in unique physio-
graphic conditions which create a greater diversity of plants
and animals than found on any other barrier island. A variety
of plant communities exist including extensive areas of
maritime forest. An area of high active dune exists.
Loggerhead turtles nest on the site. The site is on the North
Carolina Registry of Natural Heritage Areas and has been
proposed for National Wilderness Area designation.
STATE AND REGIONAL PRIORITY AREAS
B-1 Atlantic Natural Area
This site consists of swale topography which may have formed
along an estuarine rather than marine shoreline. The vegeta-
tion is a mix of savannas on the ridges with scattered long-
leaf pine over shrubs and wiregrass, and pocosin in swales on
the ridges. The site does not have any protection status but
is considered to have statewide significance.
I-86

Browns Island
The island includes plant communities evolving from maritime
forest to salt marsh because of the rising sea level. An
unusual longleaf pine -live oak-wiregrass community is located
on the southernmost dune ridge. There is abundant bird and
wildlife. The island does not have any protection status but
is considered to have state-wide significance. Portions of
Browns Island have been subdivided for development.
B-3 Hadnot Creek Natural Area
The area consists of a brackish water creek exhibiting grada-
tions in salinity from the mouth to the headwaters, resulting
in striking vegetational changes along the creek. The primary
communities include brackish marshes, a brackish island, cedar
hummocks, and combinations of hardwood -pine stands. The
endangered alligator is present in the area. The area is on
the North Carolina Registry of Natural Heritage Areas and is
considered to have regional significance. Development of
adjacent properties is occurring.
B-4 Hadnot Creek Ponds and Longleaf Woods
The tract includes a cluster of small, shallow ponds (most
under 200 feet across and 2 feet deep) and open long leaf
woodland. The ponds appear to be naturally impounded remnants
of former drainage systems, but others have sinkhole aspects.
The area includes red -cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. The
site is not protected as a natural area but is considered to
have regional significance.
Masontown Pocosin
This site is a relatively large tract (1,200 acres) of low
pocosin and high pocosin having pond pine of small size. The
area is a bear habitat and American alligators are found in
the pocosin. The habitat is suitable for red -cockaded wood-
peckers. The area is not protected as a natural area but is
considered to have regional significance.
B-6 North River Marshes
The area provides nesting and feeding for many shore birds
and is a nursery area for fish and shellfish. A variety of
marsh micro -habitats are caused by small topographic changes
and differences in tidal inundation. The site is an important
habitat for shorebirds, herons, ibis, egrets, some ducks,
rails and alligators. One tract of land has been donated to
the North Carolina Nature Conservancy and a portion of the
marshes is included in the National Estuarine Reserve. The
area is considered to have regional significance.
I-87

B-7 Pringle Road Carolina Bays
The site includes two Carolina bays. Both bays are dominated
by pocosin vegetation including pond pine and dense thickets
of broad leaf evergreen shrubs. Small one -to -three acre areas
of black gum exist in both bays. The pond pine and black gum
trees are generally small. One of the bay rims includes Venus
flytrap plants. The area is not registered as a protected
natural area but is considered to have regional significance.
B-8 Sea Gate Woods
The site is not a floodplain nor does it have standing water.
However, many typical floodplain species are present.
Dominant plant species include sweetgum, swamp chestnut oak
and ash. In one area, large palmettos form a definite shrub
layer. One area has an abundance of ferns. The site is
considered to have regional significance but does not have any
protected status.
Union Point Pocosin
This pocosin is dominated by pond pine -evergreen shrub bog
grading into Bay Forest. The area is a possible habitat for
red -cockaded woodpeckers and is a black bear habitat. The
site does not have any protected status but is recognized as
having regional significance.
0 Walkers Millpond
This site is the best example of bald cypress swamp forest in
the county. It is a complex of habitats which support many
rare species including alligator, bear, osprey, anhinga, and
thirteen types of unusual birds. Three of the tracts in the
site are registered Natural Heritage Areas. The area is
considered to have statewide significance.
B-11 Wildberry Woods
This area is located adjacent to the Patsy Pond natural area
in Croatan National Forest. The site's principal vegetation
communities are the estuarine spartina-juncus salt marsh
community, loblolly and longleaf pine savannas, and evergreen
shrub bogs. Orchids, Venus flytrap,and pitcher plants also
grow in the area. Osprey feed in Broad Creek. The area is on
the North Carolina Registry of Natural Heritage areas, owned
by the Nature Conservancy, and is considered to have regional
significance.
B-12 Nine Foot Road Limesink Complex
The site is an extensive longleaf pine flatwoods with a
scattering of very small limesink ponds. Special vegetative
types include Litsea, Eleocharis Baldwinii, and Asclepias
Pedicellata. The area does not have protected status and is
his

considered to have regional significance. The area is a
possible North Carolina Registry of Natural Heritage Areas
site and is a prime red -cockaded woodpecker habitat.
B-13 Salter Path Dunes Natural Area
The area is located on Bogue Banks. Part of the site was
given to the state by the Roosevelt family, and the remainder
is in the 265 acre Roosevelt National Area. The area encom-
passes foredune, secondary dune, and transitional shrub
thicket communities. Extensive secondary dunes (maximum of 20
feet above mean sea level) exist. The site has a typical
species composition of barrier islands communities. The area
is considered to have regional significance.
B-14 White Oak River -Cedar Point Marshes
The area includes a 9-mile free -flowing black water river
extending from interior wetlands and a brackish embayment.
The area is bordered by cypress and hardwood forests and fresh
and brackish marshes. Marl outcrops exist along the upper
course. Abundant wildlife includes alligator, red -cockaded
woodpecker, and osprey. The site is a natural heritage
special interest area and is considered to have statewide
significance.
COLONIAL WATERBIRD NESTING ISLANDS
C-1 Bogue Inlet Heronr
This site contains the second largest wading bird nesting
colony in North Carolina. In 1977, over 1,300 nests of herons
and egrets were counted. It includes the only coastal colony
of great blue herons. The largest island is dominated by
thickets of wax myrtle, silverling and red cedar. One island
is owned by the National Audobon Society. The area is
considered to have statewide significance.
C-2 Core Sound (Wainwright) Nesting Islands
The islands include well -developed shrub thickets. Several
species of birds nest here including great egret, tricolored
heron, snowy egret, little blue heron, and black -crowned night
heron. The area does not have any protected status, although
it is considered to have statewide significance.
C-3 New Dump Island Nesting Colony
This site consists of large nesting colonies of laughing gull,
royal tern, and sandwich tern (reported in 1983). The area
also includes brown pelican, great egret, tricolored heron,
and snowy egret. The vegetation consists of saltmeadow cord -
grass, mexican tea, and nightshade. The site is on the North
Carolina Registry of Natural Heritage Areas and is considered
to have statewide significance.

C-4 Moraan Island Nestina Colon
This area includes large nesting colonies of royal and sand-
wich terns, Louisiana and little blue herons, common and snowy
egrets, and laughing gulls. A diked island which is regularly
dredged maintains part of the island in a nearly bare condi-
tion. The area does not have any protected status but is
considered to have statewide significance.
C-5 Phillips and Annex Islands Nesting Colony
The site consists of two islands. One island has a dense
shrub thicket habitat including wax myrtle, silverling,
yaupon, marsh elder, and red cedar. Both islands frequently
contain large nesting colonies of heron, egret, and ibis. The
area does not have any protected status but is considered to
have statewide significance.
WOODED SWAMPS
The wooded swamp areas include woody -cypress, tupelo, gum,
black gum, red maple, red bay, sweet bay; and in places, white
cedar, herbaceous lizard tail, burreed, pickerelweed, spatter
dock, duckweed and smartweed. The areas provide habitat
for raccoon, rabbit, gray squirrel, mink, otter, and
alligator. Most of the areas are owned by either the U.S.
Forest Service or small lumber companies. These areas are
also 404 wetlands. Specific 404 wetlands locations must be
determined by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District Office.
k) Outstanding Resource Waters
In 1989, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
designated certain waters within North Carolina as Outstanding
Resource Waters. These areas were designated because they were
considered to be significant marine resource areas having
relatively clean and pristine waters, and having significant value
as recreational and natural resource areas. Three areas of
Carteret County were designated: (1) Western Bogue Sound, (2)
Core and Back Sounds, and (3) Southeast Pamlico Sound. Special
development controls may be imposed in each area. These controls
include, but are not necessarily limited to, increasing the
estuarine shoreline width to 575 feet. The Outstanding Resource
Waters areas are shown on Map 8, Areas of Environmental Concern.
1) Slopes in Excess of 12%
In Carteret County, slopes of 120 or greater are normally not
found except on the outer banks areas, where they are related to
dune development. Ocean dunes affect Carteret County's planning
jurisdiction only in the Salter Path area of Bogue Banks. The
only other area in Carteret County with slopes in excess of 12%
are scattered bluffs along the White Oak River.
I-90

m) Excessive Erosion Areas
Excessive erosion areas include ocean, sound, river, and inlet
erodible areas. Permanent construction within these areas should
be limited unless stabilization along the affected shoreline can
be accomplished.
Excessive or rapid erosion areas are found:
-- Along the Intracoastal Waterway, especially along Core Creek
-- Along most ocean beaches
-- Along most estuarine shorelines having northeast exposure
-- Along areas of the Bogue Sound shoreline
Areas of Resource Potential
a) Agricultural and Forest Lands
Agricultural and forest lands have significant resource potential.
Both agriculture and forestry comprise important elements of the
Carteret County economy. Map 2, Existing Land Use, indicates
significant agricultural and forestry production areas. However,
many wetlands areas may also be significant producers of forest
resources.
Lands best suited for agricultural production may be located in
the Carteret County Soil Conservation Service Detailed Soil
Survey. Most soils in the county may be productive for agricul-
tural purposes if properly drained. However, 11404" wetlands
regulations may prohibit the draining of many areas. The lands
best suited for agricultural production are also the areas best
suited for development. Prime agricultural lands will continue to
be lost to expanding urban and built-up areas. Map 6 provides
soil association locations. The agricultural capabilities of
Carteret County soils are summarized in the following table:
Table 28
Agricultural Farmland
Soil Association and Management Limitation Rate
(Refer to Map 6)
Soil Assoc.
No. Soil Association
1
Deloss-Tomotley-Arapahoe
2
Torhunta-Pantego-Rains
3
Lafitte-Hobucken-Carteret
4
Leon-Murville-Mandarin
5
Wando-Seabrook-Kureb
6
Ponzer-Wasda-Belhaven
7
Croatan
8
Baymeade-Onslow=Lynchburg
9
Altavista -Augusta -State
10
Newhan-Corolla-Beach
11
Masontown-Dorovan
Land Capability
Class
3w
3w
8w
4w-6s-5w
3s to 7s
3w to 4w
4w
3s-2w-2w
2w-3w-I
8s-7w---
7w
I-91

Land capability classification indicate relative degrees of
limitation for agricultural usage:
1 - slight limitation, to
8 - severe and restrictive limitations
w = wetness; s = low fertility
b) Public Forests
The Croatan National Forest includes 56,618 acres of Carteret
County. The forest is managed by the U.S. Forestry Service as a
national recreation area and forest resource. The area includes
substantial fresh water wetlands, fragile natural areas, and pro-
vides habitat for many endangered species. The Croatan National
Forest is delineated on Map 10, Fragile Areas.
c) Public Parks
The major public parks in Carteret County are either federally or
state owned and are located on the Outer Banks. The Cape Lookout
National Seashore is of national significance and is located on
Shackleford and Core Banks. The Fort Macon State Park is of
state-wide significance and is located on the north end of Bogue
Banks. The Theodore Roosevelt State Park is also located on Bogue
Banks at Salter Path.
The principal landward park areas are passive recreational facili-
ties scattered throughout the Croatan National Forest.
d) Public Gamelands
The only public gameland in Carteret County is the Cedar Island
Wildlife Refuge. The area is a significant roosting and feeding
area for many waterbirds. Hunting is not allowed.
e) Private Wildlife Sanctuaries
There are not any significant private wildlife sanctuaries in
Carteret County.
f) Valuable Mineral Resources
There are some peat deposits in Carteret County. However, based
on past studies, it does not appear that mining of the deposits is
economically feasible. There are no significant phosphate depo-
sits in Carteret County.
g) Marine Resources
Carteret County's marine resources are delineated on Map 11. The
outstanding resource value of Core, Bogue, Back, and Pamlico
Sounds is primarily due to the presence of seagrass beds and their
associated finfish and shellfish resources.
I-92

The seagrass resource is of major importance. It is believed that
North Carolina is second only to Florida in abundance of sea -
grasses. Of the approximately 200,000 acres of seagrass existing
in North Carolina, twenty percent (20%) is located in Bogue, Back,
and Core Sounds. Three types of seagrasses are found in Bogue,
Back, and Core Sounds: eelgrass, shoalgrass, and widgeon grass.
The eelgrass variety is the most dominant. The seagrasses provide
a safe environment for marine life, help stabilize the sound
bottom, impede water currents, and allow the passive settling of
marine larvae and fine particle organics.
The seagrass beds are essential to the abundance of many of North
Carolina's coastal fisheries, including the bay scallop and hard
clam. In addition, the grass beds provide cover, protection and
food sources for estuarine finfish. Flounder, croaker, trout, and
mullet are the more numerous estuarine finfish caught for commer-
cial and recreational purposes.
The county's marine resources provide important nesting and living
environments for several endangered and protected species. These
include the green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, and logger-
head sea turtle. Many of the county's beach (ocean hazard) areas
provide vital turtle nesting areas.
Map 11 shows the location of the non -significant shellfishing
areas which are limited to the Newport River at the Intracoastal
Waterway, the upper end of Jarrett Bay, Thoroughfare Bay, and
areas of Long Bay. All other water areas of the county are
considered significant shellfishing areas. In addition, there are
significant oyster culture sites concentrated in Back Bay, Cedar
Island Bay, Pamlico Sound, Long Bay, Turnagain Bay, South River,
and the Newport River. It is important to note that there has
been a steady annual decline in the areas open to shellfishing
within Carteret County since 1980. In 1980, there was an
approximate total of 305,050 acres of shellfishing area. Of that
total, approximately 5,315 acres were closed. By 1989, the closed
area had increased to approximately 7,886 acres. Thus, over a
10-year period, the closed areas increased by 2,571 acres, a 48%
increase. The closed 1989 areas represented 2.58% of the county's
total shellfishing areas.
while not shown on the marine resources map, significant crab
spawning areas are located in Core Sound. These areas are located
north and south of Drum Inlet and behind Cape Lookout and Barden
Inlet and stretching almost to Harker's Island.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management assigns
water quality classifications to all waters of the State of North
Carolina. The schedule of classifications is provided by 15 NCAC
2B.0302 to .0317 (see Appendix IV). The classifications are based
upon the existing or contemplated best usage of the various
streams and segments of streams within a basin, as determined
through studies, evaluations, and comments received at public
hearings. The state classifies tidal salt waters as follows:
I-93

LEGEND
SUB -AQUATIC VASCULAR PLANTS
PRIMARY NURSERY AREAS
NOTE: I WATER CLASSIFICATIONS- All estuarine
and public trust salt raters in Carteret County are
classified SA, except for the north and of Nelson
Bay. The north and of Nelson Bay Is classified
SC.
NOTE: 2 Shockleford Banks, Cape Lookout, Core
Banks, and Portsmouth Island are a -part of the
National Seashore System and not under the
planning jurisdiction of Carteret County.
NOTE: 3 The Emerald Isle Beach corporate limit
Gne extends 1,200 feet into Bogue Sound and
OYSTER CULTCH SITES parallels the Bogus Sound shoreline.
--- COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE
INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT MACON NOT ��P
UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PLANNING
JURISDICTION
EXTRA -TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AREAS NOT
UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PLANNING
JURISDICTION
TOWN OF CEDAR POINT
CORPORATE LIMIT LINE
CRAVEN COUNTY
tt �
do"',
J-N�-
00
'0
OCEAN
.. ATLANTIC
RIVER.
5tau
I 0
M0.6
z
S
•ar
PAMLICO SOUND
* 6�
* GS
'� i 4 .
WEsr e_. *� •� * _ �
84V
9'1�y o
The preparation of this map was
financed In port through a grant
provided by the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program,
e through funds provided by the
e 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.
CARTERET COUNTY
MARINE RESOURCES
MAP II
CAPE LOOKOUT

Class SA: shellfishing for market pur
usage specified by the "SB"
cation;
Class SB: primary recreation and any
the "SC" classification;
Class SC: fish and wildlife propagation, s
tion, and other uses requiring w
quality.
Most of the waters within Carteret County's planning juri
are classified SA. Exceptions include Nelson Bay and many
streams and tributaries feeding into the county's sounds. Ne
Bay is the location of the outfall for one of the Open Ground
Farms' major drainage ditches and is classified SC. Appendix IV
provides the water quality classifications for the White Oak River
Basin. The SC locations cannot be accurately mapped in this Land
Use Plan. Therefore, the written descriptions must be relied upon
for SC locations.
During 1989 and 1990, the State Environmental Management Commis-
sion was considering the establishment of a High Quality Waters
classification. This action was in response to federal antidegra-
dation regulations which require that the quality of waters with
quality higher than that defined by the state's existing classifi-
cation standards be maintained through additional protective
measures. The General Procedures Rule and Antidegradation Policy
are defined by 15 NCAC 2B.0101 and 15 NCAC 2B.0201, respectively.
Stricter requirements for water quality standards, wastewater
treatment and stormwater runoff control will apply to high quality
water designated areas. The standards are defined in 15 NCAC
2B.0201. Within Carteret County, only Calico Creek is nominated
as a High Quality Water Area.
The economic analysis section of this plan clearly documents the
economic importance of Carteret County's marine resources. The
policies section of this plan must provide protection for these
resources.
I-95

G. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS: PUBLIC FACILITIES
1. Water Supply
There are several community water systems in Carteret County,
including the North River (recently taken over by the Town of
Beaufort), Harker's Island, Carolina Water Service, and West Carteret
Water Corporation community systems. The North River system serves
unincorporated areas of Beaufort Township, while the Harker's Island
system serves the Harker's Island community. Carolina Water Services
primarily serves areas along Bogue Banks, including the towns of Pine
Knoll Shores and Indian Beach. The recently -formed West Carteret
Water Corporation, which has completed construction of an elevated
water tank in Morehead Township, will serve the towns of Cape Carteret
and Cedar Point and unincorporated areas of White Oak and Morehead
Townships. The towns of Atlantic Beach, Newport, Beaufort, Emerald
Isle, and Morehead City operate their own municipal water systems.
Carteret County sponsored an FY88 CDBG project to provide a water
system for predominantly low and moderate -income households in the
Merrimon community. However, this system will be owned and operated
by the Town of Beaufort. Carteret County does not currently own or
maintain any community water supply systems.
All existing municipal/community water systems obtain water from
aquifers located in the Yorktown/Castle Hayne formations. Based on
existing analysis of well yields, the groundwater supply is adequate
to serve existing demand. However, salt water intrusion in the
eastern portions of the county and on Bogue Banks will be an increas-
ing concern as municipal/industrial demand for water grows. About
2,500 square miles of the Castle Hayne aquifer,including the portion
underlying Carteret County, have been designated as a capacity use
area by the N.C. Groundwater Section due to large (68 MGD in 1986)
groundwater withdrawals by the Texas Gulf phosphate mine near Aurora.
A capacity use area is defined as an area where the use of water
resources threatens to exceed the replenishment ability to the extent
that regulation may be required.
The United States Geological Survey is currently involved in a
three-year study of the limestone aquifer in eastern North Carolina.
Information from this study will be extremely useful in determining
optimum locations for future water wells, and estimating whether or
not the groundwater supply will meet demand throughout the planning
period.
2. Wastewater Treatment and Di
Wastewater disposal has become an increasingly important issue in
Carteret County since 1985, as several communities have considered
wastewater disposal alternatives and Carteret County has prepared an
Environmental Impact Statement addressing short and long-term waste-
water treatment and disposal alternatives for the entire county. It
is not an overstatement to say that wastewater disposal will be the
most important planning/capital improvement issue facing the county
I' I-96

and its municipalities during the next five years. Since the red tide
in the Fall of 1987, public perception of the importance of water
quality to the county's economic well-being has been particularly
acute. Whether or not the fishing industry can coexist with increas-
ing seasonal development will be an issue decided by the county and
its separate municipalities. Taking the point further, it remains to
be seen if Carteret County is intent on effecting a rational compro-
mise on the issue of wastewater disposal that allows controlled resi-
dential and commercial development while preserving water quality --
quality so important to the county's tourism and fishing industries.
Carteret County does not own or maintain any wastewater collection
or treatment systems. Wastewater disposal throughout the county is
provided by municipally -owned systems, privately -owned individual
septic tank systems, and public/private package treatment and disposal
systems. However, the county Environmental Health Department plays an
active role in regulating wastewater disposal in the county's munici-
palities and unincorporated areas through the permitting system for
all individual septic systems installed outside established areas of
municipal jurisdiction.
Morehead City, Beaufort, and Newport currently own and maintain
central wastewater collection and treatment systems. Based on the
E.I.S. for county wastewater treatment and disposal completed in
October, 1989, all three municipal systems operating in the county
have undergone significant treatment plant renovation since 1986, and
all three meet their NPDES permit requirements. However, the E.I.S.
did point out that the collection systems serving Beaufort and
Morehead City have severe inflow and infiltration problems due to the
age of the systems. Newport's collection system is newer and in
better condition. Table 29, below, outlines specific data for the
three municipal wastewater systems in Carteret County.
Table 29: Outline of Municipal Wastewater Systems -
Carteret County
Location Collection Pumping Treatment Treatment Plant
Sewers Stations Capacity Description
Morehead City 35 mi. 12 1.7 MGD Secondary Type
Trickling Filter
Beaufort 16 mi. 12 1.5 MGD Secondary Type
Aeration
Newport 12 mi. 4 0.5 MGD Oxidation Ditch
Source: E.I.S. - Carteret County Wastewater Treatment and Disposal -
October, 1969
Dried sludge from all thr
ported to the county landfill
from the Morehead City plant
provisions of a Special Order
order requires that the city
ee municipal treatment plants is trans -
for ultimate disposal. Treated effluent
is discharged into Calico Creek under the
By Consent issued by NCDEM. The special
eventually provide improvements that will
I-97

eliminate the discharge of untreated effluent during periods of heavy,
prolonged rainfall. Beaufort's treatment plant discharges into
Taylor's Creek, and Newport's plant discharges into the Newport
River.
It is believed that between two-thirds and three -fourths of the
county's year-round population depends on individual septic tanks for
wastewater disposal. Septic tanks provide sewage disposal in unincor-
porated areas of the county and areas of the beach communities not
otherwise served by package treatment plants. Non -biodegradable
solids from these tanks are periodically pumped out and transported to
land disposal sites approved by the North Carolina Division of Health
Services. Liquid effluent passes through nitrification lines before
being filtered and biologically treated in the soil. Obviously, the
depth to the water table and the soil conditions are important factors
in determining the efficiency of septic tanks. If the water table is
high, or soil conditions such as hard clays or coarse sands do not
allow adequate filtration of effluent, ground or surface water contam-
ination can result. In Carteret County, approximately 98% of the land
area has soil conditions that pose "severe" limitations to septic tank
installation. However, the county Health Department approves over 90%
of the requests for septic tank permits throughout the county,
although site modifications are often required.
While suitable for single-family detached dwellings developed at
low density in most areas of the county, septic tanks are not capable
of serving high density development. In Carteret County, publicly or
privately -owned central collection, treatment, and disposal systems
have typically served higher -density developments outside of Morehead
City, Beaufort, and Newport. Many of the privately -owned central
treatment systems serve condominiums and motels on Bogue Banks. Non -
municipal central wastewater treatment systems normally consist of
mechanical "package" plants for wastewater treatment with land dispos-
al of the effluent accomplished through nitrification lines, rotary
distributors, or low pressure disposal fields. In Carteret County,
publicly -owned central "package" systems are permitted by the Division
of Environmental Management, while privately -owned "package" systems
are permitted by the Division of Health Services.
Table 30 provides a listing of all currently -permitted
public/private package treatment and disposal systems in Carteret
County.
1 I-98

Table 30:
Name
Public/Private Package Treatment
and Disposal Systems in Carteret County
A Place At the Beach III
Brandywine Bay
Cape Emerald
Dunescape
Genesis
Hestron Park
Colony -By -The -Sea
Island Beach & Racquet Club
Ocean Glen/Ocean Bay Villas
Pebble Beach
Pine Knoll Village
Point Emerald Villas
Queens Court
Sea Watch
Sands Villas
Peppertree
Marine Corps - Bogue Field
Haystacks Condominiums
Emerald Plantation
Deerfield Shores
Croatan Middle School
Sound of the Sea
Spooners Creek Subdivision
Sugarloaf Properties
Marine Corps - Piney Island
McGinnis Point
W.Pine Knoll Shores/
Ramada Inn
W.Pine Knoll Shores/
Beacons Reach
Windward Dunes
Beach Disposal Service
Marine Corps - Piney Island
Design Flow
(gal./day)
Type
87,000 Treatment Plant/Rotary Distributor
50,000 Treatment Plant/Spray Irrigation
50,000 Treatment Plant/Rotary Distributor
60,000 Treatment Plant/Rotary Distributor
30,500 Treatment Plant/Rotary Distributor
67,000 Treatment Plant/Rotary Distributor
52,000 Treatment Plant/Rotary Distributor
90,000 Treatment Plant/Rotary Distributor
32,500 Treatment Plant/Rotary Distributor
70,500 Treatment Plant/Rotary Distributor
29,500 Septic Tank/Low Pressure
52,950 Treatment Plant/Rotary Distributor
24,000 Treatment Plant/Rotary Distributor
51,000 Treatment Plant/Rotary Distributor
43,000 Treatment Plant/Rotary Distributor
46,220 Treatment Plant/Low Pressure
9,000 Lagoon/Spray Irrigation
22,000 Treatment Plant/Spray Irrigation
55,000 Treatment Plant/Low Pressure
20,000 Treatment Plant/Low Pressure
13,075 Septic Tank/Low Pressure
40,000 Treatment Plant/Rotary Distributor
21,000 Treatment Plant/Low Pressure
100,000 Treatment Plant/Rotary Distributor
1,750 Septic Tank/Spray Irrigation
36,650 Treatment Plant/Low Pressure
40,000 Treatment Plant/Low Pressure
60,000 Treatment Plant/Low Pressure
25,000 Treatment Plant/Rotary Distributor
100,000 Sludge Disposal -Land Application
gal./year
- Treatment Plant/Spray Irrigation
Source: E.I.S. - Carteret County Wastewater Treatment and Disposal -
October, 1989
I-99

Problems with package plants are generally due to improper main-
tenance or operation, and are endemic due to the lack of financial
resources or management expertise available to homeowners associa-
tions, which often have the responsibility of maintaining the
systems.
As a result of the continuing high rate of residential development
in Carteret County, pressure by residents of incorporated areas not
currently served by municipal sewer has increased in recent years.
Atlantic Beach has actively pursued the construction of a wastewater
collection treatment system since 1986. There is significant interest
in county -sponsored central sewer service in Cape Carteret and Cedar
Point, but only slight interest in Emerald Isle and Pine Knoll
Shores.
The lack of central sewer service has restricted industrial devel-
opment in all areas except Morehead City, Beaufort, and Newport. :he
county must develop sewer service districts or provide an alternative
approach to providing central sewer service to its unincorporated
areas if it wishes to attract industry to unincorporated areas where
industrial development would not be an incompatible land use.
In the rural areas, reaction to the possibility of county -
sponsored central sewer service has been decidedly negative, based on
a county -wide water and sewer referendum conducted in February, 1987.
Cost to taxpayers, and fear of rapid development in rural areas, were
the reasons most often cited against sewer improvements at that time.
However, recent public opinion polls indicate that rural support for
central sewer service may be growing. In particular, the Harker's
Island community has prepared a preliminary engineering report for a
community sewer system. Also, the Sea Gate community in Harlowe town-
ship has been attempting to obtain central sewer service. Since the
E.I.S. for county -wide wastewater disposal has been published, it is
expected that sewer improvement projects in Harker's Island and
Atlantic Beach will gain momentum.
Based on the discussion above, it appears that only Atlantic Beach
and Harker's Island, Morehead City, Beaufort, and Newport have had
significant concerns with central sewer service over the last five
years. However, continuing problems with failing septic tanks and
package plants in high -density areas are expected to gradually sway
public support for publicly -owned central sewage treatment to other
areas of the county.
3. Transportation
a) General
Carteret County benefits from a diverse existing transpor-
tation system that includes an adequate arterial highway system, a
growing municipal airport, rail transport to serve county industries
and the State Port Terminal, and the Intracoastal Waterway, which
provides both bulk commercial transportation as well as a convenient
I-100

alternative travel route for tourists and residents in the shoreline
areas.
Continued maintenance and upgrading of the county's transpor-
tation system are needed to attract industry, to preserve the import/
export business associated with the port, as well as continue the
appeal of the county to retirees and tourists.
b) Roads
In most coastal North Carolina counties, complaints about the
existing transportation system center around the inability of the
highway system to handle the rapidly -growing population. Carteret
County is no exception to this rule. In recent years, there has been
strong local support for improvement of the county's roads and bridges
to better accommodate the continuing influx of residents and tourists.
In some areas of the county, non -seasonal traffic loads are
taxing the capacity of existing thoroughfares. In these areas,
congestion during the tourist season frequently becomes intolerable,
and poses a significant safety hazard as well as a negative impact on
the tourism trade.
Map 12 outlines average annual daily traffic (ADT) counts
compiled by the North Carolina Department of Transportation for 1987
in Carteret County. Map 12 indicates that ADT volume on U.S. 70
between Wildwood and Morehead City (near the junction of U.S. 70 and
N.C. 24) is the highest in the county. Another particularly high -
volume area is N.C. 58 west of Atlantic Beach, which is a two-lane
road. Traffic counts are also high on N.C. 24 east of the Onslow
County line to the U.S. 70 intersection, on N.C. 58 at the southern
end of the Emerald Isle Bridge, and along the U.S. 70 corridor in the
Morehead City/Beaufort area. ADT counts in these heavily -traveled
areas have steadily increased for the last decade. For example, the
ADT count on N.C. 24 just west of N.C. 58 increased from 8,000 in 1978
to 14,100 in 1989. On U.S. 70 immediately west of the Atlantic Beach
Bridge, the ADT volume increased from 20,000 in 1978 to 30,000 in
1989. These rapid increases in traffic volume have severely tested
the ability of NCDOT county and municipal planners to minimize
congestion and safety problems. The traffic volume on many highways
in the county has exceeded design capacity, and road and bridge main-
tenance demands have increased with traffic flow throughout the
county. Additionally, the ADT figures shown on Map 12 are average
annual figures, and do not really convey the full impact of the
traffic congestion problem that exists during peak seasonal periods
such as the 4th of July weekend.
In the county's 1985 Land Use Plan, several specific problems
concerning road transportation were discussed. Progress has been made
on resolving the problems in all cases; however, only one desired
improvement has been completed. In 1987, a new high-rise bridge was
completed between Morehead City and Atlantic Beach. Despite this
improvement, support still exists for construction of a third bridge
between the mainland and Bogue Banks due to the congestion on U.S. 58

1.
Stalls
11.
Glouse star
2.
Cape Carteret
12.
Marshallhar9
3.
Ernsrald Isle
13.
Smyma
4.
Salter Path
14.
INIlllstoa
S.
Newpo:l
IS.
Darts
S.
Witdwood
so.
Stacy
7.
Morehead C Ny
17.
Seeleeel
S.
Atlantic Beach
10.
Atlantic
9.
Beau lore
19.
Cedar Island Point
10.
Markers Island
1987 ANNUAL
AVERAGE DAILY 24 HOUR
VOLUME
ON HARD
SURFACE ROADS—
CARTERET COUNTY
CRAVEN COUNTY
Ea r
16000
5
: 4500
10000 ]O
U1230 Ir
✓ tv
� n 9200
z
0y1 9300
7000
20
6500 23 0
3000 01 5""'0
2500 \ 35i0 5 FCO
2 314 450 7000
13870
16900
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MAP 12

and U.S. 70 at both ends of the two existing bridges (particularly the
Atlantic Beach bridge) during the summer months. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation FY90-96 Transportation Improvement Plan
(T.I.P.) indicates "scheduled for right-of-way protection" for a third
bridge to Bogue Banks, which would cross Bogue Sound on a new, 5.5
mile route west of Morehead City. According to NCDOT planners, a
feasibility study for this third bridge has been completed; however,
"scheduled for right-of-way protection" means that no funds have been
allocated for design or construction. Construction of a third Bogue
Sound bridge is contingent upon whether or not state -level legis-
lators/administrators consider the project to be worthy of funding.
Survey and alignment studies for replacement of the N.C. 101
drawbridge at Core Creek are underway. Replacement of this narrow,
restricted bridge was also listed as a significant issue in the 1985
Land Use Plan. The bridge is due to be replaced by the U.S. Corps of
Engineers in 1992 (this is not a T.I.P. project).
Also listed as an important ground transportation issue in the
1985 Land Use Plan was four-laning N.C. 24 between Swansboro and
Morehead City, including replacement of the bridge over the White Oak
River. Design and construction of these improvements, expected to
cost approximately $37 million, are underway, and are expected to be
completed in the late 1990s. Completion of improvements to N.C. 24
will substantially reduce traffic congestion in the rapidly -growing
unincorporated areas of western Carteret County, and provide better
access to and from the beach communities to visitors traveling from
the south on U.S. 17. Widening of N.C. 24 will also speed up military
and commercial traffic to and from the State Port Terminal in Morehead
City.
Relatively minor improvements to the county's roads completed
since the 1985 Land Use Plan include maintenance of shoulders and
right-of-way, traffic control and intersection improvements in urban
areas, and bridge replacements, including the recent completion of the
N.C. 101 bridge over Harlowe Canal. Continued improvements to the
county's road system, particularly along U.S. 70, N.C. 58, N.C. 24,
and N.C. 101 in and near existing municipalities, will be required if
the county is to avoid adverse impacts on commercial trade and resi-
dential development from traffic congestion.
c) Navigable Waters
The Intracoastal Waterway traverses Carteret County from the
White Oak River east to Morehead City and north to the county's border
with Craven County. The waterway provides an indispensable route for
fishermen, commercial barge traffic, and recreational boat traffic,
all instrumental to the county's economic well-being. The waterway
and the berthing channel/turning basis at the State Port Terminal in
Morehead City are both maintained by the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
Recent years have seen a continuing increase in waterway and port
traffic as tourism and import/export activities have grown.
I-103

Carteret County participates with the N.C. Division of water
Resources and the Corps of Engineers in maintaining several less
heavily -used navigable waterways and harbors of refuge throughout the
county, most of which have also experienced increasing usage in recent
years.
d) Air Transportation
Expansion of Carteret County's limited air transportation
facilities has continued to be an important issue throughout the
1985-1990 planning period as the county has continued to grow as a
recreational/retirement center. The continued possibility of Carteret
County functioning as a jumping-off point for offshore natural gas
exploration has triggered additional support for airport development
from some county residents.
Michael J. Smith Field, a general aviation facility, is
located on 340 acres northwest of Beaufort. The airport is county -
owned and managed by the Beaufort -Morehead City Airport Authority.
The existing facility can accommodate up to medium-sized propeller
aircraft and small business jet aircraft. Currently, the airport
offers one FBO with hangar/tie-down space and fuel service, but no
maintenance/repair service. The most recent Airport Master Plan was
completed in 1984. Recent improvements have included lighting and
safety zone improvement on Runway 8/26, and efforts to attract a
second FBO. Expansion of the existing facility would certainly be
required if the county wished to attract a commuter service to serve
the growing recreational population.
4. Solid Waste Disposal
Carteret County operates the county's only sanitary landfill,
which is the ultimate disposal site for all domestic and commercial
waste collected through all of the municipalities' pick-up systems,
the county's greenbox system, and at building development sites. The
landfill, located on Hibs Road in Newport Township, is a two-phase
facility that has operated continuously for over twenty years. The
initial phase was closed out in the mid-1980s, and the new portion of
the landfill opened in 1984. Monitoring wells were installed at the
site in 1988, and there have been no groundwater contamination
problems associated with the landfill to date. The existing facility
was adequate to handle the county's solid waste throughout the last
planning period (1985-1990), and a 20-foot vertical expansion of the
landfill using borrow material is currently underway. Carteret County
is working with Pamlico County and Craven County on a feasibility
study for a new landfill that would serve all three counties into the
first part of the next century. Final recommendations for the study
have not been achieved.
In unincorporated parts of the county, trash disposal is handled
almost entirely by individual household/business transport to one of
eleven greenbox sites owned or leased by the county. The county also
maintains one trash compaction station. Another trash compaction
station in Otway is owned by Waste Industries, a private waste dispos-
al contractor that is also responsible for picking up solid waste from
I-104

all of the county greenbox sites an
landfill. According to solid waste
County, some private haulers do pick
individual residences and businesses
paction system has been adequate to
unincorporated areas of the county o
Educational Facilities
d transporting it to the county
management personnel in Carteret
up trash and yard waste from
In general, the greenbox com-
serve waste disposal needs in
ver the past several years.
The Carteret County Board of Education receives federal, state,
and county assistance. In FY89-90, the county school system will
receive $9.5 million in county assistance. The county school system
serves the entire county and currently includes thirteen schools ---
two high schools, three middle schools, and eight elementary schools.
The following table provides a comparison of county school
enrollment in 1984 and 1989.
Table 31: Enrollment in Carteret County Schools, 1984-1989
School
1984
1989
Change
1)
Atlantic Elementary
257
162
- 95
2)
Beaufort Elementary
609
679
+ 70
3)
Beaufort Middle
390
353
- 37
4)
Broad Creek Middle
0[1]
686
+686
5)
Camp Glenn Elementary
682
586
- 96
6)
East Carteret High
862
74
-113
7)
Harker's Island Elementary
289
204
- 85
8)
Morehead Elementary
546
593
+ 47
9)
Morehead Middle
453
568
+115
10)
Newport Elementary
946
864
- 82
11)
Smyrna Elementary
375
437
+ 62
12)
West Carteret High
1,561
1,431
-130
13)
White Oak Elementary
705
547
-158
Total
7,675
7,859
+184
[1] Completed in 1989.
Source: Carteret County Board of Education.
Table 31 indicates that overall county school enrollment in
Carteret County grew by 184 individuals from 1984-1989. During the
early 1980s, public school enrollment in the county actually
decreased, so this recent growth in enrollment is a reversal of an
earlier trend. During the early 1980s, the overall school -age popu-
lation in the county was growing, so a rapid increase in private
school enrollment is the only factor that could account for the
decrease in public school enrollment over that period. Since 1984,
the school -age population has still grown faster than public school
enrollment, indicating that private schools are still attracting new
students. However, the recent increase in public school enrollment
appears to be indicative of a recent shift toward public, as opposed
I-105

to private, school enrollment in terms of percentage of total annual
enrollment.
Several geographic changes in the pattern of county school enroll-
ment have occurred since 1984. Of primary significance have been the
completion of Broad Creek Middle School, the addition of Grade 6 to
Morehead Central School to form Morehead Middle School, and the forma-
tion of "partial" elementary schools at Camp Glenn and Morehead
Elementary. Most changes in geographic enrollment for grades K-8
shown in Table 31 are the result of the overall increase in public
school enrollment and the physical changes noted above. However, it
is significant that both public high schools have experienced drops in
enrollment since 1984, while high school -age population has increased.
This trend is largely the result of private high school enrollment.
According to the Carteret County Board of Education, "capacity"
for each school in the county system is defined by the state basic
education plan, and can vary significantly year to year by classroom
and school. In general, all county schools in the western part of the
county -- in particular, Beaufort and Morehead Elementary and West
Carteret High -- are currently overcrowded. While less crowded than
the western township schools, the schools serving the eastern part of
the county are also technically at or over capacity according to
strict classroom requirements included in the basic education plan.
In response to the obvious need for expansion of the county school
system, the Carteret County Board of Education adopted a 15-Year Long
Range Facilities Plan in 1988. The plan established ranges of desir-
able enrollments and outlined construction costs and schedules through
the year 2003. Completed and/or ongoing components of the plan
include completion of Broad Creek Middle School, major improvement
projects at Beaufort and Morehead Middle Schools, and Newport
Elementary School, and purchase of land for replacement of the
Morehead Elementary School. The location of all existing county
schools is indicated on Map 13.
In addition to financing and maintaining the county school system,
the county provides funding assistance to Carteret Community College
and the Carteret County Library. Continued emphasis has been placed
on upgrading these facilities since 1985. In addition to continuing
the improvements to workshops and the Learning Resources Center at the
community college, the county has made efforts to integrate community
college activities with the activities sponsored by state -financed
research and educational facilities in Carteret County. These facili-
ties include the North Carolina Marine Resource Center, the North
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Laboratory, and the UNC
Institute of Marine Sciences.
I-106

LOCATION OF COUNTY -MAINTAINED
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
The preparation of this map was
financed In part through a grant
provided by the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program,
through funds provided by the
Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972, as amended, which Is
administered by the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
CRAVEN COUNTY
--� ------
"A
l
0.u�ER
NEJSi
i
NEWPOR?RIVER _
o >
• � 3:
• O�� !TR
von rum. 'W,r�N VV B4Ck S o4
o ^ OUNO
SCALE
n 1 2 l I LIES
S
CAPE LOOKOUT
el+
MAP 13
PAMLICO SOUND`
n'ES\84�
i
B4Y
'<
LEGEND
m
o O
oataQa caarry saeu c xsfseA:xor
N
w
Y1011 CODrly eAx1O
z
We" Responsibility of CCPx
1 - Brunson Perk
2 - rrraao• Part
�0
3 - sast.xor k
a - Narioaasv Part
5 - nestam Part - early developmental/contraction
-�
BEACH AND ESTUARINE ACCGes
zcqm4md through exact crouton adolaiatered by N.C. Division of Coastal
y0
tateed �x
81 - salter Path Each Access
32 - haw xt niver 6tasrine Aeceea
4v
PID1s
P
O
� ro Prvgru administered by N.C. Division of
al roast �tfoedlag
P - straits Pier/Parking - early plaoaipq ategser fotexe aslatmmamoe
by CCPa
CARIMM CT COONPy SCHOOLS
occasional gym Progras and one of athletic fielder aro_r day e•ops at
selected site.
8 - schools
COenNITf PARRS
rmsetaxy assistance when built: maintained by ladivldual comma.itLes
tassoclatinasl with monthly inspaetiooa by CClx
C - Conownity PArta
arRirIC FIELDS
NOTE Shackteford Banks, Cape Lookout. Core
y-hall/Athletic field disease to and seintained by CCM
Banks, and Portsmouth Inland are a part of the
Notiond Seashore System and net under the
r - sou/Athletic fiale toppcoa. 1 •c.1 leased face achoal ayetesr
planning Mrlsdichon of Carteret County.
mafntalaad by CCPR
COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE — — —
NOTE: The Emerald Islefin Isle Beach corporate k
Eno extends L2200 feet into Boguo Sound and
INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT MACON NOT
parallels the Bogue Sound shoreline.
UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PLANNING
JURISDICTION
DMA -TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AREAS NOT
UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PLANNING
JURISDICTION
TOWN OF CEDAR POINT
_ _ _ _
CORPORATE LIMIT LINE '

Parks and Recreation
As a shoreline county located in a mild climate, Carteret County
offers a variety of water -related recreational activities including
boating, swimming, scuba diving, water skiing, surfing, fishing and
hunting. The public beaches, Cape Lookout National Seashore Park, Ft.
Macon State Park, and the Croatan National Forest provide an abundance
of open space for public recreation. Preservation of these public
recreational areas, as well as improvement of public access facilities
at the county's parks and public beaches have been growing concerns of
county officials and year-round residents.
In addition to the state and federally -maintained recreational
areas outlined above, there are numerous recreational facilities in
Carteret County that are maintained by the County Parks and Recreation
Department. The parks, recreational facilities, and shoreline access
areas maintained or planned by Carteret County are shown on Map 14.
The county has full responsibility for maintaining the five county
parks and two shoreline access areas outlined on Map 14. Also, the
county owns/leases and maintains two athletic fields, inspects commu-
nity parks, and supervises summer day camps and weekend evening athle-
tic programs at school fields and gyms.
As a result of its extensive national and state park system, and
an excellent county -sponsored parks and recreation effort, open space
and park facilities in unincorporated areas of Carteret County appear
to be adequate to serve the permanent population. This is particular-
ly true considering the abundant shoreline -related recreational oppor-
tunities available to the county's residents. However, the lack of
regional and neighborhood public estuarine access sites in unincor-
porated areas of the county is a need that has assumed more conse-
quence as those areas continue to grow. Ocean shoreline access has
primarily become a municipal concern as the beachfront communities on
Bogue Banks have expanded.
Other County Facilities
The inventory of hospitals; health care facilities; police, fire
and emergency medical facilities; and other institutional facilities
has not changed appreciably in Carteret County since the 1985 Land Use
Plan. The locations of the county's twenty-three fire departments
(eight serving the municipalities, fifteen serving unincorporated
areas designated by taxing districts) are shown on Map 13.. Existing
police, fire and emergency medical facilities and services are ade-
quate to meet existing demand. Map 13 also indicates the locations of
seven community centers in Carteret County.
Carteret General Hospital and Sea Level Hospital provide adequate
major health care services for county residents. Carteret General
recently completed a major expansion project. The Carteret County
Health Department provides clinical and public health services to
county residents. Services include the operation of an orthopedic
clinic, three screening clinics, and various educational programs.
The county Departments of Environmental Health, Solid Waste, and
I-108

LEGEND
FIRE DEPARTMENTS
1. Cedar Island
2. Atlantic
3. Sea Level
4. Stacy
5. Davis
6' Marshallberg
- .7. Barkers Island
8. Otway
9. North River
10. Beaufort
11. Morehead City
_ 12. Atlantic Beach
13. Mill Creek
14. Marlowe
15. Wildwood
16. Pine Knoll Shores
17. Salter Path
j 18. Newport
19. -Broad i Gales Creek
20. Emerald Isle
21, Cape Carteret
22; Stella
23. South River/Merriman
COMMUNITY CENTERS
1. Cedar Island
2. Davis
3. North River
4. Beaufort
S. Morehead City
6. Broad 4 Gales Creek
7. Stella
NOTE Shockleford Banks, Cape Lookout, Core
Banks, and Portsmouth Island are a part of the
■
SCHOOLS
National Seashore System and not under the
planning jurisdiction of Carteret County.
1.
Atlantic Elementary
2.
Smyrna School
NOT: THE EMERALD ISLE BEACH CORPORATE
3.
Markers Island Eleaentary
LIMIT LINE EXTENDS 1,200 FEET INTO ROGUE
4.
Beaufort Elementary
SOUND AND PARALLELS THE BOGUS SOUND
S.
Beaufort Middle
SHORELINE-
6.
East Carteret High
7.
Morehead Elementary
8.
Morehead Middle
9.
Carteret Community College
10.
Camp Glenn School
11.
West Carteret High
12.
Newport Elementary
13.
Broad Creek Middle
14.
.White Oak Elementary
010Sy
HARBORS OF SAFE REFUGE
0-\"do
Q\NSF
1.
Cedar Ialand
2.
Atlantic
3.
Markers Island
NEVSi
-
PARES
%
�\
1.
Mariner Park
z \\
2.
Eastern Park
3.
Freedom Park
\
4.
Newport River Park
5.
Swinsoa Park
6.
Newport Park
7.
Salter Path Beach Access
---COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE
INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT
MACON NOT UNDER CARTERET
COUNTY PLANNING JURISDICTION
EXTRA -TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
I AREAS NOT UNDER CARTERET
COUNTY PLANNING JURISDICTION
CRAVEN COUNTY
1
z
\�poop
_ 0
13 GO , OUND
ATLANTIC OCEAN
J
i
TOWN OF CEDAR POINT
CORPORATE LIMIT LINE
?4D
PAMLICO SOUND
WEST
n
aAY
dry
The "pvotion of this map was
financed In W through a prat
provked by the North Carolina
Counm Managenwat Program,
tlrouyl funds orovd.d by the
pe Coa.lI tom mlmiamenl Act of
1972. u ameued .INN I.
admtdatered by the Office of
Owan mid Could Reswc.
Management, Noticed Oceade and
Alcarph.rle AdmlNatralloa
J
2 O
to
ra
m
r
+0 2 rut 40 -
-WPoRT RIVfR c ■ � �O
o j 2
4
Tee srtuns
e oey II 3�o asw
AND
,off. .Y ere � 9gCk S0`NO
III CARTERET COUNTY
COMMUNITY SERVICES
l a ISQU 2 a •.dE, MAP14 CARTERET COUNTY
COMMUNITY SERVICES
MAP 14
CAPE LOOKOUT

Class SA: shellfishing for market purposes and any other
usage specified by the "SB" and "SC" classifi-
cation;
Class SB: primary recreation and any other usage specified by
the "SC" classification;
Class SC: fish and wildlife propagation, secondary recrea-
tion, and other uses requiring waters of lower
quality.
Most of the waters within Carteret County's planning jurisdiction
are classified SA. Exceptions include Nelson Bay and many of the
streams and tributaries feeding into the county's sounds. Nelson
Bay is the location of the outfall for one of the Open Ground
Farms' major drainage ditches and is classified SC. Appendix IV
provides the water quality classifications for the White Oak River
Basin. The SC locations cannot be accurately mapped in this Land
Use Plan. Therefore, the written descriptions must be relied upon
for SC locations.
During 1989 and 1990, the State Environmental Management Commis-
sion was considering the establishment of a High Quality Waters
classification. This action was in response to federal antidegra-
dation regulations which require that the quality of waters with
quality higher than that defined by the state's existing classifi-
cation standards be maintained through additional protective
measures. The General Procedures Rule and Antidegradation Policy
are defined by 15 NCAC 2B.0101 and 15 NCAC 2B.0201, respectively.
Stricter requirements for water quality standards, wastewater
treatment and stormwater runoff control will apply to high quality
water designated areas. The standards are defined in 15 NCAC
2B.0201. Within Carteret County, only Calico Creek is nominated
as a High Quality Water Area.
The economic analysis section of this plan clearly documents the
economic importance of Carteret County's marine resources. The
policies section of this plan must provide protection for these
resources.
I-95

Mosquito and Rabies Control contribute to the county's public health
effort through the control of health hazards, nuisances, and private
wastewater disposal systems.
Other county facilities include court system facilities, the
county jail, and county offices housing various departments such as
the tax office, permit office, sheriff's office, social services,
planning, and administration, all located in Beaufort. The county has
completed several major improvements to county buildings since 1985,
and is continuing the effort to upgrade its services and facilities.
The provision of parking facilities for county employees and visitors
is still a concern to be addressed.

H. CURRENT PLANS, STUDIES AND REGULATIONS
Carteret County maintains an active comprehensive planning pro-
gram. The county's Planning Commission is supported by the Planning
Department which includes the following staff positions: Planning
Director, Planner I, Zoning Enforcement Officer, and Administrative
Assistant. Carteret County maintains a separate Central Permit
Department which enforces the North Carolina State building, elec-
trical, plumbing, and mechanical codes, and several land -use related
ordinances. The following provides a summary of all county plans,
policies, and ordinances which relate to land use planning.
Plans
a) 1985 Carteret County Land Use Plan
The document was certified by the Coastal Resources Commission on
September 6, 1985. The plan is an update to previous land use
plans prepared in 1967 and 1978. Land use surveys were undertaken
in 1962 and 1982. These studies did not have any regulatory
purpose, but do provide historical documentation of land use
development within the county.
The 1985 Land Use Plan is in need of revision to provide clear and
specific policy statements. The county's current land use poli-
cies have proven difficult to interpret and implement.
b) A Plan for Parks and Recreation in Carteret County, 1974
This document provided a definition of recreation needs in
Carteret County. It was updated in 1985, but it is currently out
of date and is not being implemented.
c) Transportation Plan
In 1971, the North Carolina Department of Transportation prepared
a transportation plan for portions of the county. However, the
document was not adopted. The Department of Transportation is
currently preparing a county thoroughfare plan. Lack of an
adopted thoroughfare plan is a serious planning deficiency.
d) Regional Sewer Plan
In 1979, a county -wide sewer plan was prepared to comply with
Section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Since the
preparation of the plan, there has been continuing debate concern-
ing the best method of sewage disposal for Carteret County and its
municipalities. The 201 sewer plan has not been implemented.
e) Beach Access Plan
This plan identifies needs for beach access and proposes incen-
tives for the provision of shoreline access. The plan is out of
date. However, the county's subdivision regulations were updated
in 1986 and included shoreline access requirements.

f) Hurricane Evacuation, Hazard Mitigation, and Post -Disaster
Plan, 1984
This is a county -wide plan which was prepared in 1984 in conjunc-
tion with Beaufort, Morehead City, and the Bogue Banks towns. The
county incorporated hazard mitigation policies into its 1985 Land
Use Plan.
Regulations and Ordinances
a) Carteret County Subdivision Regulations
The Carteret County Subdivision Regulations were adopted in 1961
and updated in 1983 and 1986. The 1986 revision was particularly
significant because complete review and rewrite of the ordinance
was accomplished. The revised ordinance included shoreline access
requirements and increased the minimum lot size from 15,000 to
20,000 square feet.
Subdivision plats are reviewed by the Carteret County Planning
Department staff and a Subdivision Technical Review Committee to
ensure consistency with the Subdivision Regulations. The techni-
cal review team is composed of representatives of all county
departments affected by development. The plats are presented to
the Planning Board for preliminary and final approval.
b) Carteret County Zoning Ordinance
The Carteret County Zoning Ordinance was originally adopted in
1963 and revised in 1980. Approximately 30 percent of the
county's area was zoned. All of the zoned areas are in Western
Carteret County. By the early 1980s, the ordinance became very
disjointed and difficult to implement. A thorough review and
rewrite was undertaken,and the ordinance reenacted in 1987. Addi-
tional review and revision was undertaken in 1988. A revised
Zoning Ordinance was adopted by the Carteret County Board of
Commissioners in June, 1990. One area of concern being addressed
was the incorporation of planned unit development regulations, and
a conditional use overlay.
c) Carteret County Mobile Home Park and Camp Park Ordinance
The county's Mobile Home and Camp Park Ordinance was adopted in
1972 and revised in 1980. The Carteret County Inspections Depart-
ment staff.reviewed all plans for mobile home parks and camp parks
to ensure consistency with the ordinance. The plans are subse-
quently reviewed and approved by the Carteret County Planning
Board. The Carteret County Central Permit Department enforces the
ordinance to ensure.compliance with the approved plans.
d) Group Housing Ordinance
This ordinance was adopted in 1974 and revised in 1984. The ordi-
nance regulates the construction of condominiums, townhouses,
rowhouses,and apartments. The Carteret County Central Permit
I-112

Department reviews all plans to ensure consistency with the ordi-
nance. Final plats are reviewed and approved by the Carteret
County Planning Commission.
e) Outer Banks Land Protection Ordinance
This ordinance was adopted in 1973. It was designed to regulate
development occurring in sand dune areas. The ordinance is still
in effect but has limited utility. The only area of Carteret
County under the county's planning jurisdiction and having dune
areas is the section of Bogue Banks lying between east and west
Indian Beach. All of Shackleford and Core Banks are in the Cape
Lookout National Seashore and are under federal jurisdiction.
Also, the CAMA regulatory program now provides most of the control
for which the ordinance was originally intended. The ordinance is
enforced by the Carteret County Central Permit Department.
f) North Carolina State Building, Electrical, Plumbing, and
Mechanical Codes
The Carteret County Central Permit Department enforces all state
building codes to ensure compliance with minimum construction
standards.
g) Septic Tank Regulations
In 1974, the Carteret County Health Department adopted regulations
to govern the design, construction, installation, cleaning, and
usage of sewage disposal systems. The regulations are enforced by
the county's Environmental Health Department.
h) National Flood Insurance Program
Carteret County does participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program. The program is administered locally by the Carteret
County Central Permit Department.
i) Carteret County Billboard Ordinance
In 1985, the county adopted a sign ordinance to regulate the loca-
tion, size and appearance of signs in the unincorporated areas of
the county. The ordinance is enforced by the Central Permit
Department.
j) Junkyard Control Ordinance
In 1983, Carteret County adopted a Junkyard Control Ordinance.
The ordinance regulates the location and screening of yards.
Enforcement is the responsibility of the Carteret County Planning
Department.

k) CAMA Minor Permit Program
Carteret County issues permits for all developments which meet the
CAMA regulatory definition of a minor permit. The Planning
Department has several CAMA minor permit officers on staff.
1) North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act
The county does not enforce the 1983 Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act. However, the county cooperates with the state to
ensure that new developments meet the standards of the act. The
act is designed to control siltation and surface storm water
runoff.
m) National Fire Prevention Regulations
The Carteret County Fire Marshal enforces these federal regula-
tions, which are designed to increase the safety of public build-
ings and privately -operated establishments.
n) "404" Wetlands Regulations
Carteret County does not have any regulatory authority for
enforcement of the 11404" wetlands program. Regulation is provided
by the Regulatory Branch of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
through the Wilmington, North Carolina, district office. Anyone
who undertakes work in a wetlands area is required to obtain a
permit. The county attempts to coordinate its local planning and,
in particular, its subdivision review and approval process with
the "404" program.
3. Consistency of Local Policies and Ordinances
with the Land Use Plan
It is difficult to judge the consistency of local policies and
ordinances with the 1985 Carteret County Land Use Plan. This is espe-
cially true with respect to the county's zoning and subdivision ordi-
nances. The plan establishes developed, transition, community, rural
and conservation land classification categories. Only the developed
and community classifications provide any density guidelines. Thus,
it is often difficult to determine if existing zoning and proposed
development is consistent with the plan. The county recently received
a CAMA-funded grant to revise the existing zoning ordinance to make it
more consistent with the land use plan.
In order to improve consistency, the following should be consid-
ered by Carteret County and addressed in the policies section of this
plan:
-- Incorporate open space or conservation classifications into
the county's Zoning Ordinance.
-- Increase the minimum lot sizes allowed. This will be an
important consideration for the control of density when
central water and sewer service areas are expended.

-- Extend zoning jurisdiction into the "Down East" area.
-- Establish specific density guidelines for each land classifi-
cation category.
-- Review all ordinances and repeal those which may no longer be
needed, such as the Outer Banks Land Protection Ordinance.
4. Implementation/Effectiveness of the 1985 Land Use Plan
Update Policies
The guidelines for the preparation of land use plans under the
Coastal Area Management Act require an analysis of the effectiveness
of the 1985 goals and a discussion of actions and activities used to
implement these policies and goals. This "scorecard" approach
provides the local government the opportunity to reflect on how it
achieved its previous goals as a beginning step to formulating new
policies. It also provides the opportunity to evaluate the strengths
and weaknesses of the previous policies.
The following section includes an evaluation of the policies
addressed in the 1985 Carteret County Land Use Plan Update and a
discussion on subsequent actions to implement these policies. The
1985 Carteret County Land Use Plan Update addresses many issues
including Resource Protection, Resource Production and Management, and
Economic and Community Development.
Many of the policies from the 1985 Carteret County Land Use Plan
Update have been successfully implemented through coordinated efforts
by county officials, residents and other agencies. Many of these
implementation actions required a commitment of funds, as well as
effort, and reinforce the County Commissioners' intentions of
improving the quality of life in Carteret County.
Resource Protection
The 1985 Plan Update provides an exhaustive discussion of Areas of
Environmental Concern (AECs) and other fragile natural systems in the
county. All of the policies addressing these sensitive natural
resources reflect a concern for their conservation. Most policies
require these areas to be mapped as "Conservation" on the Land Classi-
fication Map, and the 15 NCAC 7H use standards are imposed as restric-
tions to development. Additional protective measures are taken for
the Ocean Hazard AEC by amending the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Regulations to require stricter densities and height limits in these
areas. The ordinance amendments have never been accomplished.
Numerous fragile areas are described and mapped, and their manage-
ment is strongly recommended by their being classified as "Conserva-
tion" on the Land Classification Map and through coordination with
other agencies, such as the Forest Service and National Parks Service.
A Subdivision Regulations amendment was suggested to protect the trees
of Sea Gate Woods from destruction by incorporating special restric-
tions against the cutting of vegetation in new subdivisions. Although
I-115

the Subdivision Regulations' tree protection clause never came to
fruition, the Sea Gate Woods area was provided necessary protection
through the adoption of initial zoning in early 1991. Large -lot
residential zoning will provide some means of protecting this fragile
environment.
The county recognized the value of its fisheries resource and
established a 75-foot "Conservation" zone along all shorelines of
primary nursery areas. This conservation zone has been successfully
employed in the subdivision review and approval process as a natural
shoreline buffer for primary nursery area waterfront subdivisions. No
development is allowed in this 75' zone except those uses listed as
exemptions under 15 NCAC 8K. The plan also establishes a policy for
undeveloped sound and riverine islands by stating that no development
is allowed at all. To date, this policy has been successfully
employed in abating development proposals for some spoils islands in
the Down East area.
The plan makes a strong link between the protection of surface
water quality and the value of the fisheries industry. In an effort
to keep the lines of communication open between agency officials and
the commercial fishermen, the plan recommends that a fisheries task
force be established to coordinate with the Division of Marine Fisher-
ies. This policy was implemented in 1989 when the County Commission-
ers appointed the Marine Fisheries Advisory Board, a working group in
which commercial fishermen are provided the chance to discuss
fisheries -related issues with the County Commissioners. This Board
has successfully provided input to the Marine Fisheries Commission on
controversial rule changes, like size limits and Turtle Excluder
Devices.
Historic and archaeological properties are also addressed in the
plan. It discusses an inventory of significant places and suggests
the inclusion of the Division of Archives and History in the subdivi-
sion review process. To date, neither of these objectives has been
implemented.
Resource Production and Management
The Land Use Plan discusses the value of prime agricultural lands
and productive mineral extraction areas. The agricultural soil pro-
tection policies require these areas to be mapped as Rural on the Land
Classification Map and encourage county and state officials to inform
farmers of the tax laws which make it financially more attractive to
continue farming. The mineral extraction policy discourages the
exploitation of potentially productive mining sites in the Croatan
National Forest.
Economic and Community Development
This section provides the plan's most detailed sets of policies
and implementation steps. The policies on economic and community
development recognize the value of tourism, commercial fishing,
agriculture, the military, and retired community to the economy of

Carteret County. The plan states that industries that are compatible
with the environment will be recruited and maintenance of the, existing
quality of life is very important.
The policies on water and sewer were closely followed and imple-
mented within the five-year planning period. Although the county does
not have central water or sewer, the plants policies encourage the
establishment of a Water/Sewer Authority, a water/sewer cooperative,
and a county Utilities Department. The policies also encourage the
arrangement of a private contractor or corporation to provide water to
the western parts of the county. Since 1985, the county received
grant funds and built a publicly -owned water system for the impover-
ished community of North River, held a bond referendum for water and
sewer (which was widely defeated), established a Water -Sewer Task
Force and committed funds to hire a county engineer to oversee the
implementation of a countywide or regional wastewater disposal system.
The Water -Sewer Task Force developed an Environmental Impact Statement
which reviews the alternatives for wastewater disposal available to
the county. This document is currently under review by the Division
of Environmental Management.
A private water company, the West Carteret Water Corporation,
received FHA funding approval and commenced laying lines in the west
beginning at Broad Creek. It is expected that water deliveries will
be in 1992.
The plan also encourages the dedication of package treatment
plants to Homeowners' Associations and encourages new developments to
tie into existing wastewater treatment systems. These policies have
not been implemented through an amendment to the Subdivision Regula-
tions as recommended in the plan.
The policies support many transportation -related issues, such as
encouraging D.O.T. to develop a Thoroughfare Plan for Carteret County
and construction of a third bridge from the mainland to Bogue Banks.
The plan also supports the replacement of important bridges throughout
the county including the Core Creek Bridge and the White Oak River
Bridge at Swansboro. A Thoroughfare Study has been underway since
1987, yet no final report has been presented. Replacement of the
bridges in the communities of Cedar Point and Core Creek has also
begun. The plan also encourages the adoption of a Billboard Ordi-
nance, which was done in 1985, and the development of access restric-
tion standards for subdivisions. The Carteret County Planning Depart-
ment has carried out this limited access policy by coordinating with
the Department of Transportation in the subdivision review process.
The county's Harbors of Refuge in Cedar Island, Atlantic and
Harkers Island also receive support in the policy statements. Mainte-
nance dredging is also supported in the policies and in the county's
recent financial support of dredging projects at Salter's Creek,
Taylor's Creek and the Cedar Island Harbor of Refuge.

The 1985 Land Use Plan contains many important policies regarding
solid waste that have been implemented by the county. A Clean County/
Keep America Beautiful Coordinator was hired in 1987 to oversee
recycling programs and littering problems. The county's commitment to
the solid waste issue was further reinforced by the adoption of a
litter prevention ordinance and hiring two full-time litter wardens.
As required by the policies, the county has established a recycling
program with recycling, transfer and compaction sites set up around
the county. A private enterprise has been hired by the county to
execute the recycling program.
Public water access is identified as a high priority issue in the
1985 Land Use Plan. The policies identify several actions for
increasing public water access that have been successfully completed
by the county. Policy statements speak to the establishment of beach
access sites at the Newport River and on Bogue Banks. Both these
sites have been operational since 1987, and the county's commitment to
increasing further access opportunities is demonstrated by the
county's recent application and receipt of grant funds to construct a
fishing pier off the north shore of Harkers Island.
The role of the military is also addressed. The plan recommends
that accident potential areas near Bogue and Atlantic Fields be
classified for low density development and that zoning be placed
around these installations to ensure land use compatibility. Although
zoning was adopted around Bogue Field in 1988, the county is trying to
finetune the zoning classifications to ensure health, safety and
welfare of adjoining properties. The plan also encourages cooperation
with the military on all mutually concerning issues, including the
flow of military traffic on Highway 24.
Outer Continental Shelf mineral exploration receives significant
attention in the 1985 plan. Although the policies do not overtly
support or oppose exploration, they strongly recommend continual
communication and coordination between the oil and gas industry, and
government officials have followed the intent of this policy by
continually working with representatives from the oil and gas
industry, specifically Mobil Oil.
The development of the port facilities at Radio Island and in
Morehead City is addressed, although no specific policies are identi-
fied which expressly support or oppose the expansion of the State
Port. The policies speak to the ongoing application of the Special
Use Permit requirements for particular uses in the Port industrial
zoning district, the classification placed on almost all of Radio
Island. The policies also encourage coordination between county and
Morehead City officials in planning specific uses at the State Port.
The last of the policies speaks to multi -jurisdictional approaches
to growth management in the county. These policies encourage the
improvement of the county's bridges, highway systems, hospital and
public water access facilities to be able to accommodate more easily
seasonal population influences and the growth anticipated for this
coastal county.

SECTION II
PROJECTED LAND DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS

A. PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
General Discussion
In this section, recent trends in Carteret County's population and
housing characteristics will be utilized to project population growth
and housing characteristics in the county throughout the 5-year (to
year 1995) and 10-year (to year 2000) planning periods. The contin-
uing tide of year-round and seasonal migration into Carteret County is
expected to have progressively greater impact on land use issues
throughout the next ten years.
As development continues near fragile areas, resource protection
will assume greater significance in the public eye. Continued devel-
opment in areas within Carteret County's planning jurisdiction will
strain the capacity of the existing transportation system; increase
demand for municipal or county -supplied water and wastewater and solid
waste disposal; and place increasing demands on schools, recreational
facilities, law enforcement agencies, fire departments, and adminis-
trative/regulatory agencies. Despite increased pressure to control
residential development, the basic demand for housing by incoming
population -- in particular, affordable housing for the year-round
population -- will be an important need to be addressed by local
planning agencies in the coming decade. An informed analysis of where
and how fast development will occur is crucial to the development of
land use policies for Carteret County's next ten-year planning
period.
Year-round Population Proiect
Based on Coastal Area Management Act planning guidelines, popula-
tion projections prepared by the N.C. State Data Center, Office of
State Budget and Management, are the appropriate data to be utilized
in projecting year-round population for Carteret County from 1990-
2000. The table below outlines estimated 1987, and projected 1995 and
2000 year-round population for Carteret County based on State Data
Center Data. Individual township and municipal projections are based
on the assumption that the relative growth rates by specific area will
remain the same from 1987-2000 as estimated for 1980-1987. (Similar
methodology was used to calculate township populations for the base
year of 1987 - see Appendix 1A).

Table 32: Total Year-round Population Projections
by Township and Municipality
Carteret County, 1987-2000
Township Municipality or Area Year-round Population Percentage Change
Overall
1987 1995 2000 1987-1995 1995-2000 1987-2000
1)
Atlantic
Total
808
806
805
-0.3%
-0.2%
-0.4%
2)
Beaufort
Beaufort
4,548
5,317
5,791
16.9%
8.9%
27.3%
Unincorporated Areas
3,350
3,546
3,667
5.9%
3.4%
9.5%
Total Township
7,898
8,863
9,458
12.2%
6.7%
19.8%
3)
Cedar Island
Total Township
353
374
387
6.0%
3.5%
9.8%
4)
Davis
Total Township
509
527
538
3.6%
2.1%
5.8%
5)
Harkers Island
Total Township
2,038
2,174
2,258
6.7%
3.9%
10.8%
6)
Harlowe
Total Township
1,047
1,144
1,204
9.3%
5.2%
15.0%
7)
Marshallberg
Total Township
606
634
651
4.6%
2.7%
7.4%
8)
Merrimon
Total Township
471
519
548
10.2%
5.7%
16.5%
9)
Morehead City
Atlantic Beach
1,586
2,273
2,697
43.3%
18.6%
70.0%
Morehead City
6,740
9,277
10,840
37.6%
16.9%
60.8%
Indian Beach
67
81
89
20.7%
10.6%
33.4%
Pine Knoll Shores
932
1,237
1,424
32.7%
15.2%
52.8%
Unincorporated Areas
11,415
13,132
14,191
15.0%
8.1%
24.3%
Total Township
20,740
26,000
29,242
25.4%
12.5%
41.0%
10)
Newport
Newport
2,573
3,308
3,761
28.6%
13.7%
46.2%
Unincorporated Areas
4,246
4,949
5,383
16.6%
8.8%
26.8%
Total Township
6,819
8,257
9,144
21.1%
10.7%
34.1%
11)
Sea Level
Total Township
631
728
788
15.4%
8.2%
24.8%
12)
Smyrna
Total Township
693
753
789
8.6%
4.9%
13.9%
13)
Stacy
Total Township
353
386
406
9.4%
5.3%
15.1%
14)
Straits
Total Township
1,687
1,865
1,975
10.5%
5.9%
17.0%
15)
White Oak
Cape Carteret
1,239
1,553
1,747
25.4%
12.5%
41.0%
[1]
Emerald Isle
1,752
2,697
3,279
53.9%
21.6%
87.2%
Unincorporated Areas
2,841
3,212
3,440
13.0%
7.1%
21.1%
Total Township
5,832
7,462
8,467
27.9%
13.5%
45.2%
Total Municipalities
Total Unincorporated Areas
Total County
19,437 25,743 29,630 32.4% 15.1% 52.4%
31,048 34,749 37,030 11.9% 6.6% 19.3%
50,485 60,492 66,660 19.8% 10.2% 32.0%
Sources: North Carolina State Data Center, Office of State Budget and Management
T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners
[11 "Unincorporated Areas" includes Town of Cedar Point, incorporated in 1988

Based on Table 32, the average annual population growth rate for
the county, municipalities, and unincorporated areas should decrease
over the next ten years compared to the 1980s. This trend is outlined
in Table 33, below:
Table 33: Average Annual Year-round Population Growth Rate
and Percent Change - Carteret County, 1980-2000
Average Annual Year-round
Percent Change
Area
Population
Growth Rate
in Growth Rate
1980-87
1987-2000
180-187 to 187-2000
Municipalities
6.26%
4.03%
-55.3%
Unincorporated Areas
1.8%
1.48%
-21.6%
Total County
3.23%
2.46%
-31.3%
Source: T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners
Despite the expected decrease in annual growth rate over the
1990s, the population growth rate in Carteret County will still be
more than double the North Carolina rate over the next ten years.
From 1990-2000, the state population is estimated to show a 9.8%
increase. The Carteret County population is anticipated to grow 22.7%
over the same period.
From 1987-2000, the county's municipalities should grow almost
three times as fast as its unincorporated areas. The beach commu-
nities will continue to display high growth rates as their recre-
ational potential continues to attract retirees and younger profes-
sionals and entrepreneurs. However, it is conceivable that growth in
some of the beach communities may not keep up with the projections in
Table 32, due to building density restrictions or municipal inability
to provide services -- in particular, wastewater disposal. Morehead
City is also anticipated to experience appreciable population growth
over the planning period as it develops as a commercial center for the
nearby waterfront recreational communities.
Continuing the trend of the 170s and 180s, the unincorporated
areas in townships containing incorporated town are expected to grow
faster than less urbanized townships throughout the next ten years.
This growth should be concentrated in areas where municipal services
are available or soon to be available, largely due to increasing
difficulties associated with sewage disposal near fragile areas and in
areas with soils restrictions. As evidenced by the recent'incorpo-
ration of the Cedar Point community in White Oak Township, a general
trend of annexation of developing areas and incorporation of communi-
ties is expected to continue through the 1990s as demand for municipal
services increases.
As shown in Table 32, of the townships with no existing incorpo-
rated towns, Sea Level, Straits, and Merrimon townships are expected
to have the highest rates of growth in the 1990s. Development in
these and the other "rural" townships within the county's planning
jurisdiction must be closely regulated due to numerous environmental
II-3

constraints including the existence of wetlands, fragile estuarine
shoreline areas, soil restrictions, and flood hazard areas.
The following two tables are based on population projections by
the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management.
Table 34: Total Population by Age and Percent Change
Carteret County, 1987-2000
Acme
Population by
Age Group
Percent Change
1987
2000
1987 - 2000
0 -
4
3,443
4,018
16.7%
5 -
19
9,939
12,288
23.6%
20 -
29
8,289
8,969
8.2%
30 -
39
8,045
9,966
23.9%
40 -
49
6,072
9,933
63.6%
50 -
59
5,174
7,919
53.1%
60 -
70
5,146
6,433
25.0%
70 and
up
4,377
7,134
63.0%
Total
50,485
66,660
32.0%
Source: State Data Center, North Carolina Office of State Budget
and Management
It is expected that the most rapidly growing age groups from 1987-
2000 in Carteret County will be the groups aged 40-49 and 70 and up.
The growth of the 40-49 age group will be strongly influenced by the
aging of the 30-39 age group, which grew so rapidly during the 1980s.
The over-70 age group will continue to experience significant growth
both as a result of in -migration and the steady decrease in the death
rate for elderly individuals. Overall, Carteret County's population
will experience a significant increase in median age during the 1990s.
In 1987, only 41% of the county's population was age 40 or above. By
the year 2000, 47% of the county's population is expected to be aged
40 or above.
Table 35:
Population and Percent Increase
by Race and Sex
Carteret County, 1987
- 2000
Total Population
Percent Change
Category
1987
2000
1987 - 2000
Total White
45,850
61,231
33.5%
Males
22,802
30,422
33.4%
Females
23,048
30,809
33.6%
Total Non -White
4,635
5,429
17.1%
Males
2,225
2,606
17.1%
Females
2,410
2,823
17.1%
Total Males
25,027
33,028
32.0%
Total Females
25,458
33,632
32.1%
Total County
50,485
66,660
32.0%
Source: State Data Center, North Carolina Office of State Budget
and Management
II-4

As was the case from 1970-87, the non -white population will con-
tinue to grow faster than the white population from 1987-2000, and
thus assume a gradually larger share of the total county population.
In 1987, the non -whites composed 9.20 of the county's population. By
the year 2000, the percentage of non -whites is expected to decrease to
8.10. The female population is expected to grow slightly faster than
the male population in Carteret County from 1987-2000, which reverses
the trend from 1970-87. In the year 2000, females will still slightly
outnumber males in Carteret County.
3. Seasonal Population
Table 36 shows projections of peak seasonal population for
Carteret County from 1987-2000. The table is based on Table 10 in
Section I.B., and assumes 1) that the average annual growth rate of
the seasonal population from 1987-2000 will be the same as the 1980-87
rate, and 2) that relative rates of growth by area from 1987-2000 will
be the same as the relative growth rates for 1980-1987.
As Table 36 indicates, the fastest -growing seasonal populations in
Carteret County during the 1990s will be Cape Carteret, the unincor-
porated areas of White Oak Township, Newport, Indian Beach, and Pine
Knoll Shores. The seasonal population of the municipalities is
expected to grow slightly faster than the seasonal population of
unincorporated areas. However, the increasing impact of seasonal
development in unincorporated areas is evidenced by the fact that the
seasonal growth rate of the unincorporated areas is expected to be
over five times higher than the year-round growth rate for unincorpo-
rated areas from 1987-2000. The growing impact of seasonal population
on the entire county is best demonstrated by the fact that the
county's seasonal population is expected to grow over three times as
fast as its year-round population throughout the planning period.
It is important to point out again that seasonal population growth
shown in Table 36 is based on the supposition that the average annual
growth rate will not decrease from 1990-2000. It is possible that in
some areas -- the beach communities in particular -- growth rates will
slow in the 1990s as building density regulations and wastewater
disposal problems limit development. During the five-year planning
period, these types of restrictions to development in municipal areas
along Bogue Banks may have the effect of increasing estimated growth
rates in unincorporated areas of the county -- specifically, in White
Oak, Beaufort, and Morehead Townships.
The overall impact of year-round and seasonal migration into
Carteret County during the planning period is summarized in Table 37,
which shows the differences in year-round and total peak (year-round
plus peak seasonal) populations for Carteret County from 1987-2000.
Based on Table 37, Carteret County may have a total peak population by
the year 2000 of over 200,000, which is over three times the estimated
permanent year-round population. In particular, the county's munici-
palities will have a total peak population almost five times higher
than the year-round population in the year 2000. In areas under the
county's planning jurisdiction, White Oak Township in particular will
II-5

Table 36: Peak Seasonal Population Projections
by Township and Mmicipality
Carteret County, 1987-2000
Township nmicipality or Area Peak Seasonal Population Percentage Change
Overall
1987 1995 2000 1987-1995 1995-2000 1987-2000
1)
Atlantic
Total
623
1,000
1,235
60.5%
23.5%
98.2%
2)
Beaufort
Beaufort
2,401
3,645
4,422
51.8%
21.3%
84.2%
Unincorporated Areas
843
1,163
1,362
37.96
17.2%
61.6%
Total Township
3,244
4,808
5,784
48.2%
20.3%
78.3%
3)
Cedar Island
Total Township
185
281
342
52.1%
21.4%
84.7%
4)
Davis
Total Township
370
586
721
58.4%
23.0%
94.8%
5)
Harkers Island
Total Township
2,270
3,547
4,344
56.2%
22.5%
91.3%
6)
Harlowe
Total Township
525
827
1,015
57.5%
22.8%
93.4%
7)
Marshallberg
Total Township
377
581
708
54.0%
21.9%
87.7%
8)
Merrimon
Total Township
193
300
367
55.5%
22.3%
90.2%
9)
Morehead City
Atlantic Beach
18,434
28,105
34,144
52.5%
21.5%
85.2%
Indian Beach
7,681
13,414
16,993
74.6%
26.7%
121.2%
Morehead City
3,261
5,318
6,602
63.1%
24.1%
102.4%
Pine Knoll Shores
5,546
9,686
12,271
74.7%
26.7%
121.3%
Unincorporated Areas
1,283
1,594
1,788
24.2%
12.2%
39.3%
Total Township
36,205
58,117
71,797
60.5%
23.5%
98.3%
10)
Newport
Newport
1,053
2,035
2,648
93.3%
30.1%
151.5%
Unincorporated Areas
2,011
2,954
3,542
46.9%
19.9%
76.1%
Total Township
3,064
4,989
6,190
62.8%
24.1%
102.0%
11)
Sea Level
Total Township
99
120
134
21.6%
11.1%
35.2%
12)
Smyrna
Total Township
292
444
539
52.0%
21.4%
84.4%
13)
Stacy
Total Township
79
102
117
29.4%
14.2%
47.7%
14)
Straits
Total Township
401
531
613
32.5%
15.3%
52.8%
15)
White Oak
Cape Carteret
2,560
5,417
7,200
111.6%
32.9%
181.3%
[1]
E]rerald Isle
13,435
22,017
27,376
63.9%
24.3%
103.8%
Unincorporated Areas
3,160
6,518
8,615
106.3%
32.2%
172.6%
Total Township
19,155
33,952
43,191
77.3%
27.2%
125.5%
Total MIunicipalities
54,289
89,410
111,336
64.7%
24.5%
105.1%
Total Unincorporated
Areas
12,793
20,775
25,759
62.4%
24.0%
101.4%
Total County
67,082
110,185
137,095
64.3%
24.4%
104.4%
Sources: Tschetter, Paul D., "Characterization of Baseline Demographic Trends in the Year -
Round and Recreational Populations in the Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study Area"
T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners
[1] "Unincorporated Areas" includes Town of Cedar Point, incorporated in 1988

Table 37:
Total Peak Population
by Township and Municipality
Carteret County,
1987-2000
Township
Municipality or Area
1987 Population
1995
Population
2000
Population
Permanent Peak
Ratio [1]
Permanent
Peak
Ratio
Permanent Peak
Ratio
1)
Atlantic
Total
808
1,431
1.77
806
1,806
2.24
805
2,039
2.53
2)
Beaufort
Beaufort
4,548
6,949
1.53
5,317
8,963
1.69
5,791
10,214
1.76
Unincorporated Areas
3,350
4,193
1.25
3,546
4,709
1.33
3,667
5,029
1.37
Total Township
7,898
11,142
1.41
8,863
13,671
1.54
9,458
15,243
1.61
3)
Cedar Island
Total Township
353
538
1.52
374
656
1.75
387
729
1.88
4)
Davis
Total Township
509
879
1.73
527
1,113
2.11
538
1,259
2.34
5)
Harkers Island
Total Township
2,038
4,308
2.11
2,174
5,721
2.63
2,258
6,602
2.92
6)
Harlowe
Total Township
1,047
1,572
1.50
1,144
1,971
1.72
1,204
2,219
1.84
7)
Marshallberg
Total Township
606
983
1.62
634
1,214
1.92
651
1,358
2.09
8)
Merrimon
Total Township
471
664
1.41
519
819
1.58
548
915
1.67
9)
I%brehead City
Atlantic Beach
1,586
20,020
12.62
2,273
30,379
13.36
2,697
36,840
13.66
Morehead City
6,740
14,421
2.14
9,277
22,691
2.45
-10,840
27,833
2.57
Indian Beach
67
3,328
49.67
81
5,399
66.77
89
6,691
74.86
Pine Knoll Shores
932
6,478
6.95
1,237
10,923
8.83
1,424
13,696
9.61
Unincorporated Areas
11,415
12,698
1.11
13,132
14,726
1.12
14,191
15,979
1.13
Total Township
20,740
56,945
2.75
26,000
84,117
3.24
29,242
101,039
3.46
10)
Newport
Newport
2,573
3,626
1.41
3,308
5,343
1.62
3,761
6,409
1.70
Unincorporated Areas
4,246
6,257
1.47
4,949
7,903
1.60
5,383
8,925
1.66
Total Township
6,819
9,883
1.45
8,257
13,246
1.60
9,144
15,334
1.68
11)
Sea Level
Total Township
631
730
1.16
728
848
1.17
788
922
1.17
12)
Smyrna
Total Township'
693
985
1.42
753
1,196
1.59
789
1,328
1.68
13)
Stacy
Total Township
353
432
1.22
386
488
1.26
406
523
1.29
14)
Straits
Total Township
1,687
2,088
1.24
1,865
2,396
1.28
1,975
2,587
1.31
15)
Mite Oak
Cape Carteret
1,239
3,799
3.07
1,553
6,970
4.49
1,747
8,947
5.12
[1]
Emerald Isle
1,752
15,187
8.67
2,697
24,714
9.16
3,279
30,655
9.35
Unincorporated Areas
2,841
6,001
2.11
3,212
9,730
3.03
3,440
12,055
3.50
Total Township
5,832
24,987
4.28
7,462
41,414
5.55
8,467
51,657
6.10
Total Municipalities
19,437
73,726
3.79
25,743 115,152
4.47
29,630
140,966
4.76
Total Unincorporated
Areas
31,048
43,841
1.41
34,749
55,525
1.60
37,030
62,789
1.70
Total County
50,485
117,567
2.33
60,492 170,677
2.82
66,660
203,755
3.06
Source: T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners
[1) Ratio of Peak/Permanent Population

r-
be impacted by the seasonal population increase. .The unincorporated
areas of White Oak Township are expected to be second only to Cape
Carteret in terms of the percentage increase of peak/permanent
population ratio from 1987-2000.
4. Prolected Housincr Characteristics
Since the population analysis above indicated that Carteret
County's seasonal population is expected to grow over three times
faster than the year-round population from 1987-2000, the development
rate for seasonal private housing units is expected to be much higher
than the development rate for year-round units over the same period.
Table 38, below, was prepared using the ECU Seasonal Housing Study
cited previously, as well as population projections provided by the
North Carolina State Data Center. For year-round housing units, it
was assumed that the vacancy rate will be the same in 2000 and 1987,
and that average year-round household size will decrease slightly from
2.49 persons in 1987 to 2.40 persons in 2000. For seasonal housing
units, it was assumed that the ratio of population occupying private
seasonal housing units to total population in seasonal units (includ-
ing motels, marinas, campgrounds) will be the same in 2000 as was
indicated in the 1987 ECU study (74.1%). Also, the household size for
private seasonal units was assumed to be the same in 1987 and 2000
(4.5 persons per seasonal household).
Table 38: Number and Percentage Increase of Year-round
and Seasonal Private Housing Units
Carteret County, 1987-2000
Type of Unit Number of Units Percentage Increase
1987 1995 2000 1987-2000
Year-round Unit 22,998 28,007 31,505 37.0%
Seasonal Unit 11,045 18,138 22,572 104.4%
Total 34,043 46,145 54,077 58.8%
The table above indicates that the growth rate for seasonal
housing will continue to be higher than the growth rate for year-round
housing throughout the 1990s. More importantly, the number of
new seasonal units constructed annually will begin to surpass the
number of permanent units constructed annually during the late 1990s.
Of the total 20,000+ new housing units expected to be constructed
through the year 2000, 58% are anticipated to be seasonal units.
The geographic impact of this private housing development is
expected to parallel the pattern of population growth discussed in the
previous sections. The most rapid residential development will be
centered in and near the municipalities, since higher -density develop-
ment will be constrained by environmental conditions and the unavail-
ability of adequate waste disposal in, other areas of the county. The
documented trend of rapid growth in multi -family housing from 1970-
1987 is expected to continue. Almost all of the multi -unit construc-
tion is expected to take place in urbanized areas outside of the
county's planning jurisdiction due to unit density restrictions in
II-8

many unincorporated areas of the county. The majority of new year-
round residential units county -wide will continue to be single-family
detached units. In particular, many year-round and seasonal units
constructed in areas under county planning jurisdiction will be
higher -priced, single family homes on relatively large building lots.
In many predominantly rural areas, mobile home development will be an
important planning issue throughout the next decade. The overall
trend of continued rapid residential development in Carteret County
will require increased efforts by county and state regulatory and
planning agencies, as well as cooperation between the county and
rapidly -growing municipalities, to ensure that environmental quality
is maintained.
II-9

B. PROJECTED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRENDS AND RELATED LAND USE
ISSUES
General Economic Projections
Based on population and housing projections included in the
previous section, it is anticipated that Carteret County's per capita
income, retail sales, and total employed labor force will continue to
grow appreciably throughout the planning period. This continued
healthy economic climate will be primarily the result of the continued
in -migration of retirees and seasonal population. As Carteret County
grows as a recreational/retirement center, the finance/real estate/
construction industries, and retail and service industries, will
continue to thrive. Increased buying power by resident employees in
these industries will help to stimulate other sectors of the economy
such as manufacturing, fishing and agriculture, and wholesale trade.
Retail purchases, housing investment, and investment in local banks by
civil service employees, local government employees, and military
personnel will further stimulate the economy. Although the county
unemployment rate is expected to continue at or above the state
average due to the seasonal nature of many retail businesses, the next
decade should be marked by prosperity for most county citizens.
The table below provides an outline of the anticipated growth of
the various industries in Carteret County from 1988-2000 in terms of
personal earnings and employment.
Table 39
Relative Growth of Income -Producing Industries and Trades
Carteret County,'1988-2000
Industry
Personal Earnings
(Millions of 182 $)
Total
Farm Earnings
Non -Farm Earnings
Private Earnings
Agric. Serv.,
Forestry, Fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trans., Comm.,
Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate
Services
Government Earnings
Federal Civilian
Federal Military
State and Local
(incl. education)
% Change
1988 2000 1988-2000
297.39
466.46
56.9%
3.03
4.16
37.3%
294.36
462.30
57.1%
178.72
320.26
79.2%
3.91
7.62
94.9%
0.31
0.35
12.9%
38.02
58.97
55.1%
29.36
53.19
81.2%
19.03
31.39
65.0%
8.15
12.90
58.3%
43.18
75.20
74.2%
13.00
45.67
251.3%
23.76
34.97
47.2%
115.64
142.04
22.8%
53.01
68.94
30.0%
22.69
24.22
6.7%
39.94
48.88
22.4%

Industry
Employment
(Thousands)
Total
Farm Employment
Non -Farm Employment
Private Employment
Agric. Serv.,
Forestry, Fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trans., Comm.,
Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate
Services
Government Employment
Federal Civilian
Federal Military
State and Local
(incl. education)
% Change
1988
2000
1988-2000
24.87
32.82
32.0%
0.37
0.36
-2.7%
24.50
32.46
32.5%
17.75
25.15
41.7%
0.95
1.04
9.5%
0.01
0.01
0 %
2.21
2.97
34.4%
2.01
2.23
10.9%
1.06
1.22
15.1%
0.57
0.65
14.0%
5.05
7.36
45.7%
1.65
3.56
115.8%
2.23
2.55
14.3%
6.75
7.31
8.3%
2.45
2.84
15.9%
1.42
1.53
7.7%
2.88
2.94
2.1%
Sources: 1) Woods and Poole Economics, Inc.
2) T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners
Through the year 2000, employment in the retail trade, construc-
tion, and finance/real estate trades will continue to show high growth
rates. The relative employment growth rates of the manufacturing
service, government and forestry/fishing industries will be less
during the planning period than the growth rates for those industries
from 1970-1988. Employment in the farming industry is expected to
actually decline by the year 2000. However, earnings in the
farming industry are expected to grow significantly from 1988-2000.
Also, earnings in the agricultural services/forestry/fishing sector
show the second highest growth rates over the 1987-2000 period. The
disproportionate growth in earnings as opposed to employment for the
farming/fishing industries is largely due to more efficient use of
labor, consolidation of farmland, and increasing demand for fresh and
processed seafood and regionally -provided livestock and fresh produce.
The growth of earnings in the government, manufacturing and utilities
sectors is also expected to grow much faster than employment in those
sectors over the 1990s.

The rank of industry types in Carteret County in 1988 and 2000 is
shown in Table 40, below:
Table 40
Rank of Industry by Employment and Earnings
Carteret County, 1988 and 2000
Employment Rank Earnings Rank
Industry 1988 2000 1988 2000
(13 total)
Farming
Agricultural Services,
Forestry, Fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation, Comm.,
Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate
Services
Federal Civilian
Federal Military
State and Local Government
12
12
12
12
10
10
11
11
13
13
13
13
5
3
4
3
6
7
5
4
9
9
8
8
11
11
10
10
1
1
2
1
7 2
9 6
4 6
6 7
3 5
1 2
8 8
7 9
2 4
3 5
Source: T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners.
From 1988-2000, retail trade will continue to be the most impor-
tant employment sector in Carteret County, and will overtake federal
civilian employment as the county's earnings leader. The finance/real
estate industry will rapidly assume more importance in terms of both
employment and income, with the construction industry also gaining
economic importance over the period. While the relative employment in
manufacturing will decrease, manufacturing earnings will rank fourth
by 2000. Federal civilian, military, and state and local government
employment and earnings will all show relative decreases in relative
contribution to the county's total employment/earnings by 2000.
However, federal civil service earnings will still rank second over-
all, which indicates the continuing importance of the military to
Carteret County.
Projected economic trends and land use issues for specific indu-
stries are outlined in the sections below:
Tourism and Recreation
The projected growth of seasonal population indicated in the pre-
vious section will continue to make tourism Carteret County's single
most important source of income throughout the planning period.
Retail and service businesses, and the real estate and construction

industry, will continue to flourish as Carteret County grows as a
retirement and recreation center. Demand for seasonal housing, motel
and marina development, and the growth of individual commercial build-
ings and small shopping centers will demand a constant planning effort
to avoid incompatible land use and strip commercialization problems.
Preservation of water quality and the county's areas of environmental
concern are mandatory if tourism is to continue as a viable industry
in Carteret County. To preserve environmental quality, developers of
seasonal housing and tourism -related commercial businesses will have
to cooperate with planning and regulatory agencies to avoid uncon-
trolled and incompatible development. While a controlled approach to
seasonal development may result in the loss of short-term revenue, the
overall economic benefit will be greater than that generated by a "hit
and run" approach to recreational development.
3. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing
The drop in farm employment experienced during the 170s and 180s
will slow considerably during the 1990s, and farm earnings will
increase significantly. The total amount of harvested cropland should
fluctuate from year to year through 2000, with no major decrease in
total cropland foreseen. While earnings increases will be paralleled
by corporate farm earnings increases, and a general trend of consoli-
dation of cropland will result in more efficient farm production.
With the export of wood chips from the State Port Terminal in
Morehead City beginning to influence the timber products industry in
the eastern part of the state, it is conceivable that Carteret
County's small forestry/wood products industry could grow rapidly
during the 1990s. The opening up of timber cutting in the county
could also benefit several local manufacturing businesses/wholesalers
who currently depend on timber products imported from outside the
county.
While full and part-time employment in the fishing industry will
only grow slightly during the 1990s, the earnings from fishing will
increase substantially with projected increased demand for fresh and
processed seafood. Although the industry is extremely dependent on
environmental factors, it is expected that total finfish/shellfish
landings will continue to follow the overall growth trend of the late
1980s. In particular, landings of offshore species are expected to
increase substantially during the 1990s. The commercial fishing
industry will continue to strongly impact local wholesale and retail
trade and local manufacturing industries, and have a very positive
impact on local employment and earnings during the planning period.
Growth of the county's aquaculture industry will add to this positive
impact by eliminating some of the environmental factors that
contribute to rapid market fluctuations in the shellfish industry.
The fishing industry will continue to flourish only if water quality
is maintained. Protection of the county's surface waters is imper-
ative for economic reasons, since the fishing industry is directly or
indirectly responsible for a large percentage of jobs in the county.

Manufacturing and Import/Export
Employment in manufacturing is only expected to grow by about 11%
through the year 2000. However, manufacturing earnings will increase
substantially from 1988-2000, and manufacturing will be the fourth
largest source of employment income in the county by 2000. The
county's seafood processing and boat building industries will continue
to'grow with the commercial fishing industry. Also, the building
products industry is expected to expand as residential/commercial
development continues at a rapid pace.
With the advent of wood chip exporting at the State Port Terminal,
the total tonnage handled and revenue should continue to grow through-
out the 1990s at the Port. If local and regional manufacturing
industries can coordinate their marketing efforts with the North
Carolina State Ports Authority, the import/export industry will assume
a more significant role in the county's economy during the next
decade. Programmed improvements at the State Port Terminal, including
possible development of Radio Island, should not cause significant
land use incompatibility problems through 1995.
An important planning priority during the upcoming decade will be
how to manage industrial development to minimize adverse environmental
impacts. While additional manufacturing jobs are needed to maintain
low unemployment and high per capita income, unregulated industrial
development poses a significant threat to air and water quality and
the county's recreational appeal. However, it is anticipated that
industrial demand for available land will be relatively minor compared
to residential/commercial demand throughout the planning period. This
will help to minimize potentially adverse environmental impacts and
land use incompatibility from industrial development. Coordination of
industrial development with the North Carolina State Ports Authority
will help to contain heavy industry within areas convenient to rail
and water transportation, thus helping to minimize traffic congestion
on already clogged arterial roads.
Estate and Construction
The finance, insurance and real estate industries will show a
higher percentage increase in both earnings and employment than any
other county industry through the year 2000. Earnings and employment
in the construction industry will also grow considerably during the
1990s. The growth of this sector of the county's economy is
completely dependent on the continuing appeal of Carteret County as a
recreational area. Therefore, individuals included in the development
industry have as much or more to gain as any group by participating in
the planning process and regulation of development to preserve
environmental quality. Real estate development and the tourism
industry are directly responsible for the majority of the county's
employment. Efforts to stop or severely curtail seasonal development
in Carteret County may be appreciated from a strictly environmental
point of view, but are not realistic in terms of maintaining a healthy

local economy. Cooperation among developers and planning and
regulatory agencies will help to achieve desired goals of preserving
environmental quality and ensuring compatible land use while maintain-
ing stable employment and growth in the construction and retail trade
industries and a sound local banking industry.
6. Wholesale and Retail Trade and Services
Throughout the 1990s, retail trade will continue to rank first in
employment and gradually overtake the first ranking in earnings in
Carteret County. The service industry will also continue to play an
important role in the county's economy. Like the real estate and
construction industries, the retail trade and service industries
depend largely on the seasonal population, and preservation of the
county's recreational resources is instrumental to their continued
growth.
As the number of retail businesses, professional offices, and
other service outlets increases during the 1990s, an important land
use issue will be the integration of residential and commercial
growth. Careful planning will be required to avoid strip commercial-
ization, traffic congestion, billboard/signage clutter, and other
problems frequently associated with rapid commercial development.
While the majority of commercial development is expected to take place
in and near existing municipalities, commercial development along
major thoroughfares in unincorporated areas of the county will: also
continue during the 1990s.
7. Government Employment
Federal civilian, federal military, and state and local government
employment will grow relatively slowly compared to most private indu-
stries' employment during the 1990s. However, total employment and
earnings from government employment, particularly earnings from
federal employment, will continue to be a major factor influencing the
county economy.
The predicted growth of military and civil service personnel liv-
ing in Carteret County is the result of minor programmed expansion at
existing installations, in particular at Cherry Point MCAS. Continued
communication between military planning personnel and Carteret County
is imperative, as any major base expansion at Cherry Point or new
installation such as the proposed MAEWR will have significant economic
impacts in Carteret County. The MAEWR is expected to employ 75 tech-
nical personnel in the eastern portion of Carteret County. The number
of civilian contractors from Carteret County engaged on projects at
Cherry Point and other military installations throughout the county is
not expected to increase substantially during the 1990s; however,
military contracting will still continue to be an important source of
county income.
The projected increase in state and local government employees
will be the logical result of the need to regulate and respond to
population growth throughout the county in the 1990s. The number of
state and local employees may grow faster than the 20 indicated in
Table 39 through the year 2000 if water and sewer system development
speeds up in response to regulatory pressure.

C. PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND LAND USE ISSUES
1. Water Supply
Through 1995, it is anticipated that existing municipal and
community water systems in Carteret County will expand to meet the
demands of a growing year-round and seasonal population in and near
the existing municipalities. In particular, the West Carteret County
Water Corporation is expected to grow rapidly as the towns of Cedar
Point and Cape Carteret and unincorporated areas of White Oak Township
continue to grow rapidly.
The eastern portion of the county is expected to continue to rely
exclusively on private wells for potable water supply through 1995.
At projected development densities, it is probable that eastern
communities will not provide utility revenues sufficient for financing
county -sponsored, community -sponsored, or private construction of cen-
tral water supply and treatment systems. Additionally, construction
of central water systems should not be necessitated by environmental
conditions in the eastern part of the county over the next five years.
Point sources of potential groundwater contamination such as agricul-
tural runoff, industrial effluent, and septic tank effluent should not
pose a serious threat to the shallow or artesian groundwater supply in
the "Down East" are through 1995. The permitting process for water
well and septic tank installation should be adequate to alleviate most
contamination problems associated with shallow wells in the area east
of Beaufort throughout the planning period. However, efforts to
control stormwater runoff, particularly in areas nearby harvested
cropland, should be maintained to further reduce the threat of ground-
water contamination in the eastern (and other) areas of the county.
In the existing municipalities and more densely populated areas in
the western portion of the county, expansion of central water service
will provide the benefits of 1) more efficient use of the artesian
aquifer, and 2) assurance of domestic water quality through gradual
elimination of shallow wells that are susceptible to point source
pollution.
The fact that the entire county is located in a capacity ground-
water use area should prompt county and municipal officials to pursue
an organized and informed approach to providing potable water to
growing development. The county should support regional water system
studies with adjacent counties, and periodically monitor existing
groundwater withdrawal rates for all central water systems in the
county. However, the groundwater supply is expected to be more than
adequate to meet residential, commercial, and industrial growth
throughout the planning period.
Demand for land for water system development will follow right-of-
way patterns associated with existing or ongoing development, except
for required treatment plant expansion/construction, the impact of
which should be minimal. However, the degree to which water system
construction will act as an inducement to new development is a policy
issue of some significance.

Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
The issue of wastewater treatment and disposal will undoubtedly
attract more discussion than any other single planning issue in
Carteret County throughout the next five-year planning period. It is
the crux of the entire pro-development/anti-development controversy.
There are those who argue that additional high density development
should be curtailed unless municipal or county -supplied sewage
collection is available. On the other side is the belief that current
state sanitary standards and existing county environmental health and
zoning standards are adequate to maintain environmental quality in
area not currently served by existing municipal systems. Proponents
of this policy think that properly -permitted "package" treatment
systems should be allowed in high -density areas. Several policy
statements in this land use plan are likely to address this issue.
The issue of water quality maintenance has been raised enough in
recent years by state regulatory agencies, county and municipal
personnel, and concerned citizens that provision of central sewer
service is required for development densities greater than 20,000
S.F./unit by the county Environmental Health Department. Efforts are
underway in Atlantic Beach and Harker's Island to provide central
sewer service. Also, Carteret County recently completed an Environ-
mental Impact Statement that addressed impacts of several short-term
and long-term sewage treatment alternatives for the entire county.
Based on the E.I.S. analysis, the long-term wastewater disposal
alternative with the least adverse environmental impact will be ocean
outfall disposal.
During the planning period, it is expected that the existing
municipal sewer collection systems in Beaufort, Morehead City, and
Newport will continue to grow as development in those areas continues.
Treatment capacity in Newport and Beaufort is anticipated to be able
to meet demand through the next five years; however, Morehead City may
be required to make plant modifications in the near future. Active,
ongoing efforts to provide sewer service in Atlantic Beach and
Harker's Island will continue throughout the planning period, with
Atlantic Beach considering the prospect -of an ocean outfall for efflu-
ent discharge. Additionally, Cape Carteret, Emerald Isle, Indian
Beach, and Cedar Point have displayed recent interest in working with
the county on developing central sewer systems. Little interest for
central sewer has been indicated by the citizens of Pine Knoll
Shores.
Since additional municipally -owned or county -owned sewer service
systems will take at least three to ten years to develop in areas of
the county not currently served by the three existing municipal
systems, the issue of package treatment plants will continue to be a
source of major controversy throughout the planning period.
II-17

Due to the expected residential and commercial growth in Carteret
County during the planning period, it is expected that package treat-
ment plants will continue to proliferate to the extent that state
regulations permit their construction, unless more restrictive county
or municipal ordinances are adopted. Regardless of the decisions made
by the county and several municipalities concerning the extent to
which package treatment plant construction will be allowed in Carteret
County over the next five years, the issue of continued maintenance
and inspection of these small central treatment plants must be
addressed by local regulatory agencies if water quality in fragile
areas, particularly along Bogue Banks, is to be maintained.
Land acquisition for the construction of new sewage collection
systems and treatment plants in existing developed portions of western
Carteret County is expected to have a significant impact on existing
land use patterns during the planning period. Also, because of
revenue concerns and the slow development rate of new central sewer
systems, the construction of county or municipally -owned sewage
systems strictly as an incentive for new development should not be a
significant short-term issue outside of Morehead City, Beaufort, and
Newport through 1995. However, the construction of new package treat-
ment plants as an incentive for future development is a signifi-
cant short-term land use issue facing the county, since package plant
construction allows higher -density development near fragile areas that
would otherwise function as a physical constraint to such develop-
ment.
East of Beaufort, almost all new residential and small commercial
development during the 1990-95 planning period is expected to utilize
individual septic tank systems for wastewater disposal. Financial
realties and documented public sentiment against a county -sponsored
central sewer system make development of central community of county -
sponsored sewer service in the "Down East" area very much unlikely
over the next few years. It is likely that larger commercial develop-
ments and isolated subdivisions in the eastern portion of the county
will increasingly look to package treatment plants as a wastewater
disposal alternative, due to environmental constraints associated with
septic tank placement. The extent to which package plant construction
is allowed in the "Down East" area will be contingent upon state
regulations and supplementary county intervention in this permitting
process. The placement of septic tanks will continue to be supervised
by the county Environmental Health Department. It is expected that
the county will more actively enforce guidelines for individual and
package treatment sewage disposal systems in the eastern portion'of
the county during the planning period, due to the growing public
awareness of the potential for groundwater and surficial water contam-
ination from improperly functioning systems.

3. Storm Drain
The issue of managing stormwater runoff will assume more impor-
tance in Carteret County over the next several years. As is the case
with the sewage disposal question, most controversy centers on how
much regulation is required to protect fragile estuarine waters. Some
individuals believe that existing regulations, which require retention
prior to discharge in some cases, result in the construction of ponds
and retention basins that contribute to groundwater contamination and
can be safety hazards to small children. Others argue that existing
regulations do not do enough to prevent contaminated surface runoff
from reaching estuarine waters. Of particular concern to environ-
mentalists is the runoff or pesticides and fertilizer from harvested
cropland in the eastern part of the county.
As residential and commercial development continues in Carteret
County, so will the construction of impervious and semi -permeable
surfaces, and the potential for surficial water contamination will
increase. Given that fact, it is recommended that the county strongly
support existing Division of Environmental Management water quality
section regulations (15NCAC 2H.1000) during the planning period. The
county should also participate in and contribute to studies of storm
drainage undertaken by public and private agencies, support United
States Department of Agriculture Best Management Practices for
cropland, and work closely with the Division of Marine Fisheries to
protect prime shellfishing areas.
4. Transoortation
Through 1995, traffic flow and congestion will undoubtedly
increase in Carteret County as the year-round and seasonal populations
continue to grow. The highest daily traffic counts should still
continue to be on U.S. 70 west of Morehead City, N.C. 58 west of
Atlantic Beach, N.C. 24 west of the U.S. 70 intersection, and U.S. 70
in the Morehead City/Beaufort corridor. It is safe to say that,
without significant improvements, traffic congestion will begin to
appreciably discourage year-round and seasonal development in Western
Carteret County by the turn of the century.
Some of the congestion in the western part of the county will
eventually be alleviated by the ongoing project to widen N.C. 24 to
four lanes east of Swansboro. However, it is likely that congestion
on N.C. 24 will increase during the next five years, since
construction (scheduled from 1991-1997) will cause slowdowns and'lane
blockages, particularly during the summer months.
Due to increased congestion on N.C. 58 in the Bogue Banks area,
public support for a third bridge to Bogue Banks should grow during
the 1990-1995 period. Also, support for widening N.C. 58 in partic-
ularly congested areas, including the provision of turning lanes,
should grow during the next five year's. A three -lane curb and gutter
improvement is already underway in Atlantic Beach (New Bern Street to
Fort Macon State Park). The availability of right-of-way for a third

bridge and widening N.C. 24 and N.C. 58 will be a significant land use
issue in upcoming years.
As traffic flow increases on U.S. 70 in the Morehead City/Beaufort
corridor, the demand for traffic synchronization and limited access
improvements will grow. Two traffic signal/railroad crossing projects
in Morehead City are on the current Transportation Improvement Plan.
Other major projects on the current T.I.P. include replacement of
several bridges on N.C. 12, N.C. 58, and N.C. 24 (including the Broad
Creek bridge).
The.existing rail and navigable waters serving Carteret County
should be adequate to serve commercial and seasonal population growth
during the next planning period. Major issues surrounding navigable
waters will be the placement of spoil material from dredging oper-
ations in wetlands areas, and concern for maintaining safe recreation-
al boating corridors in increasingly -congested Bogue Sound. Marina
development along Bogue Sound will be an important planning concern
during the next five years as a result of those two issues. mainte-
nance of adequate rail service and the channel/turning basin at the
State Port Terminal will be important to ensure the viability of the
county's import/export and manufacturing industries.
Although there have been no updates to the Beaufort -Morehead City
Airport Master Plan since 1974, an update should be forthcoming by
1995 due to increasing demand for airport improvements and expansion.
Growth in commercial trade, particularly the possibility of offshore
natural gas exploration, will place pressure on the Airport Commission
to provide additional FBO services and commuter airline services. An
E.I.S. is underway for a terminal expansion and the extension of
Runway 8/26, both of which will be required if the county is to
attract a commuter airline. Extension of the runway would necessitate
the relocation of N.C. 101, and might be an important land use issue
and environmental impact issue during the planning period.
5. Solid Waste Disposal
Barring any unforeseen major changes in federal or state laws
governing solid waste disposal, Carteret County will not have to
expand its existing landfill, or construct another landfill, through
1995. The ongoing vertical expansion of the existing sanitary land-
fill on Hibbs Road will extend the landfill's useful life, and reduce
the possibility of groundwater contamination.
As a result of recently -approved changes in RCRA requirements, the
facility's permit will be recalled by 1993 by the Division of Health
Services for review. Based on that review, it is likely that Carteret
County will be required to make improvements to the existing facility,
including installation of a liner and a leachate treatment system.
Based on more stringent requirements for retrofitting existing land-
fills and for construction of new landfills, it would be a positive
step for Carteret County to continue its efforts to locate a site for
a long-term regional solid waste disposal facility with Pamlico and
Craven County.
II-20

To meet the growing population, the county's existing greenbox/
compaction system will probably have to expand during the 1990-19995
period, and demand for county -sponsored or private trash pickup from
individual residences in the more heavily populated unincorporated
areas is expected to grow.
6. Educational Facilities
Overcrowding of county schools, particularly in the White Oak
Township/Morehead City/Beaufort areas, will continue to be a problem
throughout the planning period, and site location/land acquisition for
proposed new schools will be the most important institutional land use
issue in Carteret County in upcoming years.
The recent completion of the Broad Creek Middle School relieved
overcrowding in the county's two other middle schools, which have also
been recently expanded. However, the elementary schools in the
western part of the county, as well as Western Carteret High School,
are still overcrowded. According to the Long Range Facilities Plan
for the Carteret County schools, the existing Morehead Elementary
School will be replaced in late 1991, a new elementary school in the
Morehead/Camp Glenn area will be completed by 1994, and construction
of a second new elementary school to serve Western Carteret County
will start in 1994-1995. Also, site location for an additional
elementary school to serve the Beaufort area will be accomplished
during the planning period.
Major renovation and expansion projects are slated for both
existing county high schools through 1995; however, construction of a
third high school is not scheduled until the turn of the century.
There is no doubt that the county's existing long-range educa-
tional facilities, if carried out, will significantly improve the
learning environment for the majority of the county's students. The
need to program improvements within realistic budget parameters will
result in some delays in optimum student access to proposed new
schools. Nonetheless, the positive reaction of county officials to
the overcrowding problem should serve to eliminate school deficiencies
as a significant constraint to development during the five-year
planning period in Carteret County.
7. Parks and Recreation
The only major non -shoreline -related recreational improvement
programmed by the Carteret County Department of Parks and Recreation
through 1995 is the construction of Western Park near Cape Carteret.
This new park facility in the western portion of the county will
provide a more equitable geographic distribution of the county's
existing major park facilities. The major and community parks, school
facilities, ball fields, and state and federal parks and open spaces
available and proposed in Carteret County can be considered generally
adequate to serve year-round residents through 1995. In general,
seasonal residents do not require the use of non -shoreline recre-
ational facilities outlined above to the extent that year-round
residents do. Many seasonal resorts in Carteret County offer tennis

and indoor recreational facilities. Finally, Carteret County's abun-
dant shoreline -related recreational opportunities diminish the need
for inland recreational facilities to serve the year-round population.
Despite the arguments above, the continuing influx of year-round
residents into Carteret County through 1995 will require additional
access to publicly -owned parks offering facilities such as tennis
courts, playground equipment, picnic tables, etc. The county should
anticipate this need and institute a long-range non -shoreline related
recreational facilities plan.
The extent to which shoreline -related recreational facilities
diminish the need for inland facilities is entirely contingent on the
provision of access to the shoreline. Provision of public access to
estuarine waters is the major recreation -related problem facing
Carteret County today. The county should make every effort to coop-
erate with existing municipalities and the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management to provide better estuarine boat access, parking,
picnic facilities, and related improvements to its estuarine areas
during the planning period. The proposed Straits pier/parking facil-
ity will be a significant boost to this effort. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation is providing the land, and the Division
of Marine Fisheries is providing funding assistance for pier construc-
tion. Also, Carteret County should recognize that the provision of
adequate ocean access improves tourism and trade throughout the entire
county, and actively support all municipally -sponsored attempts to
improve public ocean access areas throughout the planning period. Due
to environmental and budget considerations, providing new shoreline
access areas and shoreline parking will become increasingly difficult
as time goes on.
S'. Other County Facilities
Ongoing improvements to the county's existing two hospitals,
health care facilities and programs, and volunteer fire and emergency
medical facilities should allow the county to provide adequate medical
and health care and fire protection to incoming residents over the
next five years. Construction of a new 43,000 S.F. county law
enforcement center is underway, and a 10,000 S.F. addition to the
county Social Service Department is also scheduled for construction in
1990.
Once the new law enforcement center is completed, many of the
parking spaces committed to the county administration building will be
relegated to the sheriff's department and associated law enforcement -
related personnel. Lack of parking for county administrative building
personnel and visitors is already a problem, and the problem is
expected to worsen appreciably once the law enforcement center is
completed in late 1990.
Lack of space in the county administrative building is also
expected to become a more significant problem during the next several
years. In particular, the county tax office and register of deeds
offices are very short of space. The county government may construct
new administrative office space or renovate existing buildings to
accommodate growth during the planning period; however, impacts on
land use patterns in Beaufort should be minor unless a major parking
project is undertaken by the county.
II-22

D. REDEVELOPMENT ISSUES
Carteret County's greatest continuing redevelopment issue will be
the preservation and renovation of housing for its low -to -moderate
income families and individuals. As stated in the existing housing
conditions section, the Merrimon and North River communities have the
most severe substandard housing conditions remaining in the county's
unincorporated areas. While housing conditions improved during the
170s and 180s, substantial problems still exist. The county will
undertake the following in support of residential redevelopment:
-- Support applications for North Carolina Community Development
housing rehabilitation funds.
-- Support applications for North Carolina Housing Finance Agency
home improvement funds.
-- Investigate the development and enforcement of a minimum
housing code.
A second area of concern will be redevelopment of areas following
a hurricane or other natural disaster. The specifics of such redevel—
opment are dealt with in the storm hazard mitigation and post -disaster
reconstruction plan. However, Carteret County will support the
reconstruction of any properties destroyed by natural disaster,
consistent with applicable Carteret County ordinances.
II-23

SECTION III
RELATIONSHIP OF POLICIES
AND LAND CLASSIFICATIONS

As required by the Coastal Area Management Act, the land use plan
must relate the policies section to the land classification map and
provide some indication as to which land uses are appropriate in each
land classification.
A. DEVELOPED CLASS
As mentioned in the discussions of recent and projected population
growth, most of the County's recent growth has occurred in and around
existing municipalities, and this trend should continue throughout the
planning period. Developed areas are areas where basic services such
as water and community support services are available or might be
feasible within the planning period. The developed class is speci-
fically designated to accommodate more intensively developed areas and
land uses, including single and multi -family residential, commercial,
industrial parks and open space, community facilities, and transpor-
tation. Population densities will be high. The greatest demand for
urban services will exist within this classification.
B. URBAN TRANSITION CLASS
Areas classified urban transition will provide lands to accommo-
date future urban growth within the planning period. The average
development densities will be less than the developed class densities
and greater than the limited transition class densities. These areas
must be able to support urban development by being generally free of
physical limitations and be served or accessible to service by urban
services. Development may include mixed :and uses such as single and
multi -family residential, commercial, institutional, transportation,
industrial, and other uses at high to moderate densities. Urban
services should include water, sewer, streets, police, and fire
protection. Population densities will be high and seasonal population
may swell significantly.
C. LIMITED TRANSITION
This classification will provide for controlled development with
services. These areas are developing and require some level of muni-
cipal type services. This classification is necessary to provide for
growth occurring along the N.C. 24 corridor and in the area north of
Beaufort along S.R. 1300 and 1163, and N.C. 101. Both areas are adja-
cent to or near numerous conservation areas. The orderly development
of the areas including proper development of some municipal type'
services, will support the economic development and natural resource
policies of this land use plan. The predominant land use shall be
moderate density residential. Clustering or development associated
with planned unit developments may be appropriate within this classi-
fication. However, some scattered commercial, health care, and
industrial development may occur.

D. COPMdUNITY CLASS
Intensive development will not be encouraged in this class due to
the lack of urban services and/or physical limitations. The general
range of acceptable uses are limited to single-family residences,
isolated general and convenience stores and churches, public
facilities, and health care facilities.
E. RURAL WITH SERVICES CLASS
The rural with services classification is to provide for very low
density land uses including residential use where limited water serv-
ices are provided in order to avert an existing or projected health
problem. Areas meeting the intent of this class are appropriate for
very low intensity residential uses where lot sizes are large and
where the provision of services will not disrupt the primary rural
character of the landscape. Most development will be supported by a
closed water system. Other services such as volunteer fire
protection, rescue service, and health care facilities are allowed.
F. RURAL CLASS
The rural class is the broadest of the land classes and is desig-
nated to provide for agriculture, forest management, mineral extrac-
tion and other low intensity uses. Residences may be located within
the rural class where urban services (other than a public water
system) are not required and where natural resources will be not be
permanently impaired. Some large developments may be encouraged in
the rural class when there is an absence of otherwise suitable land
within the developed and transition classes and/or when there is a
possible adverse environmental impact to the urban populace from the
proposed development. Such large developments or uses include
airports, land application sewer systems, and power plants. Public
facilities and health care facilities are allowed.
G. CONSERVATION CLASS
The conservation classes are designated to provide for effective
long-term management of significant limited or irreplaceable areas
which include the following categories: coastal wetlands, fresh water
wetlands, natural heritage areas, estuarine shorelines, ORW estuarine
shorelines, primary nursery areas, estuarine and public trust waters,
outstanding resource waters, and ocean hazard areas. Policy state-
ments under Resource Protection, and Resource Production and Manage-
ment in Section V of this plan address the county's intentions under
this classification. When Conservation areas coincide, the more
stringent policies shall apply.

sIHaKaIVIS )MIUOd
nz NOIlOas

A. INTRODUCTION TO POLICY STATEMENTS
The previous sections of this plan identify a number of areas
of concern dealing with growth, development, and the environment.
The plan also discusses many opportunities and assets which exist
within Carteret County. This section provides policies designed to
address growth management and protect the county's assets. The
policy statements should address the desires and objectives of the
citizens of Carteret County and respond to the policy statement
requirements of the Coastal Resources Commission as defined by
15 NCAC 7B.
The policy statements are extremely important and have a day-
to-day impact on businesses and individual citizens within the
county. The statements have an impact in three areas:
-- CAMA minor and major permitting as required by N.C.G.S. -
113A-118 prior to undertaking any development in any area
of environmental concern.
-- Establishment of local planning policy.
-- Review of proposed projects requiring state or federal
assistance or approval to determine consistency with local
policies.
For the issuance of CAMA permits within areas of environmental
concern, the state defines minimum acceptable use standards which
are defined by 15 NCAC 7H. A local unit of government must adopt
policies which are, at a minimum, equal to and consistent with the
state's minimum use standards. A local unit of government may adopt
policies which are more stringent than the minimum use standards.
For example, the state standards allow marinas to be located within
primary nursery areas if some minimum conditions are met. A local
government may adopt a policy stating that marinas will not be per-
mitted within primary nursery areas. If this were to occur, a CAMA
permit for marina construction in a primary nursery area would not
be issued. IT IS CRUCIAL THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNDERSTAND THE
IMPACT OF ITS POLICIES WITHIN AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN.
The second area of land use plan application is that of estab-
lishing policies to guide the jurisdiction's local planning. This
may apply both within areas of environmental concern where CAMA
regulations apply and in non-CAMA regulated areas of the county.
Under North Carolina legislation, land use plans are not regulatory
controls. Non-CAMA-related recommendations must be implemented with
local land use ordinances such as zoning or subdivision ordinances.
If a land use plan recommends that the average residential density
should be three dwelling units per acre within a particular area,
then that density must be achieved through a local zoning ordinance
or other regulatory control. (This should not be confused with the
interaction of the land use plan with the CAMA regulations and
15 NCAC 7H use standards).
IV-1

The final area of application is that of "Consistency Review".
Proposals and applications for state and federal assistance or
requests for agency approval of projects are normally reviewed
against a jurisdiction's land use plan to determine if the project
is consistent with local policies. Inconsistencies of a project
with local policies could serve as grounds for denial or revision of
a project. For example, an individual or agency may request state
or federal funding to construct a 30-unit low -to -moderate income
housing project. If the proposed location of the project is within
an area in which the land use plan states that the residential
density should not exceed two dwelling units per acre, the project
may be judged to be inconsistent with the local land use plan.
The Coastal Resources Commission requires all governments to
specify stated development policies under each one of five broad
topics. These topics include:
-- Resource Protection
-- Resource Production and Management
-- Economic and Community Development
-- Continuing Public Participation
-- Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post -Disaster Recovery, and
Evacuation Plans
Based on the analysis of existing conditions and trends, suggestions
from the county's citizens, and substantial input and guidance from
the Carteret County Land Use Planning Advisory Committee, the
policies in the following sections have been formulated to provide a
guide for regulating growth, development, and resource management
throughout the planning period. In developing these policies, many
alternatives were considered by the Advisory Committee. The
alternatives which were not adopted are included as Appendix V.
IV-2

B. RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICY STATEMENTS
Physical Limitations
Soils: To mitigate existing septic tank problems and other restric-
tions on development posed by soil limitations, Carteret County will:
(a) Enforce, through the development and zoning permit process, all
current regulations of the N.C. State Building Code and North
Carolina Division of Health Services relating to building con-
struction and septic tank installation/replacement in areas with
soils restrictions.
(b) Coordinate all development activity with appropriate county and
state regulatory personnel, and in particular, with the Carteret
County Building Inspector and Sanitarian.
(c) In areas not served by central or community sewer and water
service, development on lots of 20,000 square foot size or
greater shall be promoted through existing zoning, subdivision,
and other regulatory ordinances.
(d) Support planning for and the development of a central sewer
system(s) to serve areas of Carteret County classified as devel-
oped, urban transition, limited transition, and rural with serv-
ices. All areas which are provided central sewer service
should be zoned, when zoning is requested by the property
owners.
(e) Carteret County opposes the installation of package treatment
plants and septic tanks or discharge of waste in any areas clas-
sified as coastal wetlands, fresh water wetlands (404), or
natural heritage areas. This policy applies only to areas shown
as fresh water wetlands, coastal wetlands, and natural heritage
areas on Map 15, Land Classification Map.
(f) Carteret County will cooperate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers in the regulation/enforcement of the 404 wetlands permit
process.
Flood Hazard Areas:
(a) Carteret County will continue to coordinate all development
within the special flood hazard area with the Carteret County
Inspections Department, North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management, FEMA, and the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
(b) Carteret County will continue to enforce its existing zoning and
flood damage prevention ordinances and follow the storm hazard
mitigation plan contained herein.
IV-3

Groundwater/Protection of Potable Water Supplies:
(a) It is the policy of Carteret County to conserve its surficial
groundwater resources by supporting CAMA and N.C. Division of
Environmental Management stormwater run-off regulations, and by
coordinating local development activities involving chemical
storage or underground storage tank installation/abandonment with
Carteret County Emergency Management personnel and the Ground-
water Section of the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management. The county will plan for an adequate long-range
water supply. In the planning process, Carteret County will
cooperate with adjacent counties to protect water resources.
Public and private water conservation efforts will be encouraged.
(b) Carteret County will encourage and support water conservation
efforts.
(c) Carteret County will evaluate its zoning to ensure that aquifer
recharge areas are adequately protected.
Man-made Hazards:
(a) Carteret County will support the technical requirements and state
program approval for underground storage tanks (40 CFR, Parts 280
and 281), until such time as the State Division of Environmental
Management is authorized to regulate underground storage tanks
under North Carolina state law.
(b) Any expansion of fuel storage tank facilities on Radio Island
must comply with applicable state and federal regulations for
which proper environmental safeguards have been provided.
(c) Agricultural quarantine and decontamination facilities shall not
be established on Radio Island by the U.S. Navy or other agent of
the federal government unless a full Environmental Impact State-
ment with a finding of no significant effect on the environment
has been prepared and proper environmental safeguards are imple-
mented. The Environmental Impact Statement should include miti-
gation measures for the loss of any public beach access.
(d) Carteret County will consider developing sound attenuation zoning
requirements for the areas affected by the aircraft operating
patterns at Atlantic and Bogue Fields and the Michael J. Smith
Field. The zoning for Michael J. Smith Field should be
coordinated with Beaufort and Morehead City.
(e) Expansions of Aviation Military Restricted Areas or Military
Operations Areas in eastern North Carolina must be consistent
with civil aviation regulations, must comply with other appli-
cable state and federal regulations, and must be supported by
environmental impact statements addressing the cumulative impact
of such airspace uses.
IV-4

(f) The Board of County Commissioners of Carteret County is strongly
opposed to the expansion of the Military Airspace (MOAs) desig-
nated as Cherry I and Core.
(g) Carteret County recognizes that it does not have any authority to
regulate the area or elevation of military flights. However, the
county opposes any low level military training flights that are
not in compliance with the minimum safe altitudes for aircraft
operation as described in the Federal Aviation Regulations, part
91.
(h) Carteret County supports growth and expansion of the North
Carolina State Port Terminal. However, prior to any material
expansion, plans should be prepared to address the impact of
associated rail and road traffic increases on Morehead City and
Carteret County.
(i) Carteret County supports plans for expansion of Michael J. Smith
Field as detailed in the airport's Master Plan.
(j) With the exception of bulk fuel storage tanks used for retail and
wholesale sales, and individual heating fuel storage tanks,
Carteret County opposes the bulk storage of man-made hazardous
materials in areas classified as developed, urban, transition,
and limited transition which are not also zoned for industrial
use. Storage of hazardous materials (not toxic waste) in low
density areas classified as rural or rural with services will be
allowed. In those areas within the county in which federal
holdings are located, applicable state and federal regulations
shall apply.
(k) Carteret County is opposed to the establishment of toxic waste
dump sites within the county.
Stormwater Runoff:
(a) Carteret County recognizes the value of water quality maintenance
to the protection of fragile areas and to the provision of clean
water for recreational purposes. The county will support exist-
ing state regulations relating to stormwater runoff resulting
from development (Stormwater Disposal Policy 15 NCAC 2H.001-
.1003).
(b) Carteret County supports control of agricultural runoff through
implementation of U.S. Soil Conservation Service "Best Management
Practices" program, and/or North Carolina State "Best Management
Practices."
(c) Carteret County supports control of forestry runoff through
implementation of "Forestry Best Management Practices" as
provided by the North Carolina Division of Forest Resources.
IV-5

Cultural/Historic Resources:
(a) Carteret County shall coordinate all housing code enforcement/
redevelopment projects with the N.C. Division of Archives and
History, to ensure that any significant architectural details or
buildings are identified and preserved.
(b) Carteret County will coordinate all county public works projects
with the N.C. Division of Archives and History, to ensure the
identification and preservation of significant archaeological
sites.
Industrial Impacts on Fragile Areas: Except as may be expressly
allowed elsewhere in this plan, no industrial development of any type
shall be located in lands classified as coastal wetlands, fresh water
wetlands, and Natural Heritage Areas.
Miscellaneous Resource Protection
Package Treatment Plant Use: Carteret County wishes to reduce the
number of point source pollution discharges and have sewage treatment
systems within the county centralized. However, the county will not
oppose the construction of state -approved package treatment plants in
areas not provided with central sewer service. The county supports
more effective monitoring by the state of the operation of package
treatment plants. This policy shall not prohibit the discharge of
waste into wetlands.
If any package plants are approved by the state, Carteret County
supports requirement of a specific contingency plan specifying how
ongoing private operation and maintenance of the plant will be
provided, and detailing provisions for assumption of the plant into a
public system should the private operation fail. Operational plans
should also address elimination of package treatment plants when the
system owner elects to connect to a central sewer system.
Marina and Floating Home Development: Marinas are considered to be
any publicly or privately owned dock constructed to accommodate more
than ten boats, as defined by 15 NCAC 7H.0208(b)(5). Docks and piers
are defined by 15 NCAC 7H.0208(b)(6). Carteret County will enforce
the following policies to govern floating homes and marina develop-
ment:
(a) Carteret County considers boating activities an extremely
important part of its tourist industry and overall economy.
Subject to the policies stated herein, the county does not
oppose the construction of marinas.
(b) Carteret County opposes the location of floating structures in
all marinas, primary nursery areas, outstanding resource waters,
public trust areas, and estuarine waters. Floating structures
are defined as any structure or vessel used, designed, and
occupied as a permanent dwelling unit, business, office, or
source of any occupation or any private or social club, which
IV-6

floating structure or vessel is primarily immobile and out of
navigation or which functions substantially as a land structure
while moored or docked on waters within county jurisdiction.
Floating structures shall not be used commercially or inhabited
in one place for more than 15 days.
(c) Carteret County opposes marina construction or expansion in
coastal wetlands and primary nursery areas, and opposes upland
marina construction with access channels connected to primary
nursery areas. Coastal wetlands that have volunteered within
upland marinas shall be exempt from this policy. Carteret
County will allow access structures not exceeding six feet in
width to be constructed above coastal wetlands for the purpose
of providing access to marinas which otherwise meet state
standards.
(d) Carteret County opposes the construction of docks or piers with
more than four boat slips in primary nursery areas. One dock or
pier with four or less slips used for residential purposes or
purposes directly related to commercial fishing shall be
allowed per parcel of land which borders a primary nursery
area. Waterfront parcels of land with more than one -quarter
mile of shoreline bordering a primary nursery area shall be
allowed one dock or pier with four or less slips for
residential purposes or purposes directly related to commercial
fishing within every one -quarter mile (1,320 feet) of shoreline
along the primary nursery area.
(e) Carteret County's policy for marina construction in ORW waters
or ORW estuarine shoreline shall be consistent with the state's
management strategies of ORW designated regulations. In Back
Sound, no new marinas will be permitted. In Core and Bogue
Sounds, only upland basin marinas meeting 15 NCAC 7H use
standards will be permitted. Docks and piers will be allowed.
(f) No marina associated dredging will be allowed through active
shellfishing areas or subaquatic vegetation. When dredging
through coastal wetlands is essential for access to upland
marinas, as provided for in 15A NCAC 7H, the County requires
replacement of lost wetland areas with mitigation at a 1:1
ratio.
(g) Carteret County will allow construction of dry stack storage
facilities for boats associated either with or independent of
marinas. All applicable zoning and subdivision regulations
must be satisfied. water access to dry stack storage
facilities should not disturb shellfishing areas or subaquatic
vegetation.
Development of Sound and Estuarine Islands: The county encourages
public purchase and conservation of sound and estuarine islands which
have been identified by the North Carolina Heritage Program as
important natural area locations. These areas are identified on the
Fragile Areas Map, Map 10, and the Land Classification Map.
IV-7

floating structure or vessel is primarily immobile and out of
navigation or which functions substantially as a land structure
while moored or docked on waters within county jurisdiction.
Floating structures shall not be used commercially or inhabited
in one place for more than 15 days.
(c) Carteret County opposes marina construction or expansion in
coastal wetlands, primary nursery areas, and upland marina
construction in areas located adjacent to primary nursery areas.
Only docks and piers serving individual single-family residential
units and having four or less slips will be allowed in primary
nursery areas. Coastal wetlands that have volunteered within
upland marinas shall be exempt from this policy.
(d) Marinas, docks, and piers may be constructed or expanded in
estuarine shoreline, and estuarine and public trust waters which
are not primary nursery areas, ORW areas, or coastal wetlands.
(e) Carteret County's policy for marina construction in ORW waters
and ORW estuarine shoreline shall be consistent with the state's
management strategies of ORW designated regulations. In Back
Sound, no new marinas will be permitted. In Core and Bogue
Sounds, only upland basin marinas meeting 15 NCAC 7H use
standards will be permitted. Docks and piers will be allowed.
(f) Any marina associated dredging will not be allowed through active
shellfishing areas or subaquatic vegetation. When dredging
through coastal wetlands is required for access to upland
marinas, as provided for in 15 NCAC 7H.0208(8)(A), the county
requires mitigative action to replace any lost wetland areas with
like or comparable wetland areas.
(g) Carteret County will allow construction of dry stack storage
facilities for boats associated either with or independent of
marinas. All applicable zoning and subdivision regulations must
be satisfied. Water access to dry stack storage facilities
should not disturb active shellfishing areas or subaquatic
vegetation.
Development of Sound and Estuarine Islands: The county encourages
public purchase and conservation of sound and estuarine islands which
have been identified by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program as
important natural area locations. These areas are identified on the
Fragile Areas Map, Map 10, and the Land Classification Map.
Carteret County opposes any development on sound or estuarine islands
for which a subdivision plat was not approved or a building permit
issued for any portion of such island prior to the certification of
this plan by the Coastal Resources Commission.
IV-7

Carteret County opposes any development on sound or estuarine islands
for which a subdivision plat was not approved or a building permit
issued for any portion of such island prior to the certification of
this plan by the Coastal Resources Commission.
Bulkhead Construction: Carteret County does not oppose bulkhead
construction in all areas of the county as long as they fulfill the
use standards set forth in 15 NCAC 7H. Carteret County also supports
establishment of a state policy which would prohibit bulkheads from
interfering with the natural migration of coastal wetlands and
estuarine shorelines adjacent to primary nursery areas.
Sea Level Rise: Carteret County recognizes the uncertainties
allocated with sea level rise. Although the rate of rise is
difficult to predict, Carteret County will implement the following
policies.
(a) Carteret County will cooperate with local, state, and federal
efforts to inform the public of the anticipated effects of sea
level rise.
(b) Carteret County encourages migrating shorelines in coastal
wetlands areas in order to preserve coastal wetlands. The
county supports establishment of a state policy which will
protect the natural migration of coastal wetlands. Any state
policy addressing migrating shorelines should provide for the
protection of developed areas.
(c) Carteret County will monitor sea level rise and consider
establishing setback standards, density controls, bulkhead
restrictions, buffer vegetation protection requirements, and
building designs which will facilitate the movement of
structures.
Maritime Forests: Based on the Maritime Forest Protection
Initiative, May 24, 1990, there are no major maritime forest sites
that are under Carteret County jurisdiction. However, Carteret
County supports the recommendations contained in the Maritime Forest
Protection Initiative, May 24 1990, for the protection of maritime
forest areas.
IV-8

Bulkhead Construction: Carteret County does not oppose bulkhead
' construction in all areas of the county as long as they fulfill the
use standards set forth in 15 NCAC 7H. Carteret County also supports
establishment of a state policy which would prohibit bulkheads from
interfering with the natural migration of coastal wetlands and
estuarine shorelines adjacent to primary nursery areas.
Sea Level Rise: Carteret County recognizes the uncertainties asso-
ciated with sea level rise. Although the rate of rise is difficult to
predict, Carteret County will implement the following policies.
' (a) Carteret County will cooperate with local, state, and federal
efforts to inform the public of the anticipated effects of sea
level rise.
(b) Carteret County encourages migrating shorelines in coastal
wetland areas in order to preserve coastal wetlands. The county
supports establishment of a state policy which will protect the
natural migration of coastal wetlands. Any state policy address-
ing migrating shorelines should provide for the protection of
developed areas.
(c) Carteret County will monitor sea level rise and consider estab-
lishing setback standards, density controls, bulkhead restric-
tions, buffer vegetation protection requirements, and building
designs which will facilitate the movement of structures.
Maritime Forests: Based on the Maritime Forest Protection Initiative,
May 24, 1990, there •are no major maritime forest sites that are under
Carteret County jurisdiction. However, Carteret County supports the
recommendations contained in the Maritime Forest Protection
Initiative, May 24, 1990, for the protection of maritime forest
areas.
IV-8

C. RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
Recreation Resources:
(a) All lands classified as coastal wetlands, freshwater wetlands
and natural heritage areas are considered valuable passive
recreation areas and should be protected in their natural
state. Some development, as allowed by this plan, may occur in
these areas-
(b) Carteret County supports the development of additional
estuarine and ocean shoreline access areas to ensure adequate
shoreline access within all areas of the county. Carteret
County will cooperate with municipalities and state and federal
agencies to secure such access. Areas that have traditionally
been used by the public will be given special attention.
(c) Carteret County will develop a shoreline access plan to define
the need for additional publicly -owned waterfront recreational
facilities. This effort should be closely coordinated with
shoreline access planning by municipalities.
(d) Carteret County supports public access to Radio Island
shoreline areas which is consistent with state port plans for
development of the Island.
Productive Agricultural Lands:
(a) Carteret County supports and encourages use of the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service "Best Management Practices" program. This
includes agricultural practices which limit the runoff of
sediment.
(b) Carteret County discourages the direct point source discharge
of agricultural runoff into primary nursery areas, productive
shellfishing waters, and ORW designated areas.
(c) As authorized by Executive Order 96, "Conservation of Prime
Agricultural and Forest Lands," Carteret County supports and
encourages the mapping of prime agricultural lands. In .
addition, the county will undertake a review of its zoning
ordinance to ensure adequate protection of agricultural lands.
This shall include consideration of zoning to allow for the
transfer of development rights to encourage preservation of
prime agricultural lands.
Aquaculture Activities: Aquaculture is considered the cultivation
of aquatic plants and animals under controlled conditions. The
following policies shall apply:
(a) Carteret County encourages all aquaculture activities which
meet applicable federal, state and local policies (see
IV-9

' C. RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
Recreation Resources:
(a) All lands classified as coastal wetlands, freshwater wetlands,
and natural heritage areas are considered valuable passive recre-
ation areas. Except as otherwise provided for in these policy
statements, these areas should be protected in their natural
state, and development should not be allowed except for public
shoreline access including dune crossover structures and board-
walks in ocean hazard areas.
(b) Carteret County supports the development of additional estuarine
and ocean shoreline access areas to ensure adequate shoreline
access within all areas of the county. Carteret County will
cooperate with municipalities and state and federal agencies to
secure such access. Areas that have traditionally been used by
the public will be given special attention.
(c) Carteret County will develop a shoreline access plan to define
the need for additional publicly -owned waterfront recreational
facilities. This effort should be closely coordinated with
shoreline access planning by the municipalities.
(d) Carteret County supports public access to Radio Island shoreline
areas which is consistent with state port plans for development
of the Island.
Productive Agricultural Lands:
(a) Carteret County supports and encourages use of the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service "Best Management Practices" program. This
includes agricultural practices which limit the runoff of sedi-
ment.
(b) Carteret County discourages the direct point source discharge of
agricultural runoff into primary nursery areas, productive shell -
fishing waters, and ORW designated areas.
(c) As authorized by Executive Order 96, "Conservation of Prime Agri-
cultural and Forest Lands," Carteret County supports and encour-
ages the mapping of prime agricultural lands. In addition, the
county will undertake a review of its zoning ordinance to ensure
adequate protection of agricultural lands. This shall include
consideration of zoning to allow for the transfer of development
rights to encourage preservation of prime agricultural lands.
1, Aquaculture Activities: Aquaculture is considered the cultivation of
C aquatic plants and animals under controlled conditions. The following
policies shall apply.
(a) Carteret County encourages all aquaculture activities which meet
applicable federal, state and local policies (see Aquaculture
policies b and c) and permit requirements. However, Carteret
IV-9

Aquaculture policies b and c) and permit requirements.
However, Carteret County reserves the right to comment on all
aquaculture activities which require Division of Environmental
Management permitting.
(b) Carteret County objects to any discharge of water from
aquaculture activities that will degrade in any way the
receiving waters. Carteret County objects to withdrawing water
from aquifers or surface sources if such withdrawal will
endanger water quality or water supply from the aquifers or
surface sources.
(c) Carteret County will support only aquaculture activities which
do not alter significantly and negatively the natural
environment of coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, public trust
areas, natural heritage areas, and fresh waters wetlands as .
shown on the Land Classification Map.
Productive Forest Lands:
(a) As authorized by Executive Order 96, "Conservation of Prime
Agricultural and Forest Lands," Carteret County supports and
encourages the mapping of prime forest lands. In addition, the
county will undertake a review of its zoning ordinance to
ensure adequate protection of prime forest lands. This shall
include consideration of zoning to allow for the transfer of
development rights to encourage preservation of prime forest
lands. However, zoning will be imposed only where requested by
property owners.
(b) Carteret County encourages and supports forestry best
management practices as defined in the Forest Best Management
Practices Manual, 1989, North Carolina Division of Forest
Resources.
Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development impacts on
Resources:
(a) Except as otherwise permitted in this plan, residential,
commercial and industrial development should not be allowed in
natural heritage areas, coastal wetlands or freshwater
wetlands, as those areas are shown on Land Classification Maps
15 and 15A.
(b) Carteret County discourages any additional point source
discharges of pollution into primary nursery areas, outstanding
resource waters, and shellfishing areas. In addition, Carteret
County reserves the right to review and comment on the approval
of outfalls on a case -by -case basis.
(c) Residential development meeting the use standards of 15 NCAC
7H.0209 shall be allowed in estuarine shoreline and ORW
estuarine shoreline classified lands.
IV-10

County reserves the right to comment on all aquaculture activi-
ties which require Division of Environmental Management permit-
ting.
(b) Carteret County objects to any discharge of water from aquacul-
ture activities that will degrade in any way the receiving
waters. Carteret County objects to withdrawing water from aqui-
fers or surface sources if such withdrawal will endanger water
quality or water supply from the aquifers or surface sources.
(c) Carteret County .will support only aquaculture activities which do
not alter significantly and negatively the natural environment of
coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, public trust areas, natural
heritage areas, and fresh water wetlands as shown on the Land
Classification Map.
Productive Forest Lands:
(a) As authorized by Executive Order 96, "Conservation of Prime
Agricultural and Forest Lands," Carteret County supports and
encourages the mapping of prime forest lands. In addition, the
county will undertake a review of its zoning ordinance to ensure
adequate protection of prime forest lands. This shall include
consideration of zoning to allow for the transfer of development
rights to encourage preservation of prime forest lands. However,
zoning will be imposed only where requested by property owners.
(b) Carteret County encourages and supports forestry best management
practices as defined in the Forest Best Management Practices
Manual, 1989, North Carolina Division of Forest Resources.
Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development impacts on
Resources:
(a) Residential, commercial, and industrial development should not be
allowed in areas classified as coastal wetlands or freshwater
wetlands, as shown on the Land Classification Map and Natural
Heritage Areas. (Refer to Note 6 on the Land Classification Map,
Map 15 and 15A.)
(b) Carteret County discourages any additional point source
discharges of pollution into primary nursery areas, outstanding
resource waters, and shellfishing areas. In addition, Carteret
County reserves the right to review and comment on the approval
of outfalls on a case -by -case basis.
(c) Residential development meeting the use standards of
15 NCAC 7H.0209 shall be allowed in estuarine shoreline and ORW
estuarine shoreline classified lands.
(d) Only commercial and industrial uses that are water dependent and
which cannot function elsewhere or are supportive of commercial
fishing will be allowed in estuarine shoreline or ORW estuarine
shoreline areas. Examples of such uses would include but not
IV-10

(d) Only commercial and industrial uses that are water dependent
and which cannot function elsewhere or are supportive of '
commercial fishing will be allowed in estuarine shoreline or
ORW estuarine shoreline areas. Examples of such uses would
include but not necessarily be limited to commercial fishing
and fish processing, marinas consistent with the policies of
this plan, boat repair and construction facilities, any
business dependent upon natural salt water as a resource, and
restaurants that do not extend into or over estuarine waters
and/or public trust waters. Where zoning exists, all uses must
be consistent with established zoning.
(e) In all ORW estuarine shoreline and non-ORW estuarine shoreline
areas rear and side yards as specified by the Carteret County
subdivision and/or zoning ordinances shall be maintained in a
vegetative state. Bulkheads, shoreline stabilization, decks,
and marinas as allowed under other sections and policies of
this plan, and accessory structures as defined and permitted by
the Carteret County subdivision and zoning ordinances shall not
be affected by this policy.
Marine Resource Areas:
(a) Carteret County supports the use standards for estuarine,
public trust, and ORW waters as specified in 15NCAC.0207, with
the following exceptions:
1. When new navigational channels and canals must be
constructed through coastal wetlands, Carteret County
requires replacement of lost wetland areas with mitigation
at a 1:1 ratio.
2. Unless essential for mosquito and vector control, new
drainage ditches shall not be constructed which dis-
charge into primary nursery areas. Existing drainage
ditches may be maintained but not increased in depth
or width.
3. Carteret County reserves the right to review and
comment on individual questions concerning
trawling and other commercial and marine fisheries
issues.
4. Carteret County supports efforts by N.C. Marine
Fisheries to identify areas suitable for shell-
fish bottom leases.
Off -Road Vehicles: Carteret County will investigate the
development of an ordinance to address the usage of off -road
or all -terrain vehicles in areas of environmental concern.
Peat or Phosphate Mining: Carteret County opposes any peat
mining. Phosphate mining activities will be allowed when an
IV-11

I It
Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared with a
finding of no significant effect on the environment.
IV-11 a
J

necessarily be limited to commercial fishing and fish processing,
marinas consistent with the policies of this plan, boat repair
and construction facilities, any business dependent upon natural
salt water as a resource, and restaurants that do not extend into
or over estuarine waters and/or public trust waters. Where
zoning exists, all uses must be consistent with established
zoning.
(e) In all ORW estuarine shoreline and non-ORW estuarine shoreline
areas rear and side yards as specified by the Carteret County
subdivision and/or zoning ordinances shall be maintained in a
vegetative state. Bulkheads, shoreline stabilization, decks, and
marinas as allowed under other sections and policies of this
plan, and accessory structures as defined and permitted by the
Carteret County subdivision and zoning ordinances shall not be
affected by this policy.
Marine Resource Areas:
(a) Carteret County supports the use standards for estuarine, public
trust, and ORW waters as specified in 15NCAC.0207, with the fol-
lowing exceptions:
1. Carteret County opposes the construction of new naviga-
tion channels and canals through coastal wetlands
unless mitigative action is taken to replace lost wet-
land areas with like or comparable wetland areas.
Existing channels and canals may be maintained.
2. Unless essential for mosquito and vector control, new
drainage ditches shall not be constructed which dis-
charge into primary nursery areas. Existing drainage
ditches may be maintained but not increased in depth or
width.
3. Carteret County reserves the right to review and comment
on individual questions concerning trawling and other
commercial and marine fisheries issues.
4. Carteret County supports efforts by N.C. Marine
Fisheries to identify areas suitable for shellfish
bottom leases.
Off -Road Vehicles: Carteret County will investigate the develop-
ment of an ordinance to address the usage of off -road or all -terrain
vehicles in areas of environmental concern.
Peat or Phosphate Mining: Carteret County opposes any peat
mining. Phosphate mining activities will be allowed when an Environ-
mental Impact Statement has been prepared with a finding of no signif-
icant effect on the environment.
IV-11

D. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
General:
Carteret County desires to expand its economic base, including
agriculture and forestry, tourism, recreation, commercial and recre-
ational fishing, retirement communities, retail and wholesale trade,
real estate and construction, industrial development, and continued
growth and development of the State Port. However, Carteret County
does not want to jeopardize fragile areas and vital natural
resources.
Carteret County will support growth and development at the average
densities specified in the land classification definitions. These
densities are only a general guide and must be accomplished through
land use control ordinances. Major development of urban nature should
be concentrated in the developed, urban transition, and limited tran-
sition areas. Western Carteret County will contain the majority of
the county's urban type development. The "Down East" area is expected
to remain a low density, relatively undeveloped area. The county
supports zoning where property owners request it. The County will
begin an educational process to inform citizens of the benefits of
zoning.
Water Supply:
(a) Carteret County will cooperate with and support the West Carteret
Water Corporation's efforts to construct a central water system
in Western Carteret County along portions of the N.C. 24 corridor
and U.S. 58 immediately north of Cape Carteret.
(b) Carteret County recognizes that rural classified areas of the
county may not be provided central water service within the
planning period. However, the county supports development of a
county -wide plan for the provision of central water service.
(c) Water systems must be constructed with lines designed and sized
for adequate fire protection and sufficient water pressure.
Carteret County should revise its Subdivision Ordinance to ensure
adequate water system design standards.
(d) Carteret County will investigate establishment of a policy
requiring water conserving plumbing fixtures in all new
construction.
Sewer System:
(a) The long-term solution to sewage disposal should be ocean outfall
disposal. No new point source discharge of sewer systems into
estuarine waters should be permitted, and the existing estuarine
discharge systems should be eliminated within 20 years. Carteret
County recognizes that land application may be an acceptable
short-term alternate.
IV-12

(b) Carteret County recognizes that rural classified areas of the
county may not be provided central sewer service within the
planning period. However, the county supports development of a
county -wide plan for the provision of efficient and cost-
effective waste water disposal.
(c) Carteret County supports the extension of central sewer service
into all areas classified as developed, urban transition, limited
transition, community, and rural with services, when service is
requested by the citizens in those areas. Carteret County
encourages, but does not require, that such extensions should be
preceded by zoning of the areas to receive sewer service.
(d) Carteret County encourages the consolidation of municipal systems
and the centralization of high density development in areas
served by municipal sewer systems..
Solid Waste:
(a) Carteret County supports a regional multi -county approach to
solid waste management.
(b) Carteret County supports the maximum extension of the life of the
Hibbs Road Landfill through waste reduction and recycling
efforts. The county will cooperate with any efforts to educate
people and businesses on waste reduction and recycling. The
county vigorously supports recycling by the county and other
users of the landfill and supports setting up practical
collection methods and education efforts to achieve a high degree
of county -wide recycling. The county will make vigorous efforts
tc meet, and EXCEED the goals of Senate Bill 111 which generally
requires a 25% reduction of solid waste by January, 1993.
(c) Carteret County favors the siting of recycling centers within all
land classifications except those within the conservation
category.
(d) Carteret County will consider ordinances with severe penalties
for illegal dumping.
Stormwater:
(a) Carteret County will cooperate with the NCDOT, the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management, and other state agencies in
mitigating the impact of stormwater runoff on all conservation
classified areas. The county will actively support the Division
of Environmental Management stormwater runoff retention permit-
ting process through its zoning permit system.
(b) Carteret County supports the policy that all North Carolina
Department of Transportation projects should be designed to
limit to the extent possible stormwater runoff into estuarine
waters.
IV-13

Energy Facility Siting and Development:
(a) There are no electric generating plants located in or proposed
for Carteret County. However, the county will review proposals
for development of electric generating plants on a case -by -case
basis, judging the need for the facility by the county against
all identified possible adverse impacts.
(b) Carteret County does not oppose offshore exploratory drilling for
oil or gas. In the event that oil or gas is discovered, Carteret
County will not oppose drilling operations and onshore support
facilities for which an Environmental Impact Statement has been
prepared with a finding of no significant impact on the environ-
ment. Carteret County supports and requests full disclosure of
development plans, with mitigative measures that will be under-
taken to prevent adverse impacts on the environment, the infra-
structure, and the social systems of the county. The county also
requests full disclosure of any adopted plans. Offshore drilling
and the development of onshore support facilities may have severe
costs for the county as well as advantages. The costs should be
borne by the company(ies) which profits from offshore drilling
and onshore support facilities.
Community Facilities: During the planning period, Carteret County
will develop a community services/facilities plan (as a stand-alone
document, not as an expansion of this plan), which will define exist-
ing deficiencies in police protection, fire protection, local admini-
strative buildings, public recreational facilities, public shoreline
access, and public parks. This plan will not address school system
needs. The plan will prioritize needs and make specific
recommendations concerning financing and budgeting the high priority
needs. The county will coordinate facility planning with the school
system and the municipalities.
Redevelopment of Developed Areas: The most significant redevelop-
ment issues facing Carteret County through 2000 are substandard hous-
ing and deteriorating commercial structures. During the planning
period, the county will attempt to correct its worst substandard hous-
ing conditions by:
(a) supporting the development and enforcement of a Minimum Housing
Code;
(b) applying for Community Development Block Grant Community Revita-
lization funds;
(c) coordinating redevelopment efforts with the Carteret County
Building Inspection Department.
(d) preparing a county -wide housing strategy to increase the quantity
and quality of affordable housing.
IV-14

Estuarine Access:
(a) Carteret County supports the state's shoreline access policies as
set forth in NCAC Chapter 15, Subchapter 7M. The county will
conform to CAMA and other state and federal environmental regula-
tions affecting the development of estuarine access areas.
(b) Carteret County will apply for CAMA funding to assist in financ-
ing the funding of a shoreline access plan.
Types and Locations of Desired Industry: Industrial development
is extremely important to the continued economic growth and stability
of Carteret County. The county's heavy reliance on employment in the
service and retail trade sector should be balanced by the development
of a stronger base of industrial/manufacturing employment. However,
the county desires to achieve responsible industrial development which
will not adversely affect the natural environment or the quality of
established residential areas.
The following industrial development policies will be applied:
(a) Carteret County encourages the development of industrial sites
which are accessible to municipal/central water and sewer serv-
ices.
(b) Industrial development should occur in areas classified as devel-
oped, urban transition, and limited transition. Industries
generating only domestic sewage are acceptable in areas classi-
fied as community and rural with services. Carteret County does
not oppose industries locating within rural classified areas if
they have approved applicable state permits for water supply and
sewage disposal systems. Industrial uses that are water
dependent or related to fishing or aquaculture activities will be
allowed in estuarine shoreline and ORW estuarine shoreline
areas. This policy shall not apply to the estuarine shorelines
of mosquito ditches.
(c) Industries which are noxious by reason of the emission of smoke,
dust, glare, noise, and vibrations, and those which deal primari-
ly in hazardous products such as explosives, should not be locat-
ed in Carteret County.
(d) Carteret County encourages the location of industries in "indus-
trial park" settings. The county will develop industrial park
standards to be incorporated into the county's zoning ordinance.
Industrial park development will be encouraged in areas zoned for
industrial development.
(e) Carteret County fully supports the concept of developing a marine
resources complex for marine research and education. Carteret
County supports the concept of a marine "Crescent" project to
promote marine related employment and industrial opportunities.
IV-15

(f) Carteret County will investigate the development of an ordinance
requiring industries to pre -treat non -domestic waste prior to
discharge into any central sewer system.
Commitment to State and Federal Programs: Carteret County is
generally receptive to state and federal programs, particularly those
which provide improvements to the county. The county will continue to
fully support such programs, especially the North Carolina Department
of Transportation road and bridge improvement programs, which are very
important to Carteret County.
Examples of other state and federal programs that are important to and
supported by Carteret County include: drainage planning and erosion
control activities carried out by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Ser-
vice, which is valuable to farmers; dredging and channel maintenance
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and federal and state projects
which provide efficient and safe boat access for sport fishing.
However, Carteret County does not support expansion of military
restricted airspace in eastern North Carolina.
Assistance in Channel Maintenance: Proper maintenance of channels
is very important in Carteret County because of the substantial
economic impact of commercial fisheries, boating, sport fishing, and
successful operation of the State Port. Commercial fishing employment
(full and part-time) is increasing in the county. If silt or other
deposits fill in the channels, this could impede efficient docking of
the commercial fishing and transport vessels. Carteret County will
provide assistance to the U.S. Corps of Engineers and state officials
by either helping to obtain or providing spoil sites, especially to
maintain the Drum Inlet Channel.
Tourism: Tourism is extremely important to Carteret County and
will be supported by the county. Carteret County will implement the
following policies to further the development of tourism:
(a) Carteret County will support North Carolina Department of Trans-
portation projects to improve access to and within Carteret
County.
(b) Carteret County will support projects that will increase public
access to shoreline areas.
(c) Carteret County will continue to support the activities of the
North Carolina Division of Travel and Tourism; specifically, the
monitoring of tourism -related industry, efforts to promote
tourism -related commercial activity, and efforts to enhance and
provide shoreline resources.
(d) Carteret County will continue to support the activities of the
Carteret County Tourism Development Bureau.
IV-16

Transportation:
(a) Carteret County will support the development of a county -wide
thoroughfare plan.
(b) Carteret County will support transportation improvement which
will lessen congestion on N.C. 24 for commuters and local resi-
dents.
(c) Carteret County supports the construction of bridges across Gales
and Broad Creeks which satisfy flood elevations and standards,
and the restoration of the creek channels to their original
configurations if environmental and economic conditions justify
construction.
(d) If a need is demonstrated, Carteret County will support the
construction of a third bridge between Bogue Bank and the
mainland.
(e) Carteret County will work with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation to ensure that all road hazards are clearly marked
or corrected. The county will identify and report hazards to the
NCDOT.
Land Use Trends: The county's land use trends have been thorough-
ly discussed in other sections of this plan. Those trends include:
-- Increasing waterfront development
-- Development of the N.C. 24 corridor
-- Anticipated low density development in the "Down East" area
-- Continued concentration of urban development in areas served by
municipal water and sewer facilities
-- Continued minor losses of agricultural and forest lands
-- Continued expansion of the mainland municipal areas.
These land use changes should be controlled through existing local,
state, and federal land use regulations including CAMA, 11404" regula-
tions, sanitary regulations, and the county's subdivision and zoning
ordinances and building inspections program. Carteret County should
establish zoning in all areas of the county where it is requested
by the property owners. Carteret County should establish an
educational program to advise property owners of the benefits of
zoning. The County should work towards county -wide zoning but should
not arbitrarily force zoning upon unreceptive citizens.
IV-17

E. CONTINUING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION POLICIES
Carteret County recognizes that a basic element in developing
and implementing a land use plan is the successful involvement of a
jurisdiction's citizenry in the development of the plan. As the
initial step in the preparation of this document, a "Public
Participation Plan" was adopted. The plan outlined the methodology
for citizen involvement (See Appendix VI). Public involvement was to
be generated through public information meetings, advertising in
local newspapers, establishment of a land use planning advisory
committee, and meetings with both the Planning Board and Board of
Commissioners.
The Land Use Planning Advisory Committee was instrumental in the
development of this plan. A solid cross-section of the County's
citizenry was represented by the committee. Continuous and
meaningful input was provided by the group to guide plan development.
The following individuals served as members of the committee:
Andy Anderson
David Bradley
Sam Brake
Sherry Chester
John Dunn
Sharon Ethridge
Iry Hooper
Paul Kelly
Don Kirkman*
Robert Klein
Arthur "Tex" McKamey
Maureen Parker
Tom Piner
Vernon Sawyer
Julie Shambaugh
Alan Shelor
Harry B. Taylor
Paul Warren
Woody Warren
John D. Willis
Paul Wysocki
Don McMahan
Ex-officio Members
Ray Harris
Roger Melville
Albert Taylor
The public information meetings were conducted at the outset of
the project. The first was held at the Atlantic Elementary School on
August 28, 1989, and the second was held at the Broad Creek Middle
School on August 29, 1989. Also, a description of the land use plan
preparation process and schedule was published in the Carteret County
News Times. Subsequently, meetings of the Land Use Planning Advisory
Committee were held on: November 1, 1989; November 15, 1989;
December 12, 1989; January 3, 1990; February 7, 1990, February 21,
1990; March 7, 1990; March 26, 1990; April 25, 1990; and May 29,
1990. In addition, an interim progress report was submitted to the
Carteret County Planning Board on January 8, 1990. All meetings were
open to the public.
The draft plan was submitted to the Carteret County Planning
Board on June 11, 1990. The document was approved by the Planning
Board on July 17, 1990, for submission to the Carteret County Board
of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners conducted a public
IV-18

information meeting for review of and comment on the plan on
August 6, 1990. The meeting was advertised in the Carteret County
News Times on July 20 and July 27, 1990.
The preliminary plan was submitted to the Coastal Resources
Commission for comment in August, 1990. Following receipt of CRC
comments, the plan was amended, and a formal public hearing on the
final document was conducted on March 11, 1991. The public hearing
was advertised in the Carteret County News Times on February 6,
February 20, and March 6, 1991. The plan was approved by the
Carteret County Board of Commissioners on March 11, 1991, and
submitted to the Coastal Resources Commission for certification. The
plan was certified on March 22, 1991.
Citizen input will continue to be solicited, primarily through
the Planning Board, with advertised and adequately publicized public
meetings held to discuss special land use issues and to keep citizens
informed.
IV-19

F. STORM HAZARD MITIGATION, POST -DISASTER RECOVERY, AND
EVACUATION PLANS
The purpose of a storm hazard mitigation plan is to assist a
town or county in managing development in potentially hazardous
areas through establishing storm hazard mitigation policies and to
reduce the risks associated with severe storm and hurricanes by
developing post -disaster reconstruction/recovery policies. In 1984,
the county had a detailed plan prepared by Satilla Planning, Inc.,
and George Eichler and Associates. That document has been well
received by Carteret County and its emergency related personnel and
agencies. The county desires to have that plan continue to serve as
the county's storm hazard mitigation, post -disaster recovery, and
evacuation plan.
The 1985 Land Use Plan had sections
included as an appendix to provide storm
That summary is included in this plan as
recommended hazard mitigation policies to
planning requirements.
IV-20
of the 1984 mitigation plan
hazard mitigation policies.
Appendix VII to provide
satisfy 15 NCAC 7B

SECTION V
LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

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

Limited Transition: Areas included in the limited transition
classification are areas which will experience increasing development
during the next five to ten years. Some municipal type services will
be required. This classification may be found near valuable
estuarine waters or other fragile natural systems. The limited
transition classification is intended for predominantly residential
use. However, some scattered commercial, health care, and industrial
development may occur. Clustering or development associated with
planned unit developments may be appropriate. Residential densities
at an average of three units per acre or less are acceptable. The
minimum lot size shall be 10,000 square feet, with the majority of
the lots having 15,000 or more square feet. Clustering or
development associated with planned unit developments are acceptable
in this classification.
Community: Areas included in the community classification are
presently developed at low densities and are suitable for septic tank
usage. Uses.are limited to single-family residences, isolated
general and convenience stores, churches, public facilities, health
care facilities and mixed land uses at low densities. Very limited
municipal type services, including water service, may be available.
Sewer service may be provided to correct an existing or projected
public health hazard. Residential densities shall average two
dwelling units per acre, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square
feet.
Rural: Areas included within the rural classification include lands
that are appropriate for or presently used for agriculture, forestry,
mineral extraction, and other uses that should be located in a
relatively isolated and undeveloped area. The predominant land uses
are agricultural and residential. However, public facilities, health
care facilities, and scattered industrial and commercial uses are
allowed. Rural water systems may be available to help avert poor
water quality problems. Residential densities shall average two
dwelling units per acre, with a minimum lot size 20,000 square feet.
Rural with Services: Areas included within the rural with services
classification are developed at very low density. Land uses include
residential use where limited water services are provided in order to
avert existing or projected health problems, public facilities,
health care facilities, and scattered commercial and industrial uses.
Lot sizes will be large and the provision of services will not
disrupt the primary rural character of the landscape. Residential
densities shall average two dwelling units per acre with a minimum
lot size of 15,000 square feet. Development shall be low density in
order to maintain a rural character.
CONSERVATION CLASSIFICATIONS
Coastal Wetlands: This classification includes all areas of coastal
wetlands which include any salt marsh or other marsh subject to
regular or occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides.
However, tidal flooding is understood not to include hurricane or
V-2

Limited Transition: Areas included in the limited transition
classification are areas which will experience increasing development
during the next five to ten years. Some municipal type services will
be required. This classification may be found near valuable estua-
rine waters or other fragile natural systems. The limited transition
classification is intended for predominantly residential use.
However, some scattered commercial, health care, and industrial
development may occur. Clustering or development associated with
planned unit developments may be appropriate. Residential densities
at an average of three units per acre or less are acceptable. The
minimum lot size shall be 10,000 square feet, with the majority of
the lots having 15,000 or more square feet. Clustering or develop-
ment associated with planned unit developments are acceptable in this
classification.
Community: Areas included in the community classification are
presently developed at low densities and are suitable for septic tank
usage. Uses are limited to single-family residences, isolated gen-
eral and convenience stores, churches, public facilities, health care
facilities and mixed land uses at low densities. Very limited
municipal type services, including water service, may be available.
Sewer service may be provided to correct an existing or projected
public health hazard. Residential densities shall average two
dwelling units per acre, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square
feet.
Rural: Areas included within the rural classification include
lands that are appropriate for or presently used for agriculture,
forestry, mineral extraction, and other uses that should be located
in a relatively isolated and undeveloped area. The predominant land
uses are agricultural and residential. However, public facilities,
health care facilities, and scattered industrial and commercial uses
are allowed. Rural water systems may be available to help avert poor
water quality problems. Residential densities shall average two
dwelling units per acre, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square
feet.
Rural with Services: Areas included within the rural with serv-
ices classification are developed at very low density. Land uses
include residential use where limited water services are provided in
order to avert existing or projected health problems, public facili-
ties, health care facilities, and scattered commercial and industrial
uses. Lot sizes will be large and the provision of services will not
disrupt the primary rural character of the landscape. Residential
densities shall average two dwelling units per acre with a minimum
lot size of 15,000 square feet. Development should be low density in
order to maintain a rural character.
CONSERVATION CLASSIFICATIONS
Coastal Wetlands: This classification includes all areas of
coastal wetlands which include any salt marsh or other marsh subject
to regular or occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides.
However, tidal flooding is understood not to include hurricane or
V-2

tropical storm tides. The N.C. Division of Coastal Management must
determine the presence and extent of coastal wetlands on a site.
Except as prohibited in the policies section of this plan, only
development allowed by 15 A NCAC 7H will be permitted in areas
classified as coastal wetlands.
404 Wetlands: This classification includes concentrated areas of 404
wetlands which meet the wetlands definition contained in Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. Only uses consistent with the policy
statements section of this plan will be allowed.
There may be areas of the county considered to be 404 wetlands by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which have not been included in the
Conservation 404 wetlands classification as indicated on on the Land
Classification Maps (15 and 15A). The policy statements addressing
404 wetlands which are included in Section IV of this plan are
intended to apply to only those areas delineated as 404 wetlands on
the Carteret County Land Classification Maps (15 and 15A). in all
other areas of the County considered by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to be 404 wetlands, the applicable Federal regulations
shall apply.
Natural Heritage Areas: This classification includes lands which
support native plant and animal communities and provide habitat
qualities that have remained essentially unchanged by human activity.
They may be surrounded by landscape that has been modified but does
not drastically alter conditions within the natural area. All areas
within this classification have been recognized by either the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program or the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service as having special significance. These areas should
be primarily preserved in their natural state with only the following
development allowed.
-- Public facilities and improvements to provide shoreline
access;
-- The use of areas by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as spoil
disposal sites;
-- Development of public facilities by the National Parks Service
and the State of North Carolina. However, Carteret County
requests the opportunity to review and comment on all plans
opportunity to review and comment on all plans for development
of public facilities.
-- Uses that are consistent with and allowed by the
policies section of this plan.
Estuarine Shoreline: All areas lying 0-75 feet landward of the mean
high water level of estuarine waters not designated as Outstanding
Resource Waters are classified as estuarine shorelines. Because of map
size and scale, these areas cannot be accurately mapped. Precise
locations must be determined in the field.
V-3

tropical storm tides. Except as allowed and provided for in the
policies section of this plan, no development shall be allowed in
areas classified as coastal wetlands.
404 Wetlands: This classification includes concentrated areas of
404 wetlands which meet the wetlands definition contained in Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. Only uses consistent with the policy
statements section of this plan will be allowed. .
There may be areas of the county considered to be 404 wetlands by the
U.S. A-:ny Corps of Engineers which have not been included in the
Conservation 404 wetlands classification as indicated on the Land
Classification Maps (15 and 15A). The policy statements addressing
404 wetlands which are included in Section IV of this plan are
intended to apply to only those areas delineated as 404 wetlands on
the Carteret County Land Classification Maps (15 and 15A). In all
other areas of the County considered by the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers to be 404 wetlands, the applicable Federal regulations
shall apply.
Natural Heritage Areas: This classification includes lands which
support native plant and animal communities and provide habitat qual-
ities that have remained essentially unchanged by human activity.
They may be surrounded by landscape that has been modified but does
not drastically alter conditions within the natural area. All areas
within this classification have been recognized by either the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program or the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service as having special significance. These areas should
be primarily preserved in their natural state with only the following
development allowed:
-- Public facilities and improvements to provide shoreline
access;
-- The use of areas by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers as spoil
disposal sites;
-- Development of public facilities by the National Parks Service
and the State of North Carolina. However, Carteret County
requests the opportunity to review and comment on all plans
for development of public facilities.
-- Development of any sound or estuarine island that is
consistent with the Development of Sound and Estuarine Islands
Policy included on page IV-7 of this plan.
-- Uses that are consistent with and allowed by the policies
section of this plan.
Estuarine Shoreline: All areas lying 0-75 feet landward of the
mean high water level of estuarine waters not designated as Outstand-
ing Resource Waters are classified as estuarine shorelines. Because
of map size and scale, these areas cannot be accurately mapped.
Precise locations must be determined in the field.
V-3

ORW Estuarine Shorelines: All areas lying 0-575 feet landward of
the mean high water level of estuarine waters designated as Outstand-
ing Resource Waters are classified as ORW estuarine shorelines.
Because of map size and scale, these areas cannot be accurately
mapped. Precise locations must be determined in the field.
Primary Nursery Areas: This classification includes all areas
designated as primary nursery areas by the North Carolina Division of
Marine Fisheries.
Estuarine and Public Trust Waters: All public trust areas and
estuarine waters are included in this classification. All waters of
Carteret County are classified as estuarine waters as described by 15
NCAC 7H.0206 or public trust areas as described by 15 NCAC 7H.0207.
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW): This area includes all waters
which have been designated by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission as Outstanding Resource Waters. While not
under the county's planning jurisdiction, the ORW designations extend
into the municipalities' areas of planning jurisdiction. The ORW
locations are indicated on Maps 15 and 15A.
Ocean Hazard Areas: This classification includes all ocean
hazard areas. These areas include lands along the Atlantic shoreline
where, because of their special vulnerability to erosion or other
adverse effects of sand, wind and water, uncontrolled or incompatible
development could unreasonably endanger life or property. These
areas include beaches, frontal dunes, inlet lands, and other lands
with excessive erosion or flood damage. Development shall be permit-
ted which is allowed by 15 NCAC 7H.0306.
The Land Classification Maps, 15 and 15A, provide the locations
of the various classifications. Because of the complexity and impor-
tance of Carteret County's areas of environmental concern, the
conservation classification was divided into nine subcategories of
conservation areas. The classification map indicates a continuation
of existing development patterns with the following locations of land
use categories:
Developed
This area is located west of Morehead City's extraterritorial
jurisdiction along both sides of U.S. 70 for a distance of
approximately 0.8 mile and south of N.C. 24 between Morehead
City's extraterritorial jurisdiction and S.R. 1147. Bogue Field
and Cedar Point are also classified as developed.
Urban Transition
This area is located along both sides of U.S. 70 from Newport's
extraterritorial boundary southeast of within 0.8 mile of
Morehead City's extraterritorial area, south from U.S. 70 to the
north side of N.C. 24 and along the western side of S.R. 1147.
V-4

Limited Transition
This classification exists along the N.C. 24 corridor from Cape
Carteret and Bogue Field east to the urban transition and
developed areas located along N.C. 24. The limited transition
category extends north of N.C. 24 for a distance of 0.5 mile.
Rural with Services
These areas are located north of Cape Carteret along S.R. 1107,
1108, 1111, 1109, and portions of 1106. Other areas are located
along both sides of S.R. 1300 north of U.S. 70 for a distance of
three and one-half miles, along S.R. 1163 between N.C. 101 and
S.R. 1300, along N.C. 101 between S.R. 1163 and the Intracoastal
Waterway, and in the Sea Gate Woods development north of N.C.
101 and west of the Intracoastal Waterway.
Rural
The rural areas are delineated on the Land Classification Maps
15 and 15A. Major concentrations are found in the northern
two-thirds of Western Carteret County and in open grounds areas
of the Down East area of Carteret County.
Community
The community classification is found in the following
locations: north of the Cedar Point town limits; east of the
White Oak River marshes; and in the Davis, Atlantic,
Marshallberg, and Sea Level communities.
Conservation
The conservation classification locations are described in
detail in the Fragile Areas section of the plan.
V-5

LEGEND
MM 1)
Natural Heritage areas frequently coincide with *Cher
DEVELOPED
conservation areas moth a fresh water wtlands and
coastal "Claude. Because of this. both a pattern and
letter-ausber designation are utilized to define
URBAN TRANSITION
Natural Heritage aceam. In* latter-nusber designa-
tions agree with the designations shown on Map 10,
®.
fragile areas, page I-00, and the narraclve descrip-
LIMITED TRANSITION
tions of the Natural Heritage aream which are provided
on pages I-s/ to 1-90. When Natural sesitage azas
RURAL WITH SERVICES
• • •
Coincide with other conservation area, the Sort
restrictive policy statweents will apply.
RURAL
Mom t)
All areas lying 0-7e' landward of the ran high water
level or Carnal mazer level of atgarine eaters not
COMMUNITY
®
classified As outstanding Resource Waters are classi-
fied as estuarine shoreline areas.
COASTAL WETLANDS
MOxN 31
All areas lying 0-975' landward of the tan nigh water
level or nec>•al rout level of estuarine waters
WETLANDS
.:n •
classified as outstanding Resource Waters are
404
classified as estuarine shoraline areas.
NATURAL HERITAGE AREAS
led
NOxN /l
All raters of Carteret c County ace classified as
seas a deaerlcri by IS NCAC 7N.0306, or
ssblLc
AND/OR A, B, C DESIGNATIONS
Inhale Trust Areas as described IS NGC 7H.0207.
T
SEE NOTE I
di
In areas rest designated Outstanding Nssourca Waters
or prisery nursery areas, all dewlopwnc mull be
s
ESTUARINE SHORELINE
See NOTE
consistent with the -me standards contained in is NC=
2
7H.0206 and .0207.
ORW ESTUARINE SHORELINE
PRIMARY NURSERY AREAS
See NOTE 3
ESTUARINE AND PUBLIC TRUST WATERS See NOTE 4
OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS
(ORW)
OCEAN HAZARD AREAS Sae NOTE 5
COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE — — —
INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT
MACON NOT UNDER CARTERET
COUNTY PLANNING JURISDICTION
EXTRA -TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AREAS NOT
UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PLANNING
JURISDICTION
TOWN OF CEDAR POINT
CORPORATE LIMIT LINE — — — —
NOTE: Shockleford Banks, Cape Lookout, Core
Banks, and Portsmouth Island are a part of the
National Seashore System and not under the
planning )urlsdlctlon of Carteret County.
NOTE: THE EMERALD ISLE BEACH CORPORATE
LIMIT LINE EXTENDS 1,200 FEET INTO ROGUE
SOUND AND PARALLELS THE ROGUE SOUND
SHORELINE.
NOTE: The area of Carteret County lying between
the east and west areas of Indian Beach Is
Classified as developed except for the area along
the beach shoreline which complies with the
definition of on ocean hazard area.
e
WESTERN
CARTERET
COUNTY
NOxs 31 The only Ocean Messed area under Carteret County -
jurisdiction is the ocean beach and dune area in Bogus
Banks between the east and "at incorporated areas of _
Indian Beach. This area Ss.claaSlfied At Ocean Hazard
Area.
NOTE 61 A portion tot the Theodore Roosevelt Natural Area has
been designated a Outstanding Resource Waters. The r
designation does not extend into the Salina 'raters of
Bogus sound. This entire OHM is under the juris-
diction of pine Knoll Shores and is not delineated on
the Carteret County Land Classification Map.
NOSH 71 sacsim or 1W SCALN, TNX CDesa]rgaxlCM CLASSISICATICNS
CANNOT Bo ACCURIUMM Y MayrID. NRACIBN 10CATIONO ION
ALL CONORRVASIOH CLASSIFIRD AREAS MST EA OtT273FX ID
IN sa rms.
O
CARTERET COUNTY
MATCH LINE MAP
MAP 15 8 I5A

LEGEND
The preparation of this map was
financed in part through a grant
provided by the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program,
through funds provided by the
Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972, as amended, which is
administered by the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
CRAVEN COUNTY
Fr LFr r rr r
rr< r rr c
1�
A5
� rrn fftri ftr wf'r4k'N
r r ry4 f Or
l frrf f �
f re6 f-�P,r.
:i:i... .v:... -
Oro,
SHORES
INDIAN BEACH
0C,EAN
A T L A N T I C
EG
i BS;,u
ATLANTIC BEACH
l�
I_1
CARTERET COUNTY
LAND CLASSIFICATION MAP
WESTERN CARTERET COUNTY
MAP 15
DOES NOT MATCH MAP 15A SCALE

LEGEND
OEMNOR
11
Natural Heritage areas frequently minding with echc
DEVELOPED
conurvation areas such &A fresh rater vetlanda and
eoamtal "Claude. Because of this. both a pattern and -
letter -number designation are utilized to define
URBAN TRANSITION
Natural Heritage areas. The Letter-mmber design&-
tions agree with the designations Shown an Nap 10, -
®.
fragile Acaaa, page 1-80, and the narrative deaccip-
LIMITED TRANSITION
dons of the Natural Heritage &case which are provided "
on pages I-64 to 1-90. when Natural Heritage areas
• • •e
coincide with other conservation &ream, the more
RURAL WITH SERVICES
restrictive policy statements will apply.
E__1
RURAL
HOR21
All areas lying 0-75, landward of the ran high water
level or normal water level of estuarine waters not
COMMUNITY
®
classified an outstanding Resource waters are clasal-
tied as estuarine shoreline areas.
_
COASTAL WETLANDS
IIDR ])
All areas lying 0-373, landward of the teen high water
L,r
level or noamel water level of estuarine waters
level
404 WETLANDS
•.n 4
classified a outstanding Resource waeama are
classified as estuarine anoolihe area. �
' ' w ' 4
NATURAL HERITAGE AREAS
-
)TOTE al
All waters of Carteret County an classified asGets
me t am described
AND/OR A, B, C DESIGNATIONS
ssedescr
Areas aerm
Publio Treat ey !s HCAC 7H 0ia7.
SEE NOTE I
In areas not designated as Outstanding Resource waters
or primary nursery areas, all development shall be
ESTUARINE SHORELINE
See NOTE
consistent with the use standards contained in 15 Neu
2
7R.0206 and .0207.
I ORW ESTUARINE SHORELINE
PRIMARY NURSERY AREAS
See NOTE 3
ESTUARINE AND PUBLIC TRUST WATERS See NOTE 4
OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS
(ORW)
OCEAN HAZARD AREAS See NOTE 5
I COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE — — —
INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT
MACON NOT UNDER CARTERET
COUNTY PLANNING JURISDICTION
Em
EXTRA -TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AREAS NOT
UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PLANNING
JURISDICTION
TOWN OF CEDAR POINT — — — _
CORPORATE LIMIT LINE
NOTE: Shockleford Banks, Cape Lookout, Core
Banks, and Portsmouth Island are a part of the
National Seashore System and not under the
planning Jurisdiction of Carteret County.
NOTE: THE EMERALD ISLE BEACH CORPORATE
LIMIT LINE EXTENDS 1,200 FEET INTO BOGUE
SOUND AND PARALLELS THE ROGUE SOUND �t
SHORELINE.
NOTE 51 The only Ocean Hazard area under Carteret County
jurisdiction is the ocean beach and dune area in Bogus
Banks between the east and "at incorporated eras of _
Indian Beach. This area is.classifled as Deem Hazard
Area.
NOR 6) A portion -of the Theodore Roosevelt Natural Aces has
been, designated a Outstanding Resource waters. The -
designation does not extend into the Saline waters of
Bogus Somd. This entire SRN is under the juri S-
diction of pins Knoll Shores and is not delineated on
to Carteret County Land Classification Nap.
aces 71 BZCW E or WAR say P THE CONSENMRTION CWllrxanal0
clown IS ACCURATELY Ma PPID. PRECISE LOCATION! you
ALL 00101IRMT2a CIAWXF2ID AREA.? MOST an OSTOOf:am
17 RI mild.
NOTE The area of Carteret County lying between 1
.the east and west areas of Indian each Is A
classified as developed except for the area along �� "DOWN FAST'
the beach shoreline which compiles with the
definition of an ocean hazard area CARTERET
_______________ COUNTY Y
e J l
WEST
CARTTERREET �� CARTERET COUNTY
COUNTY
9 MATCH LINE MAP
O
MAP 15 a 15A

PAMLICO/ COUNTY
The preparation of this map was
�V
financed in part through a grant
provided by the North Carotlna
Coostw Mmwgomen Program—
EUSE
--- RIVER
through funds provided the
CoasW Zone Management Ad of
l972, ss amended which is
admoniste►ed by the Office of
oceManad Coasts! Resource
al Ocean
Management, National Oceanic and
�
Atmospheric AdmbdstrUhDfL
-Tout
NOTE These Insane correspond to the
comnesdly classified wens In the "Dorn East'
area.
SCALE FOR MERTS
I a 1 ]

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I
DEMOGRAPHIC METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX I
IA: METHODOLOGY USED FOR ESTIMATING 1987 CARTERET COUNTY
PERMANENT POPULATION BY TOWNSHIP
Carteret County Municipal population estimates for 1987 are available
from the State Data Center. However, estimates by township for 1987
are unavailable. 1987 estimates for unincorporated areas by township
were based on the following methodology: 1) The ratio of each indi-
vidual unincorporated area population increase by township to the
total unincorporated population for Carteret County from 1970-80
(7,345) was calculated. That ratio was then applied to the total
increase in unincorporated population for the county from 1980 to 1987
(3,474, based on N.C. Data Center information for 1987). The result-
ing number was then added to the respective 1980 population, resulting
in an unincorporated population estimate for each township for 1987.
The basic assumption of this methodology is that the relative growth
rates of the unincorporated areas were the same for the period 1970-80
and 1980-87. This assumption is considerably strengthened by the
availability of municipal population figures for 1987. Factors such
as annexation and overall rural/urban migration factors from 1980-87
were already accounted for prior to the calculation of unincorporated
population by township.
An example of this methodology is shown below:
Township - Harlowe
1) 1970-80 population increase, Harlowe Township = 194
2) Harlowe Township's Percentage of total 1970-80
unincorporated population increase: 194/7,345 .02641
3) Times total increase in county unincorporated
population, 1980-87 x 3,474
4) Equals increase in population,
Harlowe Township, 1980-87: 91
5) Plus 1980 population - Harlowe Township 956
6) Assumed 1987 population: 1,047

IB: METHODOLOGY USED TO ESTIMATE 1970 CARTERET COUNTY
PEAK SEASONAL POPULATION
Total 1970 peak seasonal population for Carteret County was derived by
calculating seasonal population for 1970 private seasonal housing
units, using the same methodology as utilized in the 1980-87 ECU
study. The percentage increase in private seasonal housing population
from 1970-80 was then compared to the 1980-87 percentage increase for
private seasonal housing population. The resultant ratio was then
applied to the 1980-87 percentage increase for other types of seasonal
units' population to calculate estimated percentage increases for the
other types of units from 1970-80. The 1980 populations for the other
seasonal units (marinas, motels, campgrounds) were then divided by the
estimated 1970-80 percentage increases to back into 1970 estimated
seasonal populations for those units. The basic assumption in this
methodology is that marinas, motels, and campgrounds shared the same
relative population growth rates compared private seasonal housing
units from 1970-80 and 1980-87.

IC: METHODOLOGY USED FOR ESTIMATING 1987 CARTERET COUNTY
SEASONAL POPULATION BY TOWNSHIP
1987 seasonal population estimates by Carteret County township were
derived as follows. First, the increase in seasonal population by
township from 1970-80 was divided into the total seasonal population
increase for Carteret County from 1970-80 (26,620). The resultant
ratio for that township was then applied to the increase in seasonal
population for the entire county from 1980-87 (24,142). The result
was then added to the 1980 seasonal population for that township to
obtain estimated 1987 seasonal population. This methodology assumes
that the relative growth rates of seasonal population by township were
the same from 1980-87 and 1970-80. (The overall county seasonal
population annual growth rate from 1970-80 was actually twice as high
as the annual rate from 1980-87.)
Seasonal increases by municipality/unincorporated area from 1980-87
for Beaufort, White Oak, and Newport townships were calculated by
assuming that seasonal growth in those three townships from 1980-87
paralleled permanent geographic population trends depicted in Table 2
(this has the added benefit of accounting for changes in seasonal
population growth patterns due to annexation). Therefore, the
percentage of total increase in each of these township's permanent
population from 1980-87 attributable to individual municipalities and
unincorporated areas was applied to the corresponding total seasonal
population increase by township in Table 10. The result was a
seasonal population increase from 1980-87 for each municipality and
unincorporated area in those three townships.
In Morehead City township, however, it is probable that the percentage
of the new seasonal population impacting the beach communities from
1980-87 was much higher than the percentage of permanent township
population moving to the beach communities over the same period, since
Morehead City and its outlying areas do not have as high a seasonal/
permanent population ratio as the beach communities. It was therefore
assumed that the seasonal population grew at the same rate as perma-
nent population in Morehead City and unincorporated areas of Morehead
township from 1980-87. Once increases for those two areas were
entered in Table 10, the seasonal increases for each of the three
Morehead City beach communities were calculated. This was based on
the ratio of individual beach community permanent population increase
to total beach community permanent population increase from 1980-87,
multiplied by the total seasonal increase for all three beach communi-
ties from 1980-87; i.e., the same methodology used for Newport,
Beaufort, and White Oak townships was applied to only a portion of
Morehead township.

APPENDIX II
PROPORTIONATE EXTENT OF CARTERET COUNTY SOILS

108 APPENDIX II
Soil $UNe
TABLE 5.-ACREAGE AND PROPORTIONATE EXTENT OF THE SOILS
Map ' Soil name
svmbol1
Acres
AaA
iAltavista loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes ---- ----- ----------- ----------- �
8,349
AqAugusta
*
loamy fine sand ------------------ ---------------------------- -________�
4,376
Ap
Arapahoe fine sandy loam-------------------------------------- ----
15,366
AuB
Autryville loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes-----------------^----^---
1,941
BeBeaches,
_Bf
coastal----------------------------------------------------------
2,870
* BH
Beaches, k--tidal------------------------------------------------ �
iBel
508
Bn
oven muck ---- ------
Beaches-Nevban complex, 0 to 30 percent slopes-------------------------------------�
lBaymeade
8,684
8,067
1;D67
•BYS
fine sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes ------- -------------------- ---------- �
5,108
- CdCorolla-Duckston
complex ------------ ---------------- ---- ---- - ------ -----------
763
* CH
Carteret sand, frequentlyflooded ------------------- ------------------- --- ------
5,812
^L
Carteret sand, low, frequently flooded------------ ---- ----------------- -----�
3,167
_nB
iConetoe 1 fine sand 0 to 5-- -
1,203
:o
Corolla fine sand-'----------- ---------'---'---�
1,203
CrB
iCraven loam 1 to 9 ---- - --------------------
, percent slopes--'---------------- - - �
238
:T
:1
lCroatan muck------------------------------------------------------------------
Corolla -Urban land complex-------------------------------------------------------
20,084
462
DADare
muck --- ^--------- ------------ ^------- -'-- ----- ----------------
�Deloss
4,487
De
fine sandy loam ----------------------------- ---- - --------------- ---------
37,139
'Dm
Deloss mucky loam, frequently flooded-----------------------------------------
IDorovan
894
" DO
mcck, frequently flooded ------ ------ -------- - ----------- --------W-_
iDuckston
1,741
>
fine sand, frequentlyflooded -------- ------- ----------------- ----------- �
�Fripp
2,488
Fr
fine sand, 2 to 30 percent slopes -------- ----------- ------- ----- --------- �
1,228
GOA
Goldsboro loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes-------------------------------
lHobucken
3,221
3B
muck frequently__--__--____------
fboded------------------------- --�
15 760
,
. _ CuB
IKureb sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes ----------- ---------- ---------- - ---- ---------
4778
x LF
Lafitte muck, frequently flooded ------------ -------- ------------ ----^_____�
28,078
* Ln
--
Leon sand ------- --------------- ------------- ----------------'---__
20,285
LL
-- _-I
iLeon-Urban land complex ---------------------- ------- ^-------------
321
.y
Lynchburg fine sandy loam --------------------------- -------------------- --- ^----
[Masontown
3,057
dA
mucky loam, frequently flooded ---- -------------------------- ----------
6,068
c
M.n
Mandarin -Urban land complex
410
Mandarin sand - --------------- -______--_-_---_____~_-______^_-___-___ ___�
�Murville
2,999
2,828
.Iu
mucky sand ^-------------^^_---_---^-----^-^------^------�^------
�Newhan-Corolla
15,828
-.Jc
complex, 0 to 30 percent slopes ------------------------- ---- ----- �
�Newhan
2,748
_ Nd
fine sand, dredged, 2 to 30 percent slopes ------------ ---------- --------- �
�Newhan-Urban
2,165
le
land complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes-------------------------
495
Ih
Newhan fine sand, 2 to 30 percent slopes -------- --------------------- ---- - ----- �
lNorfolk
1,296
_ JoA
loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes ----------------- -------- --------
362
L NoB
Norfolk loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes ------------------------ --------- �
1,358
InlOnslow
loamy sand ------------------------------------------------------ ---------
4,454
%
O�Ponzer
Pantego fine sandy loam ----------- ---------- ------- - ------------------ --------
7,670
muck --- --------------------­--------------- -------------------^------
17 204
�
* Ra
Rains fine sandy loam ------ ------------------ ------ --- --------------- --- ------ �
5830
`'to
Roanoke loam ------ --------------------- --------- - --- - ------------ ---------
1,519
;e
Seabrook fine sand-------------------------------------
; A
k
State loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes-----------------------
'Tomotley
1,964
To
fine sandy loam --------------------- -------- ---- --------- _^_^_^�
21,965
t To
Torhunta mucky fine sandy loam --- ------- ----------- - ------------------- -------�
'Wando
14,396
;aB
IsWasda
fine sand 0 to 6 _______ ___ --__ _
l, Percent slopes------------- - - -
5 299
WuB
--
muck---------- -------------^-------^---------------�
`Wando-Urban land complex, 0 to 6-------_______-_ p , percent slopes--------- ---
13,956
746
Water areas less than 40 acres-----------------------------------
1 -----------
1,702
Total
'YDRIC SOILS
;oils generally having only slight Hydrio Soils Zbtals
limitations for development.
Percent
340,480 ; 100.0
268,742 79%

APPENDIX III
ATTACHMENT TO HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MAP OF CARTERET COUNTY

APPENDIX III
ATTACHMENT TO HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MAP OF CARTERET COUNTY
1. NC Ferry Service, Cedar Island
Fuel Storage
2. Fulcher Clayton Seafood Co., Atlantic
Ice Plant (Ammonia)
3. Calico Jacks Marina, Harker's Island
Fuel Storage, Reg., UnL Gasoline/#2 Fuel Oil
4. Atlantic Veneer, Lennoxville Road, Beaufort
Propane/Propylene/Hydrochloric Acid/Caustic Soda-
Anhydrous/Isopropyl Alcohol/Casamite/Sodium Hypro-
chlorite/Fuel Oil/Kerosene/Perchlorothylene/Ammonium
Chloride/Caustic Soda/Hydrogen/Sodium Hydroxide/Xylene/
Aliphatic Alcohol
5. Gaskill True Value Farm and Garden Center, Lennoxville Road &
Hwy. 70, Beaufort
Pesticides/Agrichemicals
6. Town of Beaufort
A. Town Garage - Unleaded & Diesel Fuel
B. Water Plant - Chlorine
C. Waste Treatment Plant - Chlorine
7. Beaufort Gulf Dock, 330 Front Street, Beaufort
Fuel Storage - Regular & Unleaded Gasoline
8. Beaufort Ice & Coal Company
Ammonia (Ice Plant)
9. Carteret Quick Freeze, End of Ann Street West, Beaufort
Ammonia (Ice Plant)
10. Aviation Fuel Terminal, Radio Island, Morehead/Beaufort
Causeway
Storage REC/ship FRY/TPS, 25,000,000 gallons
11. N.C. State Port
Southside - Woodchips
Southside - Turnbull/Owens Corning - Asphalt/Fuel
Oil/Heating Oil/Blending Oil/Propane/Gasoline/Sand 80B
and D100/Limestone/Titanium Dioxide/Roofing
Granules/Lime, Hydrated/Talc TC 100/Saran Coated
Polypropylene Film/Kraton Rubber/Polyester
Fiberment/Fiberglass/Roofing Material/Atatic
Polypropylene/Poly Wax/El Paso-App/ISO.
Northside - Storage Methyl Bromide/Phosphoric Acid

12. Anchorage Marina, Fort Macon Road, Atlantic Beach
Storage all Gasoline/#2 Fuel Oil
13. J.M. Davis, Inc., 201 Arendell Street, Morehead City
Automotive Fuel Storage
14. Geer Oil, 612 Evans Street, Morehead City
Reg., UnL Gas Storage/Kerosene/Fuel Oil/Motor Oil
15. Town of Morehead City
A. WWTP, Loop Road - Nitric Acid/Sulfuric Acid/Chlorine
B. Public Works, 600 25th Street, Propane/Storage Fuel
C. Water Supply, Bridges & Bruton Street, Tootle Road
16. Wheatley Oil Company, Bridges Street Extension, Morehead
City
Fuel Storage, Fuel Oil
17. Carolina Telephone and Telegraph, Crab Road, Morehead City
Fuel Storage
18. CP&L, Morehead City IC Turbine Plant, 400 Maple Lane
#2 Fuel Oil
19. Potter Oil Company, Hwy. 70 West, Cape Carteret
Fuel Oil Storage/Underground Tanks Reg., UnL, Supreme
Gasoline
20. Barrus Construction Company, US 70 West, Morehead City
Fuel Storage - Gasoline/Diesel
21. Town of Pine Knoll Shores
A. Town Hall Gasoline Storage
B. Water Treatment Plant (Chlorine)
22. Mallard Oil Company, Hwy. 24 West, Cape Carteret
Storage Reg., UnL, Diesel Fuel/Kerosene/Propane 30,000
gal. tank
23. Emerald Isle Water Treatment Plant
Chlorine
24. Island Harbor Marine, Old Hwy. 70, Emerald Isle
Gasoline Storage, leaded/unleaded
25. Dudley Marina Hwy. 24, Cedar Point
Storage - all Gasolines/Fuel Oil
26. Town of Newport
A. Waste Treatment Plant"(Chlorine)
B. Water Treatment Plant (Chlorine)

27. Parker Marine Enterprises, Hwy. 101, Laura Road & Beaufort
Acetone/Styrene/Fibrous Glass
28. Bock Marine Builders, Inc., Hwy. 101, Core Creek, Beaufort
Fuel Storage/Liq. Oxygen/Oxygen/Acetylene/Paint/Paint
Thinner/Sulfuric Acid
29. Open Ground Farms, Center of Down East Area
Pesticides/Agrichemicals
NOTE: There are numerous filling stations and convenience stores
that dispense fuel, too numerous to list. All are within
Fire Districts and locations are well known by Fire
Departments.

APPENDIX IV: CLASSIFICATION AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR SC
WATERS IN CARTERET COUNTY

APPENDIX IV:
Name of Stream
CLASSIFICATION AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR SC WATERS IN
CARTERET COUNTY
Description Class Date Index No.
White Oak River
That portion of White Oak River
SC 6/1/56 20-32
Restricted Area
within an area bounded by a
line running in an easterly
direction from a point below
Foster Creek to east end of
Swansboro Bridge
(N.C. Hwy. 24), thus across
bridge to west end of bridge,
thus running along shore line
to a point below Foster Creek
Ward Creek
From source to White Oak River
SC 6/l/56 20-33
Dennis Creek
From source to White Oak River
SC 6/l/56 20-34
(Demkis Creek)
Foster Creek
From source to White Oak River
SC 6/l/56 20-35
Newport River
All waters within a line
SC 6/l/56 21-31
Restricted Area
beginning at a point of land
(Morehead City
near the south end of llth
Harbor)
Street in Morehead City at
Lat. 34 43' OS",
Long. 76 43' 04"; thence in
straight line to the western
end of Sugarloaf Island; thence
along the north shore of the
Island to the eastern end of
the Island; thence in a
straight line to Channel Marker
C "l" near the western end of
the Turning Basin; thence in a
straight line to a point in the
Turning Basin at
Lat. 34 42' 501',
Long. 76 41' 36"; thence in a
northerly direction to a point
in Intracoastal Waterway at
Lat. 34 43' 2511,
Long. 76 41' 40" adjacent to
the channel leading to Morehead
City Yacht Basin; thence in a
straight line in a westerly
direction to a point of land on
the Morehead City Mainland at
Lat. 34 43' 23111
Long. 76 42' 24".

Name of Stream
Description
Class Date Index No.
Calico Creek
From source to Newport River
SC 6/l/56 21-32
(The mouth of Calico Creek is
defined as beginning at a point
of land on the north shore at
Let. 34 43' 4611,
Long. 76 43' 0711,
thence across the creek in a
straight line to a point of
land on the south shore at
Lat. 34 43' 3611,
Long. 76 43' 0511)
Town Creek
From source to Newport River
SC 6/1/56 21-33
(The mouth of Town Creek is
defined as beginning at a point
of land on the north shore at
Lat. 34 43' 4111,
Long. 76 40' 04", thence across
the creek in a straight line to
a point of land on the south
shore at Lat. 34 43' 2311,
Long. 76 40' 041-)
Taylor Creek
From source to Newport River
SC 6/l/56 21-34
(The mouth of Taylor Creek is
defined as beginning at a point
of land on the north shore at
Lat. 34 43' 0711,
Long. 76 40' 13", thence across
.the creek in a straight line to
a point of land on the south
shore at Lat. 34 42' 5511,
Long 76 40' 1011)
Atlantic Harbor
The waters included within a
SC 6/l/56 21-35-7-2
Restricted Area
line running 800 yards south
from Steep Point toward
Flashing Light #24, thence in a
northeasterly direction to a
point 800 yards due south of
White Point, and thence to
White Point on the shore
Little Port
From source to Atlantic Harbor
SC 6/l/56 21-35-7-2-1
Branch
Restricted Area, Core Sound
Nelson Bay
From mouth of Salters Creek to
SC 6/l/56 21-35-7-10-
a line extending from mouth of
(1)
Broad Creek due east across
Nelson Bay
Salters Creek
From source to Nelson Bay
SC 6/l/56 21-35-7-10-2
Mingo Creek
From source to Nelson Bay
SC 6/1/56 21-35-7-10-3
Broad Creek
From source to Nelson Bay
SC 6/l/56 21-35-7-10-4

APPENDIX V: ALTERNATE POLICY STATEMENTS
(These policy statements were considered by Carteret County,
but were not adopted.)

APPENDIX V
POLICY STATEMENTS
RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICY STATEMENTS
Physical Limitations
Soils: To mitigate existing septic tank problems and other
restrictions on development posed by soil limitations, Carteret County
will:
(a) Enforce, through the development and zoning permit process, all
current regulations of the N.C. State Building Code and Carteret
County Health Department relating to building construction and
septic tank installation/replacement in areas with soils
restrictions.
(b) Coordinate all development activity with appropriate county and
state regulatory personnel, and in particular, with the Carteret
County Building Inspector and Sanitarian.
(c) Prohibit, through zoning, subdivision, and other regulatory
ordinances, commercial or residential development at densities
greater than 20,000 S.F. per unit in areas not served by
municipal sewer and water service.
(d) Vigorously support the development of a central sewer system to
serve areas of Western Carteret County classified as developed,
urban transition, limited transition, and rural with services.
(e) Carteret County opposes the installation of septic tanks in any
areas classified Conservation I, II, III, or X lands.
(f) In areas classified as Developed, Urban Transition, Limited
Transition, Rural, Rural with Services, and Community, Carteret
County will cooperate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in
the regulation/enforcement of the 404 wetlands permit process.
However, additional wetlands regulations will not be imposed by
the county.
Flood Hazard Areas:
(a) Carteret County will continue to coordinate all development
within the special flood hazard area with the Carteret County
Inspections Department, North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management, FEMA, and the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
(b) Carteret County will continue to enforce its existing zoning and
flood damage prevention ordinances and follow the storm hazard
mitigation plan herein.

Groundwater/Protection of Potable Water Supplies: It shall be the
policy of Carteret County to conserve its surficial groundwater
resources by enforcing CAMA and N.C. Division of Environmental
Management stormwater run-off regulations, and by coordinating local
development activities involving chemical storage or underground
storage tank installation/abandonment with Carteret County Emergency
Management personnel and the Groundwater Section of the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management. During the planning period, the
county shall review and amend the local zoning ordinance with regard
to underground chemical and gasoline storage regulations to ensure a
minimum of risk to local groundwater resources. (The county may
consider policies regarding the quantity of groundwater withdrawal.)
Man-made Hazards:
(a) Carteret County will support the technical requirements and state
program approval for underground storage tanks (40 CFR, Parts 280
and 281), until such time as the State Division of Environmental
Management is authorized to regulate underground storage tanks
under North Carolina state law.
(b) Carteret County opposes any expansion of the aviation fuel
storage tank facilities on Radio Island.
(c) Carteret County opposes the establishment of any "wash down" or
decontamination facilities on Radio Island by the U.S. Navy or
other agent of the federal government.
(d) Carteret County will develop sound attenuation zoning
requirements for the area affected by the aircraft operating
patterns at Bogue Field.
(e) Carteret County opposes any expansion of the Mid -Atlantic Warfare
Range located at Piney Island.
(f) Carteret County opposes any expansion of Aviation Military
Restricted Areas or Military Operations Areas in eastern North
Carolina.
(g) Carteret County opposes any active reuse of Atlantic Field for
military aviation operations,
(h) Carteret County supports plans for expansion of the Beaufort -
Morehead City Airport as detailed in the Beaufort -Morehead City
Airport Master Plan.
(i) Carteret County supports growth and expansion of the North
Carolina State Port Terminal, including development on Radio
Island. However, the county does not support the development of
fuel transfer/handling facilities. All facilities at the State
Port Terminal containing man-made hazards shall be constructed
and operated in compliance with applicable state and federal
regulations.

(j) With the exception of fuel storage tanks used for retail sales,
Carteret County opposes the storage of fuel or other man-made
hazardous materials in areas classified as developed, urban,
transition, and limited transition which are not also zoned for
industrial use. Storage of hazardous materials in low density
areas classified as rural or rural with services will be
allowed.
Stormwater Runoff:
(a) Carteret County recognizes the value of water quality maintenance
to the protection of fragile areas and to the provision of clean
water for recreational purposes. The county will enforce and
support state regulations relating to stormwater runoff resulting
from development (Stormwater Disposal Policy
15NCAC2H.001-.1003).
(b) Carteret County opposes the point source discharge of any storm -
water runoff, including agricultural runoff, into Conservation VI
and VIII classified areas.
Cultural/Historic Resources:
(a) Carteret County shall coordinate all housing code enforcement/
redevelopment projects with the N.C. Division of Archives and
History, to ensure that any significant architectural details or
buildings are identified and preserved.
(b) Carteret County will coordinate all public works projects with
the N.C. Division of Archives and History, to ensure the identi-
fication and preservation of significant archaeological sites.
(c) All developments located in the vicinity of historically
significant sites/buildings indicated on the fragile areas map
will be reviewed to ensure that no damage will be done to the
buildings/sites.
Industrial Impacts on Fragile Areas: No industrial development of any
type shall be located in Conservation I, II, and III classified
lands. Aquaculture is not considered to be an industrial development
or use.
3 1

Miscellaneous Resource Protection
Package Treatment Plant Use: Carteret County wishes to reduce the
number of point source pollution discharges and have sewage treatment
systems within the county centralized. The county does not support
the installation of package treatment units.
If any package plants are approved by the state, Carteret County
supports requirement of a specific contingency plan specifying how
ongoing private operation and maintenance of the plant will be
provided, and detailing provisions for assumption of the plant into a
public system should the private operation fail.
Marina and Floating Home Development: Carteret County will enforce
the following policies to govern floating homes and marina
development:
(a) Carteret County opposes the location of floating homes in all
marinas and Conservation VII, public trust areas and estuarine
waters.
(b) Carteret County opposes marina construction in Conservation VI
areas, and upland marina construction in Conservation IV areas
located adjacent to Conservation VI areas. Marinas are consid—
ered to be any publicly or privately owned dock constructed to
accommodate more than 10 boats, as defined by 15NACA7H
.0208(b)(5). Docks and piers complying with 15NCAC7H shall be
allowed in Conservation VI classified areas.
(c) Marinas may be constructed in Conservation IV classified areas
and adjacent estuarine waters that are not primary nursery areas.
Marinas are considered to be any publicly or privately owned dock
constructed to accommodate more than 10 boats, as defined by
15NCAC7H.0208(b)(5).
(d) In Conservation V classified areas that are not primary nursery
areas, upland marinas may be expanded or constructed. Marinas
are considered to be any publicly or privately owned dock
constructed to accommodate more than 10 boats, as defined by
15NCAC7H.0208(b)(5).
(e) Marinas, including upland marinas, shall not be allowed in
Conservation I classified lands. Marinas are considered to be
any publicly or privately owned dock constructed to accommodate
more than 10 boats, as defined by 15NCAC7H.0208(b)(5). Docks and
piers complying with 15NCAC7H are allowed in Conservation I
classified areas.
(f) Carteret County will allow construction of dry stack storage
facilities for boats associated either with or independent of
marinas. Ail applicable zoning and subdivision regulations must
be satisfied.

Development of Sound and Estuarine Islands: Except for Radio and
Harker's Islands, Carteret County opposes any new development on sound
and estuarine islands.
Bulkhead Construction: Carteret County opposes bulkhead construction
in any areas classified as Conservation I and XI lands. Bulkheads are
allowed in all other areas of the county as long as they fulfill the
use standards set forth in 15NCAC7H.
Sea Level Rise: Carteret County recognizes the uncertainties asso-
ciated with sea level rise. The rate of rise is difficult to predict.
Also, some land areas are rising while others are subsiding. Those
factors combine to make it difficult, if not impossible, to establish
specific policies to deal with the effects of sea level rise.
Carteret County will implement the following policies to respond to
sea level rise:
(a) Carteret County will develop a general brochure designed to
inform the public of the anticipated effects of sea level rise on
Carteret County.
(b) Carteret County will prepare up-to-date detailed maps showing all
areas with an elevation of five feet or less above mean sea
level.
(c) Carteret County will allow a migrating shoreline in undeveloped
areas in order to preserve coastal wetland and estuarine areas.
Estuarine shoreline areas adjacent to lands classified as
developed, urban transition, and limited transition may have
fixed shorelines established. However, priority will be given to
the protection of estuarine areas. Carteret County will under-
take a detailed analysis of its shoreline areas to determine
which areas may be fixed and which areas shall be allowed to
migrate. This activity will lead to the development of standards
for the construction of bulkheads.
(d) In response to anticipated sea level rise, Carteret County will
review all local building and land use related ordinances to
establish setback standards, long-term land use plans, density
controls, bulkhead restrictions, buffer vegetation protection
requirements, and building designs which will facilitate the
movement of structures.
(e) The "Down East" area of Carteret County will be developed at very
low densities, two dwelling units per acre or less.
5

RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
Recreation Resources:
(a) All lands classified as Conservation I, II, III, and X areas are
considered valuable passive recreation areas. These areas shall
be protected in their natural state, and development will not be
allowed except for dune crossover structures in ocean hazard
areas and docks and piers, excluding marinas, in coastal
wetlands as allowed by 15NCAC7H.
(b) Carteret County will develop -an open space zoning district. The
open space classification will be designed to protect and include
areas classified as Conservation I, II, III, and X lands.
(c) Carteret County will develop a shoreline access plan to define
the need for additional publicly -owned waterfront recreational
facilities. Carteret County will seek additional ocean and
estuarine waterfront recreation facilities.
Productive Agricultural Lands:
(a) Carteret County will support the preservation of prime agricul-
tural lands by limiting residential density to not more than two
dwelling units per acre in rural classified areas.
(b) Carteret County supports and encourages use of the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service "Best Management Practices" program.
(c) Carteret County supports drainage of land areas for agricultural
areas. However, the direct point source discharge of agricul-
tural runoff into primary nursery areas and ORW designated areas
is opposed.
(d) As authorized by Executive Order 96, "Conservation of Prime
Agricultural and Forest Lands," Carteret County supports and
encourages the mapping of prime agricultural lands. In addition,
the county will undertake a review of its zoning ordinance to
ensure adequate protection of agricultural lands.
Productive Forest Lands:
(a) As authorized by Executive Order 96, "Conservation of Prime
Agricultural and Forest Lands," Carteret County supports and
encourages the mapping of prime forest lands. In addition, the
county will undertake a review of its zoning ordinance to ensure
adequate protection of prime forest lands.
(b) Carteret County encourages and supports forestry best management
practices as defined in the Forest Best Management Practices
Manual, 1989, North Carolina Division of Forest Resources.
ri

Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development Impacts on
Resources:
(a) Residential, commercial, and industrial development will not be
allowed in areas classified Conservation I, II, III, IX, and X.
(b) Carteret County opposes any additional point source discharges of
pollution into primary nursery areas that are classified
Conservation VI.
(c) Residential development meeting the use standards of
15 NCAC 7H.0209 shall be allowed in Conservation IV and V
classified lands.
(d) Except for marinas as defined by 15 NCAC 7H, commercial and
industrial development is prohibited in Conservation IV and V
classified lands that are adjacent to urban transition and
limited transition classified lands. Commercial and industrial
uses will be allowed in Conservation IV and V classified lands
that are adjacent to developed classified lands. Only commercial
and industrial uses that are water dependent or supportive of
commercial fishing will be allowed in Conservation IV and V lands
that are adjacent to community, rural with services, and rural
classified areas. Marinas, as defined and permitted by
15 NCAC 7H, will be allowed in all Conservation I and VII areas,
except those adjacent to Conservation VI primary nursery areas.
Marine Resource Areas:
(a) Carteret County supports the use standards for Conservation VII
and VIII classified lands as specified in 15 NCAC.0207, with the
following exceptions:
1. Carteret County opposes the construction of new
navigation channels and canals through Conservation I
classified lands. Existing channels and canals may be
maintained.
2. Drainage ditches shall not be constructed which dis-
charge into Conservation VI primary nursery areas.
Existing drainage ditches may be maintained.
3. Marinas, including upland marinas and basins, shall not
be allowed in or adjacent to Conservation VI primary
nursery areas.
4. Bulkhead construction will not be allowed in
Conservation I and X classified lands.
5. Carteret County supports the policies and requirements
of the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries which
govern commercial and recreational fisheries and
activities.

Off -Road Vehicles: Carteret County opposes the utilization of
off -road vehicles in any areas classified as Conservation I, II, III,
and X areas.
Peat or Phosphate Mining: There are not any known economically
valuable peat or phosphate deposits in Carteret County. However,
Carteret County opposes any peat or phosphate mining activities.
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
General: Carteret County desires to expand its economic base,
including agriculture and forestry, tourism, commercial fishing,
retail and wholesale trade, real estate and construction, industrial
development, and continued growth and development of the State Port.
However, Carteret County does not want to jeopardize fragile areas and
vital natural resources. The following types of development will be
discouraged: offshore drilling for oil, any activities which damage
conservation areas, and development activities detrimental to marine
resources.
Carteret County will support growth and development at the densities
specified in the land classification definitions. Major development
of urban nature should be concentrated in the developed, urban
transition, and limited transition areas. Western Carteret County
will contain the majority of the county's urban type development. The
"Down East" area will remain a low density, relatively undeveloped
area.
Water Supply:
(a) Carteret County will cooperate with and support the West Carteret
Water Corporation's efforts to construct a central water system
in Western Carteret County along portions of the N.C. 24 corridor
and U.S. 58 immediately north of Cape Carteret.
(b) Carteret County will support the extension of municipal water
systems into areas classified as developed, urban transition,
limited transition, and rural with services. Specifically,
Carteret County will support and attempt to develop a central
water system to serve those areas of Western Carteret County
that are not served by the West Carteret Water District and
classified developed, urban transition, limited transition, and
rural with services.
(d) Carteret County will not pursue development of a county water
system to serve the "Down East" area.
3

Sewer System:
(a) Carteret County supports land application as the short-term
solution to sewage disposal. The long-term solution should be
ocean outfall disposal. No new point source discharge of sewer
systems should be permitted, and the existing estuarine discharge
systems should be eliminated within 20 years.
(b) Carteret County supports the extension of central sewer service
into all areas classified as developed, urban transition, limited
transition, and rural with services.
(c) Carteret County encourages the consolidation of municipal systems
and the centralization of high density development in areas
served by municipal sewer systems.
Stormwater:
(a) During the planning period, Carteret County will review and
revise its existing zoning ordinance as it relates to the
county's conservation areas. During this review, the incorpo-
ration of regulations affecting stormwater management in devel-
oped areas into a single ordinance will be considered. In
particular, the stormwater ordinance will focus on preventing the
adverse impact of stormwater on areas classified as Conservation
I, II, III, and VI.
(b) Carteret County will cooperate with the NCDOT, the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management, and other state agencies in
mitigating the impact of stormwater runoff on all conservation
classified areas. The county will actively support the D=vision
of Environmental Management stormwater runoff retention permit-
ting process through its zoning permit system.
Energy Facility Siting and Development:
(a) There are not any electric generating plants located in or
proposed for Carteret County. However, the county will review
proposals for development of electric generating plants on a
case -by -case basis, judging the need for the facility against all
identified possible adverse impacts.
(b) Carteret County opposes any inshore exploration/drilling for oil
or natural gas.
(c) Carteret County opposes any offshore exploration/drilling for
oil.
(d) Carteret County does not oppose any offshore exploration/drilling
for natural gas.
4

(e) Carteret County opposes construction and operation of oil and gas
refineries within the county.
(f) Carteret County opposes the transshipping of crude oil within the
county.
Community Facilities: During the planning period, Carteret County
will develop a community services/facilities plan (as a stand-alone
document, not as an expansion of this plan), which will define
existing deficiencies in police protection, fire protection, local
administrative buildings, public recreational facilities, public
parks, and public access to shoreline areas. The plan will prioritize
needs and make specific recommendations concerning financing and
budgeting the high priority needs.
Redevelopment of Developed Areas: The most significant redevelop-
ment issue facing Carteret County through 2000 is substandard housing.
During the planning period, the county will attempt to correct its
worst substandard housing conditions by:
(a) adopting a Minimum Housing Code;
(b) applying for Community Development Block Grant Community
Revitalization funds;
(c) coordinating redevelopment efforts with the Carteret County
Building Inspection Department.
Estuarine Access:
(a) Carteret County supports the state's shoreline access policies as
set forth in NCAC Chapter 15, Subchapter 7M. The county will
conform to CAMA and other state and federal environmental
regulations affecting the development of estuarine access areas.
(b) Carteret County will apply for CAMA funding to assist in
financing the funding of a shoreline access plan.
Types and Locations of Desired Industry: Industrial development
is extremely important to the continued economic growth and stability
of Carteret County. The county's heavy reliance on employment in the
service and retail trade sector should be balanced by the development
of a stronger base of industrial/manufacturing employment. However,
the county desires to achieve responsible industrial development which
will not adversely affect the natural environment or the quality of
established residential areas.
The following industrial development policies will be applied:
(a) Carteret County desires that all industrial development occur in
areas having stable, well -drained soils.
10

(b) Industrial sites should be accessible to municipal/central water
and sewer services.
(c) Industrial sites should be adjacent to primary state and federal
highways.
(d) Industrial development should occur in areas classified as
developed, urban transition, and limited transition. Industries
generating only domestic sewage may be located in areas classi-
fied as community. Industrial uses that are water dependent or
supportive of commercial fishing will be allowed in Conservation
IV and V lands that are adjacent to community, rural with
services, and rural classified areas.
(e) Carteret County opposes the development of oil refining or
natural gas processing facilities.
(f) Industries which are noxious by reason of the emission of smoke,
dust, glare, noise, and vibrations, and those which deal pri-
marily in hazardous products such as explosives, should not be
located in Carteret County.
(g) Industrial development and/or industrial zoning should not
infringe on established residential development.
(h) Carteret County encourages the location of industries in
"industrial park" settings. The county will develop industrial
park standards to be incorporated into the county's zoning
ordinance.
Commitment to State and Federal Programs:. Carteret County is
generally receptive to state and federal programs, particularly those
which provide improvements to the county. The county will continue to
fully support such programs, especially the North Carolina Department
of Transportation road and bridge improvement programs, which are very
important to Carteret County.
Examples of other state and federal programs that are important to and
supported by Carteret County include: drainage planning and erosion
control activities carried out by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation
Service, which is valuable to farmers; dredging and channel mainte-
nance by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and federal and state
projects which provide efficient and safe boat access for sport fish-
ing. However, Carteret County does not support expansion of military
restricted airspace in eastern North Carolina, or continued develop-
ment of the Mid -Atlantic warfare range located at Piney Island.
11

Assistance in Channel Maintenance: Proper maintenance of channels
is very important in Carteret County because of the substantial
economic impact of commercial fisheries and successful operation of
the State Port. Commercial fishing employment (full and part-time) is
increasing in the county. If silt or other deposits fill in the
channels, this could impede efficient docking of the commercial fish-
ing and transport vessels. Carteret County will provide assistance to
the Corps and state officials by either helping to obtain or providing
spoil sites, especially to maintain the Drum Inlet Channel.
Tourism: Tourism is extremely important to Carteret County and
will be supported by the county. Carteret County will implement the
following policies to further the development of tourism:
(a) Carteret County will support North Carolina Department of
Transportation projects to improve access to Carteret County.
(b) Carteret County will support projects that will increase public
access to shoreline areas.
(c) Carteret County will support the development of water and sewer
services to support the growing tourist population, if such
development is consistent with other land use policies stated
herein.
(d) Carteret County will continue to support the activities of the
North Carolina Division of Travel and Tourism; specifically, the
monitoring of tourism -related industry, efforts to promote
tourism -related commercial activity, and efforts to enhance and
provide shoreline resources.
(e) Carteret County will continue to support the activities of the
Carteret County Tourism Development Bureau.
Transportation:
(a) Carteret County will support the development of a county -wide
thoroughfare plan.
(b) Carteret County will support transportation improvement which
will lessen congestion on N.C. 24.
(c) Carteret County will support the construction of a third bridge
between Bogue Bank and the mainland.
(d) Carteret County will work with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation to ensure that all road hazards are clearly marked
or corrected. The county will identify and report hazards to the
NCDOT.
12

Land Use Trends: The county's land use trends have been thorough-
ly discussed in other sections of this plan. Those trends include:
-- Increasing waterfront development
-- Development of the N.C. 24 corridor
-- Low density development in the "Down East" area
-- Continued concentration of urban development in areas served by
municipal water and sewer facilities
-- Continued minor losses of agricultural and forest lands
-- Continued expansion of the mainland municipal areas.
These land use changes should be controlled through existing local,
state, and federal land use regulations including CAMA, "404" regula-
tions, sanitary regulations, and the county's subdivision and zoning
ordinances and building inspections program. The county should
prepare a consolidated zoning map and consider increasing the zoned
areas in Western Carteret County.
13

Manmade Hazards:
(a) Carteret County will support the technical requirements and state
program approval for underground storage tanks (40 CFR, Parts 280
and 281), until such time as the State Division of Environmental
Management is authorized to regulate underground storage tanks
under North Carolina state law. .
(b) Carteret County opposes any expansion of fuel storage tank
facilities on Radio Island that are not in compliance with
applicable state and federal regulations and for which proper
environmental safeguards have not been provided.
(c) Carteret County opposes the establishment of any "wash down" or
decontamination facilities on Radio Island by the U.S. Navy or
other agent of the federal government without preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement and implementation of proper
environmental safeguards.
(d) Carteret County will develop sound attenuation zoning for the
areas affected by aircraft operating patterns at Atlantic and
Bogue Fields and the Michael J. Smith Airport.
(e) Carteret County opposes any expansion of Aviation Military
Restricted Areas or Military Operations Areas in eastern North
Carolina which is inconsistent with civil aviation regulations
and which does not comply with other applicable state and federal
regulations.
(f) Carteret County supports growth and expansion of the North
Carolina State Port Terminal.
(g) Carteret County supports plans for expansion of the Beaufort -
Morehead City Airport as detailed in the Beaufort -Morehead City
Airport Master Plan.
(h) with the exception of fuel storage tanks used for retail sales,
Carteret County opposes the storage of fuel or other man-made
hazardous materials in areas classified as developed, urban,
transition, and limited transition which are not also zoned for
industrial use. Storage of hazardous materials in low density
areas classified as rural or rural with services will be allowed.
In those areas within the county in which federal holdings are
located, applicable state and federal regulations apply.
Off -shore Drilling:
Carteret County will support any off -shore drilling for either oil or
natural gas if a full Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared
which finds no significant environmental impact. This policy shall
apply to both on -shore and off -shore facilities associated with
drilling operations.
14

APPENDIX VI: CITIZENS' PARTICIPATION PLAN

APPENDIX VI
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
PREPARATION OF LAND USE PLAN
FISCAL YEAR 1989-90
Carteret County has received a FY89-90 Coastal Area Management Act
grant for the update of its existing Land Use Plan. Adequate
citizen participation in the development of that Plan is essential
to the preparation of a document responsive to the needs of the
citizens of Carteret County. To ensure such input, the following
Citizen Participation Program will be utilized by the County.
The Carteret County Planning Department will be the principal
County department responsible for supervision of the project. The
department will report to and coordinate plan development with the
Carteret County Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. To
support and assist the Planning Department, a Land Use Plan Update
Advisory Committee will be established by the Carteret County
Board of Commissioners. The committee may be composed of
representatives of the following groups or organizations:
Carteret County Planning Board members
Carteret County Commissioners
Builder/developer
Members of Carteret County Economic Development Council
Member of Carteret County Cross Roads
Member of North Carolina Coastal Federation
Commercial fisherman
Representative of farm interests
Military
Interested citizens
The committee will work with the County's planning staff to ensure
that the final product will survey existing land use, identify
policies, recommend strategies/actions, and identify Areas of
Environmental Concern. Emphasis will be placed on identifying
service and utility needs. Specifically, the Planning staff and
committee will be responsible for ensuring accomplishment of the
following:
-- Develop an effective citizen participation process;
-- Survey and map existing land uses;
-- Identify and map AECs;
-- Develop land use policies and strategies;
-- Identify land use regulatory needs;

-- Establish a specific work plan schedule for dealing with
land use needs/problems;
-- Identify and forecast growth and development issues;
-- Implement the requirements of 15 NCAC 7B.
At the outset of the project, an article will be prepared for
distribution to all local newspapers. Those newspapers will be
requested to print the article which will include a proposed
schedule for completion. The following schedule will be
utilized:
1. August, 1989 - meet with the Carteret County Planning Staff to
review the scope of work. Have the Citizen Participation Plan
adopted.
-- Conduct two public information meetings. One will be
conducted for the eastern part of Carteret County at
Atlantic Elementary School. A second meeting will be
conducted for the central and western part of the County at
Broad Creek Middle School. Both meetings will be advertised
in local newspapers. The County will specifically discuss
the existing policy statements contained in the existing
Carteret County Land Use Plan. The significance of the
policy statement to the CAMA land use planning process shall
be described. The process by which Carteret County will
solicit the views of a wide cross-section of citizens in the
development of updated policy statements will be explained
at the public hearings.
2. October, 1989 - complete identification of existing land use
problems and map of existing land uses and AECs.
-- Meet with the Land Use Plan Advisory Committee.
3. November, 1989 - continue preparation of draft Land Use Plan
and meet with the Land Use Plan Advisory Committee.
4. December, 1989 - present interim report to the Carteret County
Planning Board.
5. January, 1990 - present draft section of plan dealing with
existing issues and land use to the Planning Advisory
Committee.
6. February and March, 1990 - continue review of the draft Land
Use Plan.
7. April, 1990 - review draft plan with the Planning Board and
conduct a public information meeting for review of the proposed
Plan. The meeting will be advertised and held in a central
location in Carteret County.

8. May, 1990 - review draft Land Use Plan with Board of Commis-
sioners and submit draft of completed Land Use Plan to CRC for
review and comment.
9. June, 1990 - present proposed Land Use Plan to the Carteret
County Board of Commissioners for review, and conduct a formal
public hearing.
All meetings of the Land Use Plan Update Advisory Committee will
be open to the public. The County will encourage and consider all
economic, social, ethnic, and cultural viewpoints. No major non-
English speaking groups are known to exist in Carteret County.

APPENDIX VII: STORM HAZARD MITIGATION POLICIES

APPENDIX VII
STORM HAZARD MITIGATION POLICIES
The effect of storm related flooding in Carteret County is discussed
on pages 71 and 72 of the Land Use Plan, and areas subject to flood-
ing are shown on Map 9, page 79. The most severely affected section
of the county during a major storm would be the "Down East" area
where a Category 3 storm would inundate over fifty percent of eastern
Carteret County. However, all developed areas of Carteret County
are subject to wind damage. In a severe storm, over fifty percent of
the county's developed areas could be subjected to flood damage.
Hazard mitigation, or actions taken to reduce the probability or
impact of a disaster could involve a number of activities or policy
decisions. The starting point, however, is to identify the types of
hazards (including the relative severity and magnitude of risks), and
the extent of development (including residential, commercial, etc.)
located in storm hazard areas.
Hurricanes are extremely powerful, often unpredictable forces of
nature. The four causes of fatalities and property damage are high
winds, flooding, wave action, and erosion. Two of these, high winds
and flooding, apply to Carteret County.
a. High Winds
High winds are the major determinants of a hurricane, by defini-
tion, i.e., a tropical disturbance with sustained winds of at
least 73 miles per hour. Extreme hurricanes can have winds of up
to 165 miles per hour, with gusts up to 200 miles per hour.
These winds circulate around the center or "eye" of the storm.
Although the friction or impact of the winds hitting land from
the water causes some dissipation of the full force, there is
still a tremendous amount of energy left to cause damage to
buildings, overturn mobile homes, down trees and powerlines, and
destroy crops. Also, tornadoes are often spawned by hurricane
wind patterns. Wind stress, therefore, is an important consider-
ation in storm hazard mitigation planning.
b. Flooding
The excessive amounts of rainfall and the "storm surge" which
often accompany hurricanes can cause massive coastal and riverine
flooding causing excessive property damage and deaths by drown-
ing. (More deaths are caused by drowning than any other cause in
hurricanes.) Flooding can cause extensive damage in inland
areas, since many areas of Carteret County have low elevations.
Approximately 400 of Carteret County's total area is subject to
storm related flood damage. Consideration of potential flood
damage is important to Carteret County's efforts to develop storm
mitigation policies.
1

Policy Statements: Storm Hazard Mitigation
In order to minimize the damage potentially caused by the effects of
a hurricane or other major storm, Carteret County proposes the
following policies:
High Winds
Carteret County supports enforcement of the N.C. State Building
Code. The county will continue to enforce the State Building
Code on wind resistant construction with design standards of 110
mph wind loads.
Flooding
Carteret County is an active participant in the National Flood
Insurance program and is supportive of hazard mitigation
elements. The county is participating in the regular phase of
the insurance program. This program is administered locally by
the Carteret County Central Permit Department. Carteret County
also supports continued enforcement of the CAMA and 404 Wetlands
development permit processes in areas potentially susceptible to
flooding. When reviewing development proposals, the county will
work to reduce density in areas susceptible to flooding. In
addition, the county will encourage the public purchase of land
in the most hazardous areas.
1. Mitigation Policies Related to Redevelopment of Hazard
Areas After a Storm
Reconstruction of damaged properties in Carteret County after
a storm will be subject to the following:
° The North Carolina Building Code requires any building
damaged in excess of 50 percent of its value to conform with
code requirements for new buildings when repaired. (This
will be particularly beneficial in the event of wind
damage.)
° The Flood Damage Prevention ordinance requires that all
existing structures must comply with requirements related to
elevation above the 100-year floodplain elevation and flood -
proofing if they are substantially improved. A substantial
improvement is defined as "any repair, reconstruction, or
improvement of a building, the cost of which equals or
exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the building either
before the improvement or repair is started, or before damage
occurred if the building has been damaged."
Evacuation Plans
The county will coordinate evacuation planning with all county
agencies and municipalities. Carteret County will encourage
motels, condominiums, and multi -family developments (five or more
2

dwelling units) to post evacuation instructions that identify
routes and the locations of available public shelters. The
county will update an evacuation route map annually. Copies will
be kept at the County Administration Building in Beaufort for
free distribution to the public.
Implementation: Storm Hazard Mitigation
1. Carteret County will continue to enforce the standards of the
State Building Code.
2. The county will continue to support enforcement of State and
Federal programs which aid in mitigation of hurricane
hazards, including CAMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
404 permit process, FEMA, as well as local ordinances such as
zoning and flood damage prevention regulations.
3. The county will discourage high density development in high
hazard areas through implementation of the county's Zoning,
Subdivision, and Mobile Home Park Ordinances.
4. Carteret County supports the public acquisition of high
hazard areas with state and federal funds when voluntary
acquisition can be accomplished. The county discourages
condemnation of land for this purpose.
5. Developed structures which were destroyed or sustained "major
damage" and which did not conform to the county's building
regulations, zoning ordinances, and other storm hazard miti-
gation policies, i.e., basic measures to reduce damage by
high winds, flooding, wave action or erosion, must be
repaired or redeveloped according to those policies. In some
instances, this may mean relocation of construction, or no
reconstruction at all. Building permits to restore destroyed
or "major" damaged structures which were built in conformance
with the county's building code and county storm hazard
mitigation policies shall be issued automatically. All
structures suffering major damage will be repaired according
to the State Building Code and county Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance. All structures suffering minor damage, regardless
of location, will be allowed to be rebuilt to the original
condition prior to the storm.
3

POST -DISASTER RECONSTRUCTION PLAN AND POLICIES
A. Introduction
A post -disaster plan provides a program that will permit a local
government to deal with the aftermaths of a storm in an organized and
efficient manner. The plan provides the mechanisms, procedures, and
policies that will enable a local community to learn from its storm
experiences and to rebuild the community in a wise and practical
manner.
A post -disaster reconstruction plan encompasses three distinct
reconstruction periods:
° The emergency period is the reconstruction phase immediately
after a storm. The emphasis is on restoring public health and
safety, assessing the nature and extent of storm damage, and
qualifying for and obtaining whatever federal and state assis-
tance might be available.
° The restoration period covers the weeks and months following a
storm disaster. The emphasis during this period is on restor-
ing community facilities, utilities, essential businesses,
etc., so that the community can once again function in a normal
manner.
° The replacement reconstruction period is the period during
which the community is rebuilt. The period could last from
months to years depending on the nature and extent of the
damaged incurred.
It is important that local officials clearly understand the joint
federal -state -local procedures for providing assistance to rebuild
after a storm so that local damage assessment and reconstruction
efforts are carried out in an efficient manner that qualifies the
community for the different types of assistance that are available.
The requirements are generally delineated in the Disaster Relief Act
of 1974 (P.L. 93-288) which authorizes a wide range of financial and
direct assistance to both local communities and individuals. The
sequence of procedures to be followed after a major storm event is as
follows:
1. Local damage assessment teams survey storm damage within the
community.
2. Damage information is compiled and summarized and the nature
and extent of damage is reported to the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
3. DEM compiles local data and makes recommendations to the
Governor concerning state action.
0

4. The Governor may request a Presidential declaration of
"emergency" or "major disaster." A Presidential declaration
makes a variety of federal resources available to local
communities and individuals.
S. Federal Relief assistance provided to a community after an
"emergency" has been declared typically ends one month after
the initial Presidential declaration. Where a "major
disaster" has been declared, federal assistance for "emer-
gency" work typically ends six months after the declaration
and federal assistance for "permanent" work ends after 18
months.
Federal disaster assistance programs previously provided aid for
communities to rebuild in the same way as existed before the disaster
occurred. This policy tended to foster recurring mistakes. However,
recent federal policy has started to change the emphasis of disaster
assistance programs. Specifically,
° Executive Order 1198 (Floodplain Management) directs all
federal agencies to avoid either directly or indirectly'
supporting future unwise development in floodplains (e.g.,
through sewer grants in locations that foster floodplain
development.)
° Section 406 of the Disaster Relief Act can require communities,
as a prerequisite for federal disaster assistance, to take
specific actions to mitigate future flood losses.
The county has been provided a comprehensive listing of the Federal
Disaster Assistance Programs that may be available following a major
storm. The programs identified fall into the categories of Temporary
Housing, Individual Assistance, and Assistance to Local and State
Governments. The listing is comprehensive and therefore all the
programs listed may not be applicable to Carteret County.
The remainder of this chapter presents recommended recovery proce-
dures in the general sequence of response by the county. While
damage assessment (Sections B and C) will be the first operations
conducted by the county after a disaster, it should be realized that
the recommended recovery operations (Section D) will begin simultane-
ously. The remainder of this chapter is, therefore, organized as
follows:
1. Procedures that Carteret County should follow to carry out
its damage assessment program to meet all federal and state
requirements including organization of the damage assessment
team and recommended damage assessment procedures.
2. An overall organizational framework for restoration
operations after the emergency period.
5

3. Replacement/reconstruction policies that the county should
adopt to insure that future development that does occur in
local hazard areas is constructed in a manner consistent with
sound land use planning, public safety considerations, and
existing and evolving federal and state policy.
B. Organization of Local Damage Assessment Team
A local damage assessment team should include individuals who are
qualified to give reliable estimates of the original value of struc-
tures, an estimated value of sustained damages, and a description of
the repairs. Additionally, the logistics involved in assessing
damage in unincorporated sections of the county after a major storm
will necessitate the organization of several damage assessment teams
in Carteret County. The following are recommended team members.
Public Property Survey Team
County Department Head(s)
Professional Engineer
Architect *
Sheriff's Deputy (driver)
Business and Industry Survey Team
Tax Assessor
Building Inspector
Industrial/Commercial Real Estate Broker
Chamber of Commerce Representative
Architect *
Sheriff's Deputy (driver)
Private Dwelling Survey Team
Two teams, depending upon capacities and plans of Cape Carteret
and Newport:
Tax Assessor
Building Inspector
Residential Real Estate Broker
Building Contractor *
Sheriff's Deputy (driver)
*Community volunteers
The Emergency Management Coordinator should immediately undertake a
recruitment effort to secure the necessary volunteers and to estab-
lish a training program to familiarize the members of the damage
assessment team with required damage classification procedures and
reporting requirements. It is suggested that the county assume the
responsibility for developing and implementing a training program for
both county damage assessment teams and the local damage assessment

teams that the towns establish. In establishing the county teams, it
must be recognized that it might be very difficult to fill certain
positions, such as the building contractor position, because the
services of individuals with such skills will likely be in great
demand after a storm disaster. A commitment from the Home Builders
Association may be a way of guaranteeing needed assistance. Addi-
tionally, the Emergency Management Coordinator should establish an
active "volunteer file;" volunteers should have standing instructions
where to automatically report following a storm. Damage assessment
forms and procedures should be prepared now and distributed to
volunteers as part of the training program.
C. Damage Assessment Procedures and Requirements
Damage assessment is defined as rapid means of determining a
realistic estimate of the amount of damage caused by a natural or
manmade disaster. For a storm disaster, it is expressed in terms of
1) number of structures damaged; 2) magnitude of damage by structure
type; 3) estimated total dollar loss; and 4) estimated total dollar
loss covered by insurance.
After a major storm event, members of the Damage Assessment Team
should report to the Emergency Operations Center for a briefing from
the Emergency Management Coordinator. One way to effectively deploy
teams to areas where damage seems to be concentrated would be to have
prearranged commitment from the Marine Corps to provide for a heli-
copter in reconnaissance of storm damage within the county for the
Emergency Management Coordinator in order to establish field recon-
naissance priorities. The Civil Air Patrol may also appropriately
provide assistance during the damage assessment phase.
The extent of damage will depend on the magnitude of the storm and
where landfall occurs along the Atlantic coast. Because of the
potentially large job at hand, the limited personnel resources avail-
able to conduct the assessments, and the limited time within which
the initial assessment must be made, the first phase of the assess-
ment should consist of only an external visual survey of damaged
structures. A more detailed second phase assessment can be made
after the initial damage reports are filed.
The initial damage assessment should make an estimate of the extent
of damage incurred by each structure and identify the cause (wind,
flooding, wave action, combination, etc.) of the damage to each
structure. This first phase assessment should be made by "wind-
shield" survey.
Damaged structures should be classified in accordance with the
suggested state guidelines as follows:
° Destroyed (repairs would cost more than 80 percent of value).
° Major (repairs would cost more than 30 percent of the value).
7

° Minor (repairs would cost less than 30 percent of the value,
but the structure is currently uninhabitable).
° Habitable (some minor damage, with repairs less than 15 percent
of the value).
It will be necessary to thoroughly document each assessment. In many
cases, mail boxes and other information typically used to identify
specific structures will not be found. Consequently, the Damage
Assessment Team must be provided with tax maps (aerial photographs
with property line overlays), other maps and photographic equipment
in order to record and document its field observations. Enough
information to complete the Damage Assessment Worksheet must be
obtained on each damaged structure.
The second phase of the Damage Assessment Operation will be to
estimate the value of the damages sustained. This operation should
be carried out in the Emergency Operations Center under the direction
and supervision of the Emergency Management Coordinator. A special
team consisting of county tax clerks, tax assessment personnel, and
other qualified staff should be organized by the Emergency Management
Coordinator. This team should then be incorporated into this Damage
Assessment Plan.
In order to estimate total damage values, it will be necessary to
have the following information available for use at the Emergency
Operations Center:
° A set of property tax maps (including aerial photographs)
identical to those utilized by the damage assessment field
team.
° County maps delineating areas assigned to each team.
° Copies of all county property tax records. This information
should indicate the estimated value of all commercial and resi-
dential structures within the county. Because time will be of
the essence, it is recommended that the county immediately
commence a project listing the property values of existing
structures in unincorporated areas of the county on the appro-
priate lots of the property tax maps that will be kept at the
Emergency Operations Center. While somewhat of a tedious job,
it should be manageable if it is initiated now and completed
over a 2 to 3 month period. The information will prove inval-
uable if a storm disaster does occur. This set of tax maps
should be updated annually prior to the hurricane season.
An alternative method that would be less accurate but perhaps more
practical due to the time constraints would be to utilize median
housing values from the 1980 census or derived from the county's tax
digest. A simple chart could be devised for use in the field that
presents median values for houses and mobile homes by township. This
chart could include the multiplying factors to avoid the need for
actual math calculations in the field. Because there are
0

significantly less commercial and industrial structures than homes,
this portion of the assessment could still be made utilizing the
first method above.
The flood insurance policy coverage for property owners in flood
hazard areas should be updated before each hurricane season. This
can be accomplished in concert with the local mortgage institutions.
Annual updates should be disseminated to each town and kept available
in the Emergency Operations Center for estimating the value of sus-
tained damages covered by hazard insurance.
In order to produce the damage value information required, the
following methodology is recommended:
1. The number of businesses and residential structures that have
been damaged within unincorporated areas of the county should
be summarized by damage classification category.
2. The value of each damaged structure should be obtained from
the marked set of tax maps and multiplied by the following
percentages for appropriate damage classification category:
° Destroyed - 100%
° Major Damage - 50%
° Minor Damage (uninhabitable) - 25%
° Habitable - 10%
3. The total value of damages for the unincorporated areas of
the county should then be summarized.
4. The estimated value loss covered by hazard insurance should
then be determined by: 1) estimating full coverage for all
damaged structures for situations where the average value of
such coverage exceeds the amount of damage to the structure;
and 2) multiplying the number of structures where damage
exceeds the average value of insurance coverage by the
average value of such coverage.
5. Damage assessment reports should be obtained from each
municipality and the data should then be consolidated into a
single county damage assessment report which should be for-
warded to the appropriate state officials.
6. Damage to public roads and utility systems should be esti-
mated by utilizing current construction costs for facilities
by lineal foot (e.g., 10' water line replacement cost =
X$/L.F.).
The Damage Assessment Plan is intended to be the mechanism for
estimating overall property damage in the event of a civil disaster.
The procedure recommended above represents an approach for making a
relatively quick, realistic "order of magnitude" damage estimate
after a disaster. This process will not provide the required infor-
mation within the time constraints if organization and data collec-
tion are not completed prior to the storm event.
N

D. Organization of Recovery Operation
Damage assessment operations are oriented to take place during the
emergency period. After the emergency operations to restore public
health and safety and the initial damage assessments are completed,
the state guidelines suggest that a Recovery Task Force to guide
restoration and reconstruction activities be created to guide resto-
ration and reconstruction activities during a post -emergency phase
which could last from weeks to possibly more than a year. The
responsibilities of the Task Force will be:
Establishing an overall restoration schedule.
Setting restoration priorities, in advance, by definition.
Determining requirements for outside assistance and request-
ing such assistance when beyond local capabilities. (Pre -
disaster agreement, procedures, contact persons, should be
defined before the disaster event.)
Keeping the appropriate state officials informed using
Situation and Damage Report.
Keeping the public informed.
6. Assembling and maintaining records of actions taken and
expenditures and obligations incurred. Standardized forms
should be developed in advance and kept on file at the EOC.
Proclaiming a local "state of emergency" if warranted.
Commencing cleanup, debris removal and utility restoration
activities which would include coordination of restoration
activities undertaken by private utility companies.
Undertaking repair and restoration of essential public facil-
ities and services in accordance with priorities developed
through the situation evaluations.
10. Assisting private businesses and individual property owners
in 1) obtaining information on the various types of assis-
tance that might be available from federal and state agen-
cies, 2) in understanding the various assistance programs,
and 3) applying for such assistance. When a major storm does
eventually hit Carteret County and major damages occur,
consideration should be given to establishing a Community
Assistance Team within the appropriate county department to
carry out the above functions as long as there is a need to
do so.
In Before the Storm, a sequence and schedule for undertaking local
reconstruction and restoration activities is presented. The schedule
was deliberately left vague because specific reconstruction needs
will not be known until after a storm hits and the magnitude of the
10

damage can be assessed. The following sequence of activities and
schedule is submitted as a guide which should be considered by the
Recovery Task Force and reviewed as necessary after the damage
assessment activities are completed.
Activity
1)
Complete initial damage
assessment.
2)
Complete second phase damage
assessment
3)
Prepare summary of
reconstruction priorities and
master reconstruction schedule
4)
Decision with regard to
imposition of temporary
development moratorium
5)
Set reconstruction priorities
and prepare master
reconstruction schedule
6)
Begin repairs to critical
utilities and facilities
7)
Permitting of reconstruction
activities for all structures
receiving minor damage not
included in development
moratorium areas
8)
Permitting of reconstruction
activities for all structures
receiving major damage not
included in development
moratorium areas
9)
Initiate assessment of existing
mitigation policies
10) Complete re-evaluation of
hazard areas and mitigation
policies in areas subjected to
development moratorium
11) Review mitigation policies and
development standards for areas
subjected to development
moratorium and lift development
moratorium
12) Permit new development
Time Frame
Immediately after storm
passes
Completed by second week
after the storm
Completed one week after
second phase damage assess-
ment is completed
One week after second phase
damage assessment is
completed
Completed one week after
summary of reconstruction
needs is completed
As soon as possible after
disaster
One week after second phase
damage assessment is
completed
Two weeks after second phase
damage assessment is
completed
Two weeks after second phase
damage assessment is
completed
The length of the period for
conducting re-evaluations and
receiving input from the
state should not exceed two
months
Two months after temporary
development moratorium is
imposed. (Subject to change
based on circumstances
encountered)
Upon suspension of any tempo-
rary development moratorium
11

E
nded Reconstruction Policies
It is recommended that the Carteret County Task Force consist of the
following individuals:
° Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
° Carteret County Manager
° Emergency Management Coordinators
° Chief County Tax Appraiser
° County Finance Director
° County Code Inspections Director
The following policies have been designed 1) to be considered and
adopted by the Carteret County Board of Commissioners prior to a
storm; and 2) implemented, as appropriate, after a storm occurs.
Permitting
1. Building permits to restore structures located outside of
designated AEC areas that were previously built in conformance
with local codes, standards, and the provisions of the North
Carolina Building Code shall be issued automatically.
2. All structures suffering major damages as defined in the
county's Damage Assessment Plan shall be repaired or rebuilt
to .conform with the provisions of the North Carolina Building
Code, the Carteret County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance,
Carteret County Zoning Ordinance, the Bogue Banks Land
Protection Ordinance, Group Housing Ordinance, and Mobile Home
Park Ordinance.
3. All structures suffering minor damage as defined in the
Carteret County Damage Assessment Plan shall be permitted to
be rebuilt to their original state before the storm condition,
provided non -conforming use regulations of the zoning
ordinance are met.
4. For all structures in designated AECs and for all mobile home
locations, a determination shall be made for each AEC as to
whether the provisions of the N.C. Building Code, the state
regulations for Areas of Environmental Concern, the Carteret
County Flood Prevention Ordinance, and Carteret County Mobile
Home Park Ordinance appeared adequate in minimizing storm
damages. For areas where the construction and use require-
ments appear adequate, permits shall be issued in accordance
with permitting policies 1, 2 and 3. For AECs where the
construction and use requirements do not appear to have been
adequate in mitigating damages, a Temporary Development Mora-
torium for all structures located within that specific AEC
shall be imposed.
5. All individual mobile homes located in mobile home parks sus-
taining some damage to at least 500 of their mobile homes in
the park shall be required to conform with the provision of
12

the Carteret County Mobile Home, Mobile Home Park and Travel
Trailer Park Ordinance, and the county's Flood Damage Preven-
tion Ordinance regardless of whether such park is currently
subject to these ordinances.
6. Permits shall not be issued in areas subject to a Temporary
Displacement Moratorium until such a moratorium is lifted by
the Carteret County Board of Commissioners.
Utility and Facility Reconstruction
1. All damaged water and sewer systems (both public and private)
shall be repaired so as to be elevated above the 100-year
floodplain or shall be floodproofed, with the methods employed
and the construction being certified by a registered profes-
sional engineer.
2. All damaged roads used as major evacuation routes in flood
hazard areas shall be repaired so as to be elevated at least
one foot above the 100-year floodplain elevation.
3. All local roads that have to be completely rebuilt shall be
elevated so as to be above the 100-year floodplain elevation.
Temporary Development Moratorium
Under certain circumstances, interim development moratoriums can
be used in order to give a local government time to assess
damages, to make sound decisions and to learn from its storm
experiences. Such a moratorium must be temporary and it must be
reasonably related to the public health, safety and welfare.
It is not possible to determine prior to a storm whether a
temporary development moratorium will be needed. Such a measure
should only be used if damage in a particular area is very
serious and if redevelopment of the area in the same manner as
previously existed would submit the residents of the area to
similar public health and safety problems. The Carteret County
policy regarding the proclamation of temporary development
moratoriums shall be to:
Require the Carteret County Recovery Task Force to
assess whether a Temporary Development Moratorium is
needed within one week after the damage assessment
process is completed. Such an assessment should clearly
document why such a moratorium is needed, delineate the
specific uses that would be affected by the moratorium,
propose a specific schedule of activities and actions
that will be taken during the moratorium period, and
establish a specific time period during which the
moratorium will be in effect.
13