Ocean & estuarine recreation access a keystone of life in Carteret County, North Carolina

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

75
@wok
Ar
@ vp
t

'A
71,

P,
CARTERET COUNTY;
AN
t ss'.

I Y, L I N@k
Y N,

1 '13

nsul
Recre P

wt, 1
W9,

@a
GV
4@k
182.3
.o3
1976

A6,

Property of CSC Library

OCEAN & ESTUARINE
RECREATION ACCESS

A KEYSTONE OF LIFE
IN CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

Prepared. 6y
Recreation & Park Consultants. Inc.
4911 Waters Edge Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 919-841-7996
August 1979

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 admin-
rp istered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and
Atmosp
heric Administration. (NOAA Grant Number 04-8-M01-331)
L

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

One of the pleasant benefits of work in Carteret County is the

friendly accommodation received from those whose help is requested.

More than 150 personal contacts were made by the study team in search

of information and opinions. All were very cordial.

County officials and staff were very accommodating, as were

those in State of North Carolina and federal offices. Neal Lewis,

Coufitr Park.and @Recreation Director'. and his secretary, Tressa Jones,

were particularly helpful, Drafting technicians in the tax office

provtded fr@endlyvaluable assistance.

Business people and average citizens willingly gave their time

to help. Beth Taylor and the West Carteret High School students in her

Environmental Studies Program provided a sounding board and beneficial

survey assistance.

It is hoped that those who helped, along with others, will be

interested in working with the County Commissioners and staff to react

to the report in a way that will assist in crystallizing goals for the

future-and implementing local initiatives aimed at continuation of the

pleasant life in Carteret County.

Recte4tib*ri and Park Consultants, Inc.
SEudy Team: Ronald D. Johnson, Recreation
Planner and Study Director
John 0. Fussell III, Biologist
Robert L. Martin, Transportation
Engineer
Jerry M. Turner, Landscape
Architect
Donna Simon, Secretary

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A View of Carteret County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Recreation Problem/Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

II PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

III BACKGROUND INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Background Information - Federal Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
State of North Carolina Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Regional Benefits -,State Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Beach Access . . * * *.1* * ' * * ' * * * 14
North Carolina Com'prehen'sive Recreation*Pl'anning* . . . . . . . . 17
North Carolina Water Resources Planning . . . . . ... . . . . . . 19
Carteret County Access Related Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Carteret County Land Use Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Responsibility For Providing Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Private Landowner Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 26
IV ACCESS RELATED LOCAL ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Local Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Envixonmental Protection Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

V SUPPLY@r@ PRESENT ACCESS AND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Regional Access . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Local Access . . . . . . . . . 0 . I . . . . . . . . . . ... 38
Local Access for Recreation Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Major Free Access Sites . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Minor, Free Access Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Public Lands/Easements Generally Restricted to Local Residents . 43
Pr@vate Land s Regularly'Used Without Permission . . . . . . . . . 43
Commercial Launch. Sites and Marinas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Perceptions of Population Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Local Recreation Interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Attitudes and Opinions . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 52

VI ANTICIPATED DEKAND . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Population Increase Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Population Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Activity Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *57
Tourism Related Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

SECTION PAGE

Carteret County Travel Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
People and Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Demand Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Patterns of Demand in the U.S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Adult Activity Days By Selected Activity (In North Carolina) 64

VII@ ANALYSIS OF NEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Relationship of Supply to Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Access Standards . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Application of Standards to County Resources . . . . . . . . . . 68
Capacity for Expanding Present Facilities . . . . . . . o . . . . 70

VIII FACTORS INFLUENCING ACCESS FACILITIES . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 71
Space Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . o ... . . . . . . . . . 72
Socio-economic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Recreation Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Tourism and Growth Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Carrying Capacity of Related Systems . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 74
Regulation of Population and Use Density . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Management Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . 76
Interpretation of Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . 77
Harbors of Refuge and Other Safety Considerations . . . . . . . . 77
Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . * * o * * 81
Location of Areas Recommended for Acc;s; r;v;m;n@ *. . . . . . 84
IMP

IX RECO11MENDATIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

General . . . ... . . . 86
h f * @o'r*ioati*goa*Search
* * ' * * o * *
Recommendation 1: Develop a Ve icle or o d n n
For and Work Toward County-wide Goals. . . . o . . . . . . . 87
Recommendation 2: Establish Advisory Committee of Mainland
Down East Representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . o. . . . . 87
Recom-endation 3: Acknowledge and/or Modify Carteret County
Land Use Plan. . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Reco=,endation 4: Establish Advisory Committee on Harbors
of Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Recommendation 5-. Assist in Retaining Open Space at
Harker's Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Recommendation 6: Establish Boat Launch Ramp at Salter's
Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * - ' * - ;t* 88
Recommendation 7: Improve Car Top Launch Area Ha k
Island Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Recommendation 8: Promote Improvement of Beaufort Jaycee
Park Boat Launch Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Recommendation 9: Acquire Waterfront Park in Area of
Lennoxville Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

SECTION PAGE

Recommendation 10: Seek Improvements to Cedar Point Boat
Launch Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Recommendation 11: Acquire Waterfront Park East of Cape
Carteret . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Recommendation 12: Assist in Securing Public Access to
Bogue Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Recommendation 13: Seek to Retain Swansboro Coast Guard
Station in Public Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Recommendation 14; Assist in Expanding Capacity of Public
Access at Atlantic Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Recommendation 15: Improve Airport Marina . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Recommendation 16: Consider Highway 70 Bridge Spoilbank for
Major Boat Launch Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Recommendation 17: Improve Emergency Evacuation Program... 91
Recommendation 18: Seek Changes to Federal Flood Insurance
Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Recommendation 19: Require Boardwalks Over Existing Dune
Cross-overs, and Limit ORV Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Recommendation 20: Seek to Broaden Financial Base of N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Recommendation 21: Improve Access Opportunities for Those
Recreati,onally Disadvantaged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Recommendation 22: Seek Volunteer Force to Assist in Boat
Launch Operations at Busy Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Recommendation 23: Consider Acquisition oi Use of Surplus
Property . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Recommendation 24: Support Opportunities to Enhance Commercial
Water Based Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Recommendation 25: Review Growth-inducing Potential of Third
Bridge to Bogue Banks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Recommendation 26. Determine the Market for Inter-city Public
Transportation - . * * * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Recommendation 27: Study Local Public Transportation System
Serving High Use Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Recommendation 28: Request N.C. D.O.T. Study of County-wide
Bikeway System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Recommendation 29: Encourage the State to Secure Access to
the Roosevelt Property at Salter Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Recommendation 30: Request the State to Consider Salter Path
Road Parking Lanes at Access Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Implementation Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . . . . 1.00

GENERAL REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

APPENDICES

A - State of North Carolina Recreation and Tourism Policies . . . . 106

vii

APPENDICES, ConCd. PAGE

B @ Open Space Categories and Associated Carteret County Open
Space liwentory, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

C - Perspective Sketch of Recreation Development Proposed
Earlier for Spoil Bank East of Morehead Bridge . . . . . . . Ill

D - Harker's Island and Atlantic Harbors of Refuge . . . . . . . . 112

E - Sketch Plans of Two Waterfront Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

F - Sketch Plan of Large Marina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

PHOTOGRAPHS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

"Piivate Beach ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Black Skinmer Road, Emerald Isle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Morehead City Wildlife Resources Commission Ramp, 7/4/79 . . . . . 6
Airport Marina, 7/4/79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Boca Raton, Florida, Beach Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Bogue Vier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Sta-le Ferry Landing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Jaycee park, Beaufort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Beaufort Waterfront . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Sailing and Motorboating off Radio Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Access Using Private Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Beaufort Launch Ramp, 7/4/79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
FortNacon State Park Beach, 7/8/79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Showers at a Beach Patk, Boca Raton, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . *53
Delray Beach, Florida, Beach Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Boca Raton, Florida, Dune Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Bogue Point, 7/8/79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Triple Ess Pier Beach, 7/8/79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Public Easement at Club Colony, Atlantic Beach . . . . . . . . . . 66
Waterfront Paxk Trail, Boca Raton, Florida . . . . . .. . . . . . . 70
Radio Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Access SignAge . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Beaufort Harbor. . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Beaufort Harbor Tou;s: . . . . . . . 85
Sketch Plan, Airport Marina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

viii

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

"The encounter between man and the sea offers one of the most
rewarding of all human experiences. The edge of the sea has
a special meaning to the beachcomber who walks the tideline,
for the bather who absorbs the sun's relaxing warmth, for the
surfer who pits his skill against charging waves."

Neuse River Council of Governments,,
Open Space Plan

Location Map

The Carteret County Board of Commissioners, on January 8, 1979, executed a
contract with the State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, identifying interest of the County in the Coastal
Planning and Management Grant Program. The County agreed to undertake an
"Ocean/Estuarine Recreational Access Study for Carteret County" in response
to the State's invitation to provide partial funding for the Study, with
funds provided by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-
583), as amended by P.L. 94-370.

It was the hope of Wm. Neal Lewis, Carteret County Recreation Director, that
the study commitment would be a positive response to the Coastal Area
Management Act implementation, responsibly setting the example among coastal
counties for recreation access to ocean and estuarine waters

"Access," as defined in the 1977 edition of Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary, includes "permission, liberty or ability to enter. . . freedom
to make use of. . . the action of going to or reaching . . . a way or means
of access". For the purpose of this report, "access" refers to the above
definitions in relation to recreation uses of ocean and estuarine waters.
This ranges from opportunities one has to launch a boat, go swimming, enjoy
the vista of the ocean or sounds and all other forms of water-related recrea-
tions on coastal waters. It includes., superficially at least, the problem
of the traveler in driving into and out of Carteret County. It includes the
problem of moving the short distance from public roadways to public beaches.

Ig lqm@@

PRIVATE ON
FOR
REGIS"TERED
GUESTS ONLY

uIlhOORIZED
VEHICLES
WILL 61

fOWNERS

A View of Carteret County

We've been discovered, and need to do the best job we can in achieving an
o"rderly growth." These words of Joe Barbour of Barbour's Boat Works in
Beaufort capsulize the problems of Carteret County. Informal estimates
place up to 100,000 people in the County on a summer weekend, enough to
qualify as a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) if the population
were permanent. For the 37,000 year around residents, the influx of summer
vacationers has caused a change in the way of life for most, and has created
an urban area beyond the city.

In spite of the linear urban area developing, commercial fishing goes on al-
most in its midst, the "down east" fishing communities survive, the waters
are relatively unpolluted, wilderness is still just a short step away in the
marshes, woods and uninhabited beaches, and lifeis pleasant. Summertime
requires an adjustment for m*any. The boat ramps are crowded, traffic through-
out the County is heavy, "the beach" (at Atlantic Beach) is packed, cultural
and social values are tested and life styles are threatened.

With improved transportation and communication systems, settlement patterns
in the United States have changed. Long strips of urban area are now located
along the coasts, the Gulf and the Great Lakes. "Smaller settlements will
undergo a major spurt of growth in all sorts of now-isolated places where
the natural amenities are attractive."i Cost-reducing improvements to trans-
portation and communications systems accelerate development of these pre-
viously out-of-the-way places. An energy crisis, of sufficient depth to
prohibit the moderately affluent to travel, will likely reverse this trend.

Bogue Banks and mainland areas in close proximity have experienced intense
development pressures. A modest number of retirees and other newcomers have
settled permanently, but most development has been oriented toward vacation
homes. These generally attract urban North Carolina residents. The Director
of the Carteret County Economic Development Commission feels that most of
the visitors to the County are from the Raleigh area. 2

Carteret County, then, already has,an interaction and integration of small
town and metropolitan area residents. The common element among them is
their love for the coastal area. However, those-engaged in commercial
fishing, boating, shipping and related industry may see recreational uses
as competitive. The finding of a coimnon interest toward preservation of
the coastal scene may serve to dissolve differences that may exist.

Long time residents have, in relatively few years, been catapulted into a
society of a much different kind and scale than they were used to, at least

1 Melvin M. Webber, "The Post City Age," Daedalus, Journal of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fall 1968.
2 Personal conversation with Roy Stevens, Director of Carteret County Econo-
mic Development Council, 3/6/79.

during the summer seasons. Most can, will or have adjusted to the change,
and some will provide the leadership to assure that local values are not lost
in accommodating newcomers and tourists to the County. It will be difficult
to formulate goals which will satisfy existing attitudes and interests; goals
may necessarily be somewhat competitive without mutually reinforcing programs.
The range of attitudes among people living now in Carteret County includes
those who want maximum promotion of industry and tourism, and those who wish
they could take a step back to a time of lesser population, an intermediate
technology and slower pace.

Tourism is based on enjoyment of a clean environment, where it
is still available, by people from urban areas whose environment
has been degraded. But the industry that attracts these tourists
is self-defeating, since it builds, for example, cities on the
beach to accommodate them. While tourists help give a monetary
value to the conservation of rare wild species or historic monu-
ments, too many hordes of them visiting national parks or famous
sites can endanger protected areas. '

The tourist industry is accused of ignoring the fragility of the
local social structure that must adjust to tourists. Social
relations are less resilient than natural ecosystems. As,major
economic benefits of tourism escape the poorer, local3population,
the people can become hostile or servile to visitors.

The Recreation Problem/Challenge

It is important that recreation goals be established which will guide efforts
to provide for continued, and perhaps improved, availability of a menu of
leisure opportunities, including access to public waters. Value judgments
'
on recreation-related issues, like other public issues, often become politi-
cal decisions based on estimates of the greatest benefits at the least cost.
Several questions regarding recreation and leisure opportunities need to be
addressed by the people of the County and judgments made:

(1) Is it important to extend the time thaVaccess to the ocean
and its estuaries is no less available than it is now?

(2) Are there methods to control access and unregulated uses at
the same time absorbing more and more people as summer resi-
dents and tourists? Can additional access be provided to
permanent residents while continuing to accommodate visitors?

(3) Should the State of North Carolina be requested to assume a
larger share of responsibility for providing ocean access
for the users who reside outside the County?

(4) To what extent should the County assume responsibility to
serve non-residents with ocean and estuarine access, recog-
nizing the importance of tourism to the economic health of
the County?

3 Dominique Larre, "Environment and WorldTourism," EPA Journal, June 1979.

(5) To what extent should this be financed by the users and those
benefiting financially most directly?

(6) Will the naturalness of the coastal environment be lost in
the process of accommodating increasing demands for access
and use of coastal waters and adjacent lands?

(7 What should be provided as public policy on these issues by
and for Carteret County?

-4Pt-

Black Skimmer Road, Emerald Isle

IW@

Morehead City Wildlife Resources Commission Ramp 7/4/79

or- _w"NOWF@-

"MINN

Airport Marina, July 4, 1979

SECTION Il

PLANNING OBJECTIVES

AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Jill 1/1/

C)l

Section of Sketch Plan of Airport Marina

Consultant Retained

Carteret County, in subcontracting for the access study asked that the
following be accomplished:

(1) inventory of present recreation access resources;

(2) statement of assessed recreation access needs;

(3) guidelines for implementation of plans to meet needs;

(4) documentation/publication of all findings, recommendations;
and

(5) presentation of document to public.

The study is to cover both ocean and estuarine waters, covering all leisure
use aspects. It was requested that the study include significant input
from public and private groups and private individuals; a public meeting
was to be held.

Objectives have been defined as follows:

(1) using the existing Coastal Resources Commission inventory,
confirm and add to the listing of ocean beach and estuarine
recreation access facilities, both public and commercial;

(2) review previous studies and other background information;

(3) discuss the responsibility for providing access, local and
regional issues regarding access and environmental aspects of
recreation access and use;

(4) assess demand for recreation access, particularly as it relates
to county residents;

(5) analyze needs, comparing supply of access resources to the.anti-
cipated demand, again relating this primarily to local needs;

(6) identify funding sources for assistance in improving access
resources;

(7) make recommendations on access improvement and provide an imple-
mentation guideline;

(8) provide appropriate access area management recommendations;

(9) review recommendations at a public meeting in the county; and

(10) prepare and publish a report, submitting ten copies and a
reproducible copy.

SECTION III

BACKGROUND I14FOFIIATION

"in its broadest sense, the access question extends beyond
physical presence and participation in recreational activities-
it encompasses visual, legal, social and economic access. . .

R. B. Ditton and Mark Stephens,
Coastal Recreation: A Handbook
for Planners and Managers, U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, OCZM,
Washington, D.C., 1976.

P PMA

0
P
PEN dwr-

Boca Raton, Florida, Beach Access

Background Information - Federal Actions

Several federal agencies have programs which directly relate to coastal
management, or which have domestic assistance programs which could theore-
tically be used in local area improvements. For example, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers provides navigation, flood control and beach
erosion control projects. Development grants are available from a
variety of agencies: Economic Development Administration, Coastal Plains
Regional Commission, Department of Interior Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
These may not relate directly to coastal access, but can be used by states
and local governments located in coastal areas to enhance access opportuni-
ties.

The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.(P.L. 92-533) as amended
(P.L. 94-370), authorized grants to states to develop coastal zone manage-
ment programs, and identified the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration (NOAA) in the U.S. Department of Commerce as the agency to promulgate
and administer program regulations. Section 305(b)(7) of the Act requires
that shorefront access be a part of each coastal management program funded
under the Act; this with energy facility and shoreline erosion planning
constituted the 1976 amendments.Section 315(2) authorizes the following:

. . .grants to any coastal state for the purpose of . . . acquiring
lands to provide for access to public beaches and other public
coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical, esthe-
tic, ecological, or cultural value, and for the preservation of
islands. The amount of any such grant shall not exceed 50 per
centum of the cost of the project involved; except that, in the
case of acquisition of any estuarine sanctuary, the Federal share
of the cost shall not exceed $2,000,000.1
(These funds have not been appropriated, however.)

NOAA rules and regulations apply to those states receiving grants for
development of coastal zone management programs; those applying to shore-
front access planning follow:

(a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the requirements of subsection
305(b)(7) of the Act, the management program must include a planning process
that can identify public shorefront areas appropriate for increased access
and/or protection. This process must include:

(1) a procedure for assessing public areas requiring access or
protection;
(2) a definition of the term "beach" and an identification of public
areas that meet that definition;
(3) articulation of State policies pertaining to shorefront access
and/or protection;

1 Federal Register, Volume 42, No. 83, April 29, 1977, p. 22044.

(4) a method for designation of shorefront areas as areas of
particular concern (either as a class or as specific sites)
for protection and/or access purposes, if appropriate;
(5) a mechanism for continuing refinement and implementation of
necessary management techniques, if appropriate; and
(6) an identification of funding programs 2and other techniques that
can be used.to meet management needs.

Advisory comments to the regulations significantly identify recreation
concerns and needs, and also imply rather directly that insufficient beach
access exists.

In developing a procedure for identifying access and/or
protection requirements for public beaches and other public
coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical,
esthetic, ecological, or cultural value, States should make
use of the analyses and considerations of statewide concern
developed to meet the requirements of Section 920.13 (Areas
of Particular Concern). It is also recommended that infor-
mation contained in completed State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plans be considered. If islands have not been
included in the areas considered under Section 920.13, then
their preservation needs should be considered under this
subsection. Preservation should be considered broadly,
in terms of ecological, environmental, recreational, histori-
cal, esthetic or cultural values.

In developing a procedure for identifying access and/or pro-
tection needs, States should take into account (a) the supply
of existing public facilities and areas, (b) the anticipated
demand for future use of these facilities, and (c) the capabi-
lity/suitability of existing areas to support increased
access. Based on these and other considerations, as appro-
priate, the State's planning process shall include a descrip-
tion of appropriate types of access and/or protection, taking
into account governmental and public preferences, resource
capabilities and priorities.

In determining access requirements, States should consider
both physical and visual access. The emphasis, however,
should be on the provision of increased physical access.
Special attention should be given to recreational needs of
urban residents for increased shorefront access. . . . 3

2 Federal Register, Volume 42, No. 83, April 29, 1977, Section 920.17,
p. 22044.
3 Ibid.

State of North Carolina Actions

State level counterparts of federal agencies also provide services and
programs related to coastal management. Significant actions by the North
Carolina Legislature include the State Lands Act of 1959, proclaiming that
submerged lands are to be preserved for use of all the people. This es-
tablished ownership of ocean beaches up to the elevation of mean high tide
and secured for the state ownership of most estuarine waters, including
marshes.

Passage of the state Coastal Area Management Act in the 1974 Session of
the General Assembly, was motivated primarily by State issues and concerns,
and proceeded largely independent of federal coastal management efforts.
CAMA is seen primarily as an environmental act protecting coastal resources,
but identifies that local planning is an important feature in its implemen-
tation. CAMA was and remains somewhat controversial in some coastal counties,
Carteret included.

Drafting of the North Carolina Coastal Management Plan followed, in accor-
dance with CAMA and federal guidelines.4 Shorefront access planning, energy
facility planning, and shoreline erosion concerns were "not required at
this time" by OCZM requirements for program approval. Elements were in-
cluded, however, discussing tourism and recreation issues in "beach access".
Related issues briefly discussed growth, management problems, transportation
and environmental issues. The state was required to prepare a plan including
access, energy facilities and shoreline erosion by October, 1978. Extensions
appear to have been granted, with the plan amending the Environmental Impact
Statement anticipated to be released in the summer of 1979. (This was re-
leased.)5

The original Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement did identify 308 miles of North Carolina coast with ocean beaches;
148 miles of this was shown in public ownership, with public access. The
plan reported that public access in the remaining 160 miles is not as
favorable as that in public ownership. It reported few areas where access
is denied to the public. This was countered, however, with a statement
that "in many areas, access has never been a problem and no provisions
have been made to insure that it will not be a problem in the future. . .
however, increased development in and use of the shoreline may cause beach
access to become a problem in the future.,,6 The report also identified
conflicts between beach users and landowners and indicate that these conflicts
11often result in the restriction of public access by private landowners
and in the implementation of local laws to restrict the full use of the
public beach". 7

4 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Office of Coastal Zone Management, State
of North Carolina Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, n.d.
5 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, OCZM, 'Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Prepared on Amendments to the North Carolina Coastal Management Program,
Washington, D.C., January, 1979.
6 Op.cit., p. 81. 12
7 Ibid.

Discussion on the issue ended with a statement indicating the coastal
management Program "must address the issue of how to insure adequate access
to the public beaches in coastal waters in a manner which is not detrimental
to the delicate beach environment. . .".8

In other parts of the report, the Coastal Management Program was charged
with addressing wetland preservation issues attempting to minimize destruc-
tion without denying reasonable access to coastal waters for water dependent
uses. They identified the problem of how to allocate planning and management
functions to local governments while retaining enough responsibility at
the state level to assure that legitimate regional, state and national
interests are taken into consideration in any local planning activities.

Federal land holdings within coastal North Carolina were not included within
the state "coastal zone". The state recognized these "greater-than-local
interests which may require priority given to national interests, but which
also require federal agencies' compliance with the state management plan
I'to the greatest extent practicable". Federal consistency policies confirm
the desire to be consistent with the coastal states' management program.
An Executive Order by Governor Hunt requires executive agencies to also
be consistent in their actions.

Regional Benefits - State Actions

The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires that the State Coastal
Management Plan provide a method for assuring that local land and water
regulations "do not unreasonably restrict or exclude land and water uses
of regional benefit". In response to this requirement, the State of North
Carolina has listed several "uses" perceived to relate to regional supply:

"(1) public recreational facilities of a regional or statewide
significance;

(2) major energy transmission for generating facilities;

(3) major transportation facilities such as interstate highways,
ports, airports, and important navigational projects;

(4) regional water and waste water treatment facilities; and

(5) major public facilities such as multi-purpose reservoirs
state and federal prisons, hospitals, and universities."

These uses generally refer to what is described as "key facilities".

8 Ibid., p. 81.
9 State of North Carolina Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, p. 223o

Continuing to quote from the Coastal Management Program;

North Carolina will rely on two techniques to insure that
_,an adequate amount of specific sites are set aside to meet
a projection of reasonable and foreseeable demand for uses
of regional benefit. The first technique is state acquisi-
tion of sites as the need arises for particular uses of
regional benefit and the second technique is the designation
of 'areas which are or may be impacted by key facilities'
(G.S. 113A-113) as areas of environmental concern. Both
methods can ensure that local regulations do not unreasonably
restrict uses of regional benefit.10

The Coastal Management Program identifies a number of state policies
relating to recreation, tourism, and beach acce 'ss. Those seen to have
a rather direct relationship are included in Appendix A of this report.
As state policies, these imply direct actions by the state; some propose
to promote tourism, others protect environmental resources, and preserve
cultural resources. Growth management, transportation, coastal industries,
energy policies, and others are included in the list of policies included
in the Coastal Management Program. Beach access policies identify a 75
foot estuarine shoreline Area of Environmental Concern with high priority
of land use allocation to water access proposals; and permit structural
access ways to the beach on or seaward of frontal dunes providing no damage
results.

Beach Access

Chapter 7B, .0320 of the North Carolina Administrative Code defines ocean
beach as follows: "land areas without vegetation covering, consisting of
unconsolidated soil material that extends landward from the mean low tide
to a point where anyone or a combination of the following occur: (1) vege-
tation, or (2) a distinct change in predominant soil particle size, or (3),
a change in slope or elevation which alters th e physiographic land form."-Lj-

Administrative procedures of state agencies appear to be available upon
request. These identify to the public the procedure and identification
of actions and policies of administrative departments. Chapter 7 of these
policies applies to the Coastal Resources Commission, the agency charged
with the administration of CAMA. Section .0301 of this chapter, a declara-
tion of general policy on shorefront access policies reads as follows:

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State of North
Carolina to foster, protect, improve and ensure optimum access
to recreational opportunities at beach areas consistent with

10 Ibid., p. 223.
11 Ibid., Appendix B, p. 82.

public rights, rights of private property owners and the need
to protect natural resources from overuse. These policies
reflect the position that in areas other than State parks,
the responsibility of providing adequate beach access rests
primarily with local units of government. Thus, the following
policies are intended to supplement and strengthen any local
efforts.12

Section .0302 defines the term "beach" in generally the same context as that
which is found in the Coastal Management Progran(quoted from Chapter 7B,
Section .0302), but adds the possibility that the beach may extend to the
point where the riparian owners have specifically and legally restricted
access above the Mean High Water line. "This definition is intended to
describe those shorefront areas historically used by the public. Whether
or not the public has-rights in the defined areas above the 11HW mark can
only be answered by the courts. The public does have clear rights below
the MHW mark. The following policies recognize public use rights in the
beach areas as defined but do not in an T3 way require private property owners
to provide public access to the beach."

The Coastal Resources Commissionas a followup to its responsibility to
develop shorefront access policies, held a public hearing January 12, 19799
for the purpose of considering several policies including eight policy state-
ments on shorefront access:

(a) Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access
to the shorefront where acquired through public acquisition, dedication,
or customary use as established by the courts.

(b) The responsibility of insuring that the public can obtain ade-
quate access to public trust resources or the ocean, sounds, rivers
and tributaries is primarily that of local governments to be shared
and assisted by state and federal government.

(c) Public beach area projects funded by the state and federal govern-
ment will not receive initial or additional funds unless provisions
are made for adequate public access. This must include access rights,
adequate identification and adequate parking.

(d) Policies regarding State and Federal properties with shorefront
areas intended to be used by the public must encourage, permit and
provide public access and adequate parking so as to achieve maximum
public use and benefit of these areas consistent with establishing
legislation.

(e) State and Federal funds for beach access will be provided only
to localities that also provide protection of the frontal dunes.

12 North Carolina Administrative Code, Chapter 7B
13 Ibid.

(f) The state should continue in its efforts to supplement and
improve highway, bridge and ferry access to and within the twenty
county coastal area consistent with the approved local land use
plans. Further, the state should wherever pra ctical work to add
public fishing catwalks to appropriate highway bridges and should
incorporate catwalks in all plans for new construction and for re-
modeling bridges. It is the policy of the state to seek repeal or
ordinances preventing fishing from bridges except where public safety
would be comprised.

(g) In order to avoid weakening the protective nature of frontal
dunes, no development will be permitted which would involve the removal
or relocation of frontal dune sand or frontal dune vegetation. (15
NCAC .7H.0306 (c).) The sands held in the frontal dune are recognized
as vital for the nourishment and protection of ocean beaches.

(h) All land use plans and state actions@to provide additional shore-
front access must recognize the need of providing access to all socio-
economic groups.14

David Brower begins his excellent publication, Access to the Nation's
Beaches: Legal and Planning Prospectives, with the statement, "the problem
of insufficient public access to the nation's coastal beaches has been
recognized nationally for at least forty years". He quotes from a 1954
National Park Service Study which recommended that Smith Island (Bald Head)
and Bogue Banks be acquired for public recreational purposes "before the
best of the remaining areas are acquired for private or commercial develop-
ment".15 Bogue Banks is now listed as "developed".16

David Owens, who collaborated with Brower on the book, is now an attorney
with the Coastal Management staff of the State Department of Natural Re-
sources and Community Development. Paraphrasing a statement of Owens,
"There may be a public use right above the high tide line, but the North
Carolina Courts have never addressed the issue. When someone is stopped
by a property owner from crossing an area or going under a fishing pier,
and that action is challenged in court, we will probably get a clearer
picture of public use rights, but it will depend upon specific occurrences
and the attitude of the court."17 Brower thoroughly discusses the ownership
of coastal areas including comments on the Public Trust Doctrine where public
trust lands (generally navigable waters and associated tidelands, and in
North Carolina and other states wet sand beaches) are held in trust for
the people and subject to the interests of the public.18

14 Ibid.

15 Brower, David, et al, Access to the Nation's Beaches: Legal and Planning
Perspectives, UNC Sea Grant Pub. SG-77-18, Raleigh, N.C., 1978, p. 1.
16 U.S. Dept. of Interior, "Report of the Barrier Island Work Group,"
Dec. 1973, p. 10.
17 Conversation with David Owens, N.C. Office of Coastal Management, 5-18-79.
18 Op.cit., p..21.

Brower quotes the U.S. Supreme Court which "in 1892 said that these lands
are held in trust for the people so that public rights of navigation,
fishing and commerce could be preserved". Brower also discusses the concept
of implied dedication where an owner, by not preventing public use of the
beach implies from his conduct intent to give the land to the public by
public use of the beach. In effect the public accepts dedication through
implication.19 The Doctrine of "Customary Rights" proposes that where there
has been "very long and common use of a defined area, that use becomes le-
gally established for that area".20tiPrescriptive easements" are another
related type of public right, with use adverse to the interests of the owner,
but where owners "cannot do an@thing on it that would reduce the public's
established rights to use it". 1 This may begin as a trespass without the
owner seeking redress; historical use may be continued but additional types
of uses cannot be established.

In addition, Brower discusses a New Jersey case where the State Legislature
enabled cities to charge user fees to defray costs. A neighboring inland
city sued a beach community because it was charging a non-resident rate.
The court found that, although user foes could be charged, they could not
charge more because of a user's non-resident status.22

North Carolina Comprehensive Recreation Planning

The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), last published
in 1973 or 1974, included several sections relating to coastal recreation.
Consistency with SCORP is required for the awarding of Land and Water Con-
servation Fund Grants administered by the U.S. Department of Interior Heri-
tage Conservation and Recreation Service. The North Carolina SCORP recommends,
in response to an identified "lack of sufficient quantity and variety of
state-administered outdoor recreation areas. . ." that the State "Acquire,
develop and administer public water access areas at intervals on the coast
and other places in the coastal area."Zi The study leading to the publica-
tion of SCORP considered the potential for further recreation usage of
the North Carolina coast, and concluded generally, that recreational uses
of ocean beaches can be increased without damage to the beach itself, that
the major demand will be for family beaches which do not require intensive
development or heavy use, that there may be some constraints due to asso-
ciated services needed to reach "optimum" use of family beaches, and that
shorelines of sounds, with the exception of the Morehead City - Beaufort
area, had experienced only light pressure for recreation development.24

19 Ibid., p. 23.
20 Ibid., p. 28.
21 Ibid., p. 31.
22 Ibid., p. 22.
23 N.C. Dept. of Natural & Economic Resources, Statewide Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan, n.d.
24 Ibid., Section 53-100.

SCORP comments, reporting'on a study of island resources, concluded:

Islands can help fill the recreation need only if the burgeoning
urbanization that gives them a new recreation value does not
overwhelm them with the kind of development that.makes public
recreation impossible. Like all natural islands they are endan-
gered by over-development and can serve public needs only if they
25
are protected and developed under active programs of conservation.

All publications and programs reviewed, relating to water-based recreation,
tie social benefits to conservation and preservation of natural resources;
damage to the resource will reduce opportunities for recreation.

The current updating of NCSCORP is expected to 'be available in fall 1979.
Included in the objectives and planned actions of early drafts was the
objective of securing sufficient public access to beach areas and facili-
tieg. Several tasks were identified to meet this objective:

Task a Determine the long term beach access needs based on the
current supply of access areas and the projected demands
of access based on population projections.

Task b Develop State position on beach access through comprehen-
sive policy statements.

Task c Establish funding source for land acquisition and construc-
tion of access facilities.

Task d Establish grant procedure for local governments to apply
for beach access funds.

Task e Develop planning guidelines as part of the CAMA planning
process to assist local governments in acquiring and
managing public access areas.

Task f Institute a uniform system of identifying public access
areas.

"Task c" above wa s proposed to be handled by the N.C. Division of Parks
and Recreation. "Task b" was assigned to the Coastal Resources Commission.
All other items identified the N.C. Office of Coastal Management as the
Lead agency. These were proposed to be completed during the State's
Fiscal Year 1978-1979, but reportedly were not funded. The amendment
to the North Carolina Coastal Management Program and Environmental Impact
Statement will address many of these elements. It is reported that the
Governor's letter transmitting SCORP to the Heritage, Conservation and
Recreation Service is more supportive than in the past, and commits the
State to solve its recreation problems and provide for balanced growth

25 Ibid., Section 53-8.40.

and a higher quality of life for residents and visitors to the State.
Reaction to the recent park land acquisition budget proposal, in legislative
action, does not evidence the same priority, for no funds were appropriated
for park acquisition for Fiscal Year 1979-1980, and only $250,000 for Fiscal
Year 1980-1981; this for all park acquisition by the State.

North Carolina Water Resources Planning

The North Carolina Water Resources Framework Study is presently being updated
by the staff of the Division of Environmental Management in the Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development. The draft of the report
is generally supportive and reiterates aspects of SCORP, the Coastal Manage-
ment Program and others, and identifies policies proposed for water manage-
ment including water based recreation, navigation, water supply, fish and
wildlife resourcesi the North Carolina balanced growth policy, and a variety
of other issues related to water resource planning. Recreation is treated
rather comprehensively, with identification of recreation issues related
to almost every topic discussed. Recommendations include a variety of
alternatives in development measures, and the following general recommenda-
tion: "that the State and local governments increase public access to its
waters and related land resources by increasing the number of: (1) addi-
tional boating and fishing access areas; (2) new State Parks and recreation
areas around large and small reservoirs; (3) scenic trails, rivers and
greenways, and (4) ocean and shoreline beaches". Another recommendation
proposed that the State and its political subdivisions acquire more outdoor
recreation sites in 59 e vicinity of the growth centers identified in the
State growth policy. The State Planning Office has identified the More-
head City area as one of these growth centers with Beaufort a satellite.

Carteret County Access-Related Actions

"Local recreational needs and opportunities have not been given adequate
consideration in the past. As a result, those coastal areas of statewide,
regional, and/or national interest have received a greater part of the
financial aid available to the state."27

Carteret County, in seeking a consultant for the access study, stated
its desire to identify recreation access to the waterways surrounding
Carteret County, identify future access improvements desired and related
elements. At the pre-study public meeting, the Director of Parks and
Recreation indicated that present access to Carteret County waters is in-
adequate, this rounding out the full scale of federal, state and now local
feelings that there is inadequate access for coastal recreation.

The County has acted on issues related to access and preservation of natural
resources related to coastal and estuarine resources. The County zoning

26 Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, N.C. Water
Resources Framework Study, review draft, n.d.
27 N.C. Coastal Management Program, p. 249.
19

ordinance5l for example, requires preservation of primary du nes, major secondary
dunes in marsh area (Section 73-A.2 and 76-A.2(j)). The ordinance allows
pedestrian walkways and bicycle riding ways in Residential Resort Districts
(RR) but requires a 25 foot minimum setback from any street or highway
(Article 73-A.3). Marina requirements are provided for residential resort
districts, and marina business districts. The County Outer Banks Land
Protection Ordinance, administered by a Shoreline Protection Officer, im-
poses restrictions on all coastal areas whether incorporated or not. The
County has also adopted a Dunes Vehicle Control Ordinance as have some of
the municipalities in the County. A surfing Ordinance has been adopted
which does not allow surfing within 500 feet of fishing piers when a 500
foot marker buoy is in place.

Carteret County was the subject of a report authored by the State Department
of Local Affairs, Division of Community Planning: Carteret County, North
Carolina, Community Facilities Plan and Public Improvements Program, dated
July, 1969. This report, among many other recommendations, recommended
that the County"'acquire and develop water access areas (2-5 acres each)
to allow residents and visitors to utilize the County's waters. These sites
should contain boat ramps, parking, and picnic areas".28 Small access
areas were proposed to be located at Cedar Point, on the White Oak River,
east of Bogue Field, east of Broad Creek on the sound, at Pine Knoll Shores,
on the Newport River west of Beaufort, north of Beaufort, southeast of New-
port, one at the north end of North River, one east of Merrimon on the South
River, one at the west end of Harker's Island, and one each at Straits,
Gloucester, Marshallberg, Sea Level, Atlantic, and Cedar Island.

The report also proposed three roadside parks adjacent to major highways
for use by visitors to the County. These would be provided with picnicking,
camping, and public toilet facilities, and were proposed on U.S. 70 east
of Davis, and two sites in the Croatan National Forest on the U.S. 70 by-pass
at Newport and on the north side of N.C. Highway 24 west of Broad Creek.

Three other significant recommendations were made relating to access.

(1) Instigate a program of land and resource conservation designed
to assure the protection of Carteret County's water bodies and
state and Federal parks. This program should include:

(a) zoning the access points to the National Seashore to
prevent deleterious commercial and residential developments
from detracting from the beauty of this national park;

(b) prevent total strangulation of public access to the sea-
shore by direct purchase, acquisition of development rights,
or long term leases from private owners to assure sufficient
public swimming and fishing areas; and

8 N.C. Department of Local Affairs, Carteret County, North Carolina,
Community Facilities Plan and Public Improvements Program, Raleigh,
North Carolina, 1969.

(2) Consider the possibility of developing waterfront parks along the
county's streams and water bodies. If acquired, this would result
in a scenic system of parks and related activities, a pollution
prevention measure, and prevent development in areas susceptible
to periodic inundation.

(3) Acquire and develop large (over 200 acres) county parks at the
western tip of Bogue Banks and another on Adams Creek south of
Merrimon. These parks should provide facilities for active
recreation, boat docking and launching facilities, camping grounds,
washrooms and public toilets, and shower rooms. 29

The last proposal to develop the sizeable park at the western tip of Bogue
Banks also appeared in "A Plan for Parks and Recreation in Carteret County,"
prepared by the previous Recreation Director in 1974. However,, only a 50
acre park was proposed, this specifically in order to provide residents
of Carteret County greater access to the ocean.

Carter et County Land Use Plan

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission and Office of Coastal Manage-
ment prepared the County Land Use Plan in response to requirements of the
Coastal Area Management Act. Although the plan has been adopted by the
North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission, to date, it has not been ac-
knowledged officially by the County, but the County is obliged to generally
follow its guidelines. The plan has not had wide distribution. The Land
Use Map associated with the report is not available in the county.

It is likely that people in the County will accept the information, objectives,
standards,, and comments contained in the plan, for it appears that the plan
is developed consistent with the majority of thinking in the County. Selected
objectives and standards which have a relationship to beach access issues
are repeated below:

(1) Cultural and Historical Objectives

(a) Preservation of meaningful local traditions and local culture
through:

1. Land use regulations that emphasize the value of the
local traditions within each township. In particular,
community development throughout the County has been
indicated as desirable and should be preserved.

29 Ibid.

2. Land use regulations and policies that will encourage
commercial and industrial development to fit in with
existing development. Proper buffer areas should be
emphasized.

(2) land Development Objectives

(a) Encourage major residential and commercial growth to occur
near municipalities to prevent leapfrog development patterns,
and to facilitate the extensions of existing water and sewer
facilities. This objective can be accomplished through the
establishment of water and sewer extension policies by
municipalities which will locate these developments close
to their existing boundaries. Location of development near
towns will aid towns in future annexation proceedings.

(b) Preserve the rural nature of the County outside the munici-
palities. When land is developed in rural areas of the
County, it should be developed in basically a low density
residential character. Without the provision of water and
sewer services, most of the development will be at lower
densities. Also, through large lot zoning, the rural
character may be somewhat preserved.

(c) Encourage the preservation of the County's natural resources.
All development should consider the potential effect it has
on the County's natural resources and insure maximum effec-
tive.utilization of public facilities and services. Some
resources that should be considered include: (1) wetlands,
(2) estuarine waters, (3) frontal dunes, (4) water supply
and (5) flood hazard areas. These land'development objec-
tives can be achieved through:

Emphasizing the importance of County land use regulations
(zoning ordinance, subdivision regulation, group housing
ordinance, Outer Banks land protection ordinance, and mobile
home park ordinance and flood plain regulation). These regu-
lations should be developed and adopted in accordance with
the stated objectives of this land development plan.

(3) Economic Objectives

To develop an effective program to provide better job opportunities,
and increase personal income for all citizens of Carteret County,
without significantly affecting the "traditional" way of life
so important to the citizens of Carteret County. It is hoped
this objective can be achieved by:

(a) Continued emphasis on tourism as a major source of income
for Carteret County. It should be noted that efforts should
be closely coordinated with all local governments and organi-
zations within the County involved in tourist related activi-
ties. These interests include:

2 2

1. Sport fishing,

2. hotel and motel services,

3. restaurants

4. retail stores relying basically on tourist business,
and

5. other retail interests and services that help support
these interests and other tourist related business
(for example the construction industry).

(b) Development of plans identifying areas to accommodate retail
trade and services for the expanding population of Carteret
Countyj and those who visit Carteret County. Land use regu-
lations should be coordinated with.the municipalities so
as to assure proper development of retail trade and services.

(c) Emphasize and encourage improved transportation facilities.
This includes highways and roads, the Beaufort-Morehead
Airport, and freight services within the County.

(d) Encourage and assist in providing improved navigational
channels in the County. This includes the Intracoastal
Waterway, the "Deep Water Channel" for the port, and other
service channels where economically justified. This will
improve all economic activities in the County including
commercial and industrial activities in general, and in
particular, the tourist industry.

(e) Encourage and promote the commercial fishing industry within
the County through:

1. Land management that will help preserve the productivity
of the estuarine waters within Carteret County.
Service Objectiv@s

Provide those services desired by the citizens of Carteret County
so as to improve the living conditions of all citizens of the
County.

(a) Encourage the development of a regional water and sewer plan
and its implementation.

(b) Encourage and strive for the development and improvement
of recreational opportunities and facilities for citizens
of all ages. This can be done through close attention to
the Carteret County Recreational Plan-and its proper imple-
mentation.

crossovers for access to beach areas. Where feasible, the
County, in cooperation with the towns, will attempt to
provide parking facilities at selected areas along Bogue
Banks with crossovers provided nearby. Crossovers are
inexpensive means of protecting the valuable dunes system
which protects the mainland during storm surges.30

It is noted that the plan does not directly address access issues. Recrea-
tion aspects are based on the 1114 County Park and Recreation Plan which
generally addresses traditional park and recreation problems but does not
show access to coastal waters as a significant issue. This may be a function
of the direction and/or constraints under which the plan was prepared, and
is not intended as a critical reflection.

Land use plans have been prepared for incorporated coastal communities.
Many of these communities have a variety of ordinances which may either
provide access or restrict access to residents. The ordinances, land use
plans and State Coastal Management Program identify existing conditions,
restrictions and potential opportunities for access related services and
facilities. These publications along with Brower's Access to the Nation's
Beaches provide legal and background information basic to beach access issues.

Responsibility for Providing Access

It shall be a proper function of the State of North Carolina. . .
to . . . preserve park, recreational and scenic areas, to control
* * *pollution of our area and water . . . and in every other appro-
priate way to preserve as a part of the herita e of this State
its forests, wetlands, estuaries, beaches . . .

Many agencies within state government in North Carolina have recreation-
related responsibilities, an indication that the state long ago assumed
responsibility for improvement of the general quality of life of its resi-
dents and the provision of leisure opportunities. Secti 'on 160A-351 of the
North Carolina General Statutes includes the statement, "the General Assembly
therefore declares that the public good and the general welfare of the
citizens of this state require adequate recreation programs, that the
creation, establishment, and operation of parks and recreation programs
is a proper governmental function, and that it is the * policy of North Caro-
lina to forever encoura e, foster, and provide these facilities and programs
for all its citizens".P

The above, a part of the Recreation Enabling Law, authorizes and enables,
rather than requires, this state and subordinate units of government to
engage in park and recreation functions.

30 Ibid.
31 1973 Amendment to the North Carolina Constitution.
32 GS 160A-351 of North Carolina General Statutes.

The state has evidenced commitment to beach access by its acquisition of
the Core Banks for transfer to the U.S. Government for use as a National
Seashore. Certainly much broader goals than merely beach access were in-
volved in this action. The state earlier accepted Fort Macon and adjacent
property as a gift from the U.S. Government; and accepted from the North
Carolina Education Association, Bear Island, now known as Hammocks Beach
State Park. Boat access areas are provided by the Wildlife Resources Commis-
sion; and both the Hampton Mariners Museum and Marine Resources Centers
provide interpretive-services related to coastal waters and provide water-
based recreation services to some extent. With minor exception, the state
has not acquired coastal lands by purchase; gifts have directed the acquisi-
tion policy of the state.

The state, administering several federal progra'ms, provides grants available
for use in a variety of applications which can be related to coastal water-
based recreations. State and federally funded bridge projects which link
Bogue Banks to the mainland, certainly enhance regional access and use of
coastal waters. Access to Cape Lookout National Seashore will be provided
by the federal government.

The Airport Marina in Beaufort is owned by Carteret County. Until July,
1979, the County leased the marina to a private operator. Except for the
marina and a few water-based recreation activities of the County Park and
Recreation Department, the county has not evidenced a serious concern toward
beach access. Termination of the lease on the airport marina is seen as
an attempt by the county to responsibly meet its commitment to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers for the provision of a public wharf at this loca-
tion; recreation developments are a desired adjunct. The recreation ele-
ment of the Carteret County Community Facilities Plan of 1969 has, in
general, not been implemented regarding facilities proposed. Certainly
the commitment by the county to undertake and partially fund a coastal
recreation access study indicates interest at the present time.

Except for the Town of Atlantic Beach, communities on Bogue Banks have
generally not seen the responsibility to provide beach or estuarine access
except to its own residents. The same is generally true of mainland communi-
ties, except as access is provided through commercial facilities. It is
assumed that the Beaufort and Morehead City boat ramps, both constructed
by the Jaycees, were designed to satisfy needs of local residents, and that
they were turned over to the Wildlife Resource$ Commission when it became
apparent that local.residents were not usually gaining benefits desired
during the peak tourist season. The Wildlife Resources Commission assumed
responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the Morehead City ramp
in 1971 and the Beaufort ramp in 1978.

Commercial establishments have assumed the responsibility of providing a
majority of ocean and estuarine access in Carteret County. Related to this

is the real es tate enterprise in the county, with most beach homes being
sold as recreational second homes, thus providing private access to those
who can afford it.

Federal,, state, county and local governments, as well as commercial and
private enterprise have a role to play in the provision of recreation oppor-
tunity. Governments, generally, do not participate in proprietary activities
with a profit making motive. The typical local government attempts to pro-
vide services to its own people. State and federal governments get involved
with those elements seen to be significant to them. Obviously there is
some overlapping, generally without conflict. Each level produces rules,
regulations, ordinances, statutes which are intended to protect those fea-
tures seen to be important to the respective clientele.

One unique feature of coastal communitiesis that recreation facilities
provided, whether public or commercial, have inclined to be of a scope which
will respond to the regional demand; this a likely spinoff of the need for
tourism dollars to support local economies. This is a legitimate action,
but should not be done at the expense of local residents who lose access
to the tourists. Unfortunately, SCORP shows beach access type facilities
to exist in excess of need in Carteret County. Five Hundred seventy-seven
acres exist with a need shown for only 291 acres. It is obvious that during
the summer season facilities are overtaxed in most instances with permanent
residents rather disadvantaged by the tremendous influx of non-resident
users and the pressure applied to existing public facilities. (See Appendix B.)

In attempting to resolve this problem, it was learned that North Carolina
Division of Parks and Recreation, in the SCORP planning process, is directed
not to propose gross needs for non-resident populations. It was reported
that non-resident and tourism concerns were the responsibility of the
Division of Travel and Tourism Development in the State Department of
Commerce. The Division of Travel and Tourism Development reports that theirs
is a responsibility for promoting travel and for promoting tourism; they
do not have an assigned responsibility of promoting facilities.33 As a
result, there is a void in this area of responsibility at the state level,
and local people do lose a considerable portion of their recreational access
during the tourist season.

Private Landowner Responsibility

Landowners who allow free recreation access uses are immune from tort liabi-
lity in accordance with the following:

33 Conversation with William Arnold, Director of Travel and Tourism
Development.

A LAW RELATING TO THE LIABILITY OF LANDOWNERS
TO HUNTERS, FISHERMEN, TRAPPERS, CAMPERS,
HIKERS AND OTHER RECREATION USERS

ection 1. Chapter 113, General Statutes of North Carolina, is hereby amended
by adding, following Article 10A thereof, a new Article, to be designated
S

Article 10B, and to read as follows:

Article 10B - Liability of Landowners to Authorized Users. Sec. 113-
120.5. Except as provided in Section 113-120.6, an owner, lessee,
occupant or person in control of premises who gives permission to
another to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, or for other recreational
use upon such premises does not thereby extend any assurance that the
premises are safe for such purpose, or that a duty of care is owed
or that he assumes responsibility for or incurs liability for any in-
jury to person or property caused by an ac@t of persons to whom the
permission is granted, nor to any person or persons who enter with-
out permission: Provided, that nothing contained in this Section
or Article shall be construed as limiting or nullifying the doctrine
of attractive nuisance as the same prevails in this jurisdiction.

Sec. 113-120.6. This Article does not affect the liability which
would otherwise exist for failure to guard, or to warn against a
dangerous condition, use, structure or activity; or for injury
suffered in any case where permission to hunt, fish, trap, camp,
hike or for other recreational use was granted for a consideration
other than the consideration, if any, paid to said landowner by
the State or paid by other governmental unit; or for injury caused,
by acts of persons to whom permission to hunt, fish, trap, camp,
hike,, or for other recreational use was granted, or to other per-
sons as to whom the person granting permission, or the owner, lessee,
occupant, or person in control of the premises, owed a duty to keep
the premises safe or to warn of danger.!

Sec. 113-120.8. As used in this section the word 'premises' in-
cludes lands, waters, and private ways and any buildings and struc-
tures on such lands, waters, and private ways.

Section 2. All laws and clauses of laws in conflict with the provisions
of this Act are hereby repealed.

Section 3. This Act shall be in full force and effect from and after Us
ratification. The legislation, as printed, became law April 26, 1963.3

34 Reprint from North Carolina Recreation Review, Volume 8, Number 2.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement Prepared on Amendments to the
North Carolina Coastal Management Program, the North Carolina State Com-
Erehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan,, and the North Carolina Water Resources
Framework Study all identify state policies regarding the provision of
adequate public beach access. In addition, the State of North Carolina
Coastal Management Program and draft Environmental Impact Statement iden-
tified state policies on recreation and tourism, including beach access and
the following state policy: "(5) to plan and promote recreational develop-
ments in these areas, with emphasis upon making the seashore areas of North
Carolina attractive to permanent residents".35 However, "it is state policy
that the responsibility of insuring that the public can obtain adequate
access to public trust resources for the ocean, sounds, rivers and tribu-
taries is primarily that of local governments to be shared and assisted by
State and Federal Government."36 Coastal counties with relatively small
populations are not accommodated by this policy.

In spite of the conflict in interest and gap in responsibility in state
programs, that ocean beach and estuarine waters are located in Carteret
County requires Carteret County to recognize its responsibilit@ in attempt-
ing to protect its very finite supply of beach area. Much of this has been
acquired by the State of North Carolina and Federal Government as Cape
Lookout National Seashore, recognizing a federal interest and federal need
and not seen to be within the need to be supplied by Carteret County. With
the exception of Cape Lookout National Seashore, all state parks and natural
areas within the coastal counties have been acquired in response to gifts
from the federal government or private agency or individual. Planning,
preservation and provision of recreation facilities has been after the
fact.

Carteret County, with the exception of the Airport Marina which was leased
for operation, does not own or operate any areas with access to water. it
would seem the county should exercise responsibility for improving access
to its residents, particularly those who live away from beach areas and
those who live in unincorporated beach areas. It would appear also that
the county, as a tourist area, should assume some responsibility to assist
in preserving and allocating other beach and water access areas for use by
other residents of North Carolina and the United States.

35 U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Office of Coastal Zone Management,
State of N.C. Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, p. 110.
36 U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Office of Coastal Zone Management,
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Prepared on Amendments to the
N.C. Coastal Management Program, Washington, D.C., Jan. 1979, pp. 18
and 19. 28

I`Iij,
@14

Bogue Pier

::@, r-7

State Ferry Landing, Cedar Island

Jaycee Park, Beaufort

"T-

Beaufort Waterfront
0-7 -x-i@

SECTION IV

ACCESS - RELATED LOCAL ISSUES

0
Promoting Tourism
People on vacation are looking for -Carteret residents should make a
new places, new experiences, new commitment to tourism if they favor it,
perspectives. All this,- dind more, can be he said. If they oppose it, they should
-found here. enact zoning ordinances and other,
This holds true for those who come restrictions to prevent undesirable
here for *the first time as well as for development. "They should get it the
those who conti nue to return year after way they want, or take steps to prevent
year to spend time here in their vacation it, 7' he said.
'home. Mr. Arnold's observation has been an
This is the attraction of Carteret undercurrent in this county for some
County. It offers beaches -- crowded or time. This. county has a loit to-offer-in its
iincrowded - all types of saltwater sun and Ond, giviog it undeniable-an-
peal. But ti) 'What degree'
recreation, hunting, golf and tennis and qh9uld it - the
'unique cultural authenticity found in the county'Riff its @ip`pe'a'L-@ be eipioitedl
people, their heritage and their habits. Once an area decides to attract tourists,
Tourism is the county's largest it implicitly concedes the right to be ex-
b,usiness. The spiraling tourist dollar ef-- ploited.
fects every business in the county, This issue has already been addressed
directly or indirectly. to some degree in the defeat of the 1976
But our commitment to tourism, or to convention center bond referendum and
developing it, is being questioned. Bill in the recent defeat o 'f the mixed drink
Arnold, state director. of travel and referendum. And it poses a paradox for
tourism who was in Morehead City last us. We say we want industry. But. do we,?
week to speak at a meeting of the Travel It has already been shown that we don't
Council of North Carolina's new Region want heavy industry, industry that
IIA, - said this county is lagging behind might pollute. "Light," non-polluting in-
Wilmington and possibly the Outer dustry is fine. Does tourism qualify? - -
Banks area in developing its tourist By its very appeal, this county has a
trade because of "some schi 'zophrenia natural wealth. Some of it has been
about whether tourism is wanted." tapped. We must now decide whether
He said that most of the opposition to the social and ecological costs of
tourism here seems to come from peo-' tourism can be balanced by the benefits
ple' who have moved to an attractive of economic prosperity that the industry
ifea, and do not want it to change. He may bring. If we agree that it should,
siiid the attitude of Wilmington is that if the political question othow"ban' then be
they don't take the intitiative in develop- addressed.'
ing tourism, an outsidef will do it in a
way they don't like.

Reprinted from April 30, 1979, Carteret County News-Times

Local Issues

In discussing Carteret County environment, it is important that the human
environment serve as the base; the physical environment, the natural scene,
is related to social and economic aspects. Primary concern of this study
is to serve local residents. To serve them best is to retain pleasant
living conditions; the natural character of the coastal environment is the
principal amenity; the rich history and cultural traditions appear to run
a close second, Although most enjoy life in the County, several issues
have been verbalized by residents. It seems that the impact of tourism
is felt more than any other access issue. A variety of comments have been
heard as follows:

"Our family stays away,from "the beach" (Atlantic Beach) during
the summer."

"After Labor Day we get our beach back."

"On weekends I can't launch my boat because so many outsiders
come in."

IlBecause there is limited opportunity for industrial development,
we need to promote tourism as much as we can."

"The best thing you could propose is to blow up the bridges leading
into Carteret County."

"I live-in Pine Knoll Shores and can't get out on the road from
Friday night until Sunday night."

A local voluntary committee, the "Citizens Action and Awareness Group,"
has drafted and is discussing a "Quality of Life Statement" which identi-
fies local concerns:

The present life style in Carteret County is highly regarded by
the majority of citizens. There is concern that unbridled com-
mercialization, development, industrialization, population growth
and other factors may be proposed, or accepted as accomplished
to constituents unprepared to assess long term benefits vs. ad-
C3
verse effects. While change is as natural as life itself, an
informed citizenry is obligated to be aware of arbitrarily im-
posed actions which may produce side effects unsatisfactory to
a large segment of the present population. Proposed changes
must be examined critically if there is real or suspected threat
to safety, health, clean environment, water supply, land, wet-
lands, beaches, natural resources, and to economic stability,
or if there is concern that elected officials, their appointees,
and the laws, regulations and ordinances which constitute their
guidelines are failing to provide the required safeguards. Full
support should be given changes achieved through careful evalua-

tions if legally sound, and which offer every chance of enriching
the lifestyle of the majority, affording greater prosperity, more
and better jobs, improved living conditions and social benefits.1

It is feared that the quality of life is threatened, the friendliness of
small town life, ability to find a job, rear a family and enjoy life close
to the sea.

It is readily apparent that all desires relating to recreation access cannot
be accommodated. It is also apparent that maximum promotion of tourism
will further damage recreation.opportunities for local residents. Many
people in the county, however, do not realize the extent to which tourism
is important for the economic health of the county. Continued access for
residents to waters within and surrounding the county needs to be maintained
in order that coastal waters continue to enhance leisure time life in the
county, for both residents and tourists.

Additional public and private or commercial developments of a major scale
will generate additional tourism, and will further constrain or limit local
uses. Increases in local populations and summer residents will also result
in more use. Transportation facilities into the county and to Bogue Banks
will be further overloaded as well. Increases in the local economy will
result, but some will benefit more directly than others.

Many feel present law enforcement systems are not adequately able to handle
summer crowds. Many feel that emergency evacuation opportunities, the re-
verse of access, are not presently adequate to allow cautious people to
obtain safety away from coastal areas in the event of quickly developing
severe storms.

Instances have been cited of public-private incompatibility in coastal
areas. At times of high tide, it is possible that people walking along
the beaches are trespassing on private property, yet there are many cases
where landowners allow access over their private property. "If lenient
landowners change their attitude about access across their property, things
would be considerably worse," was the comment of a local resident. Local
young people desiring to seek access for surfing or swimming or for other
purposes have learned of the locations of paths over the dunes where they
will not be challenged by landowners for trespassing. Many of the fishing
piers allow access to view the ocean or for using ocean beaches, without
strictly enforcing parking for pier patrons only. Some pier owners do not
seek enforcement of the county ordinance prohibiting surfers from within
500 feet of the piers. Others have reportedly been much more severe in
action against those who have "invaded their space". Occasionally surfers,
surf fisherman, and swimmers compete for the same space. At times large
numbers of fishing boats in the Morehead harbor are seen to be a potential
problem to shipping and other boating activity. There is need on both
sides for respecting the rights of others in order that court battles do
not ensue.

1 "Discussion Outline, 1-23-79 Meeting, 7:30 P.M., Beaufort, N.C."
Citizens Action and Awareness Group. 33

There are many other examples of conflicts, many between different types of
users; sailing interferes with water skiing; commercial fishing and sport-
fishing are seen to be competitors by some. Four wheel drive vehicles are
seen by many as being inappropriate for beach areas; heavy use times such
as on Easter and Memorial Day weekends prior to the June 1 prohibition of
ORV's produces the most complaints.

In general, it appears that local issues revolve around three topics:

(1) Economic - how to maximize economic benefits;

(2) Social - how to maintain the present way of life;

(3) Environmental - how to enhance cultural and natural resources.

Environmental Protection Issues

Environmental quality in Carteret Couaty is seen to be presently of quite
high quality. A current study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service com-
pares chemical content of black crowned night heron eggs with those col-
lected from an area on the Rhode Island coast considered to be relatively
polluted. About 350,000 acres of estuarine waters in the State are closed
to shell fishing, but at last count only 5,387 acres of County estuarine
waters was closed, this of an estimated 296,050 acres of estuarine waters
in the County.

Mr. Robert Benton of the N.C. Department of Human Resources, speaking at
an Environmental Resources Commission meeting in Beaufort on May 3, 1979,
reported several instances where pollutants are being introduced to county
waters from a variety of sources, including waste water treatment plants,
inadequate septic systems, agricultural runoff, fish houses, and some boat
discharges.

A "Capacity Use-Area" has been identified in the eastern part of the county
as a generalized condition of water depletion associated with phosphate
mining further north. William Jeter, hydrologist with the Natural Resources
and Community Development field office in Washington, North Carolina, in-
dicates, however, that the Carteret County area is not affected by this
condition, that the capacity use area boundary defined earlier may have
been too broad. Mr. A. D.-Fulford, County Sanitarian, has indicated that
some problem does exist in water supply with water level dropping in some
wells. Others have reported that water pressure in Atlantic Beach is very
low on heavy use weekends.

Heavy influxes of people strain utility systems. Should there be salt water
intrusion into wells as a result of excessive pumpage, or if the sounds
become polluted and damage the nursery grounds for fin fish and shellfish

or create other undesirable conditions, many recreational uses would be
adversely affected. Ground water supplies are seen to be adequate to
accommodate needs in the foreseeable future, but a regional water supply
system may improve conditions assuring a continued supply to beach areas.
Some feel that no more tourism or visitation to the area should be promoted
until waste water treatment capacity has improved. Dr. Dan Okun in the
Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of North Carolina
is conducting a coastal water management study expected to be completed
by the summer of 1979, which studied Dare and Carteret Counties for waste
water options and costs. He feels septic tanks are a mistake 2 and that no
waste water effluent should be discharged in estuarine areas. He feels the
best option for the County will be an ocean outfall, with all waste water
collected at one point. He feels there would be no damage to the ocean if
located somewhat further out than the Carteret County 201 Plan proposed.3
For the purpose of his study he used population projections of about 100,000
persons. It is generally considered, however,,.,that an increase in waste
water treatment capacity will have the effect of inducing additional popu-
lation increases.

Intensive uses of man on the land disturb natural processes. Non-structural
uses of the beach seaward of the high tide line is an exception to this.
The action of waves and tides continually renew wet sand areas, thus allowing
very intensive use of this narrow corridor. The same is not true for the
dry sand areas, the frontal dunes and secondary dunes; nor for the shrub
thickets and maritime forest. Development on barrier islands should be
placed as lightly on the land as possible, with an attempt made to create
the least amount of change in the landscape, in order that the island sur-
vive as long as possible.

Beach erosion is seen by natural scientists to be a natural process of move-
ment landwar:d, rather than an erosion process which typically has been
accelerated by man on the land. The continued availability of access to
coastal waters is dependent upon the continued existence of natural features
of the coastal landscape. Inlets move, overwashes occur, new inlets are
formed, sand continually moves both in the water and on the dunes. The
cost of stopping or-delaying or "correcting" these processes can be very
expensive. Pilkey's How to Live With an Island specifically identifies
environmental problems related to Bogue Banks.' At least one resident of
Carteret County has indicated his feeling that the publication is an attempt
by Pilkey to ignite controversy. It seems to be an objective view that the
book is factual.. Problems Pilkey identifies appear to be the result of the
desire for coastal access, to some extent accelerated by developers. A view
of this process is proposed by Robert Tennenbaum, ". . The developer simply
responded to market opportunities in his search for profit, an integral part
of the American capitalist system." The desire to create a family beach
atmosphere on most of Bogue Banks should have the result of providing ulti-
mately less use of the ocean beach than would the banks in public or commer-
cial ownership.

2 Personal Conversation of 3/5/79.
3 Henry von Oesen and Associates, and Wm. F. Freeman Associates, Carteret
County Complex 201 Facility Plan, n.d. (1975).
4 Orrin H. Pilkey Jr et al, How to Live With an Island: A Handbook to
Bogue Banks, N.6. D@k. of Natural & Economic Resources,-Raleigh, N.C.,
-1975. 35

Continual use of even one foot path over the dunes will have the potential
result of eliminating the dune. The island is fragile. Intensive develop-
ment such as that at Indian Beach, or development on areas of previous or
potential overwashes and inlets, construction of roads perpendicular to
the beach, and other actions could, in time of a serious stom, induce damage
which would have the effect of, temporarily at least, reducing access op-
portunities, and could result in disaster relief and/or flood insurance
payments of massive proportion.

Estuarine areas have aspects which are likewise of environmental importance.
To many people "clam kicking" will ultimately destroy production of shell-
fish as well as reduce propagation of finfish and shrimp, and reduce the
protection marshes provide to adjacent land. Too much access will eliminate
bird rookeries found in estuarine waters.

Regarding most surface uses of open waters in the estuary, James Brown,
of the State Division of Marine Fisheries,, feels that an unlimited amount
of recreational use can be allowed. Excessive wave action in narrow reaches
would accelerate damage in areas of bulkheading and fragile estuarine shore-
lines. It is assumed that this and safety needs have precipitated "no wake"
zoning, although zoning would be appropriate in any area of congested boating.

Implementation and enforcement of Carteret County ordinances relating to
land protection, dunes vehicle control; the Carteret County Land Use Plan
and Coastal Area Management Act, as well as local municipality counterparts
will assist in meeting the general public need for protection of environ-
mental features. Responsible private action will assist in maintaining
public access to public lands and waters.

jra
1, RAI

Sailing and Motorboating off Radio Island

SECTION V

SUPPLY PRESENT ACCESS AND USE

Most of the southern ocean shoreline in Carteret County is
privately owned. There are a number of public access points
in the Fort Macon State Park area and the municipality of
Atlantic Beach. Public access is also available at some
of the private lots, piers and illegally used foot paths
(leading from Salter Path Road to the beach). The county
neither owns nor manages these points. The majority of
the access points, both private and public have very limited
public service facilities and parking and have been estab-
lished only on paper, hence, have not been marked as being
public access points. A few walkways and ramps over the
frontal dune have been provided but the majority of the
points do not have them.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce NOAA, Office
of Coastal Zone Manage;ent, Draft
Environmental Impact Statement Prepared
on Amendments to the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program, Washington,
D.C., 1979.

mass
SEEN

"e4' 01
"'e4
'n,

0".
4

Access Using Private Lands

The problem of how to get to the ocean and sounds has been identified as
that of securing access to the coastal area,, and that of transporting oneself
the short distance from the public road to the public beach.

Regional Access

State highways provide the principal access for regional visitors to the
county: Highways 70, 24, 53, and 101. Inter-city bus transportation is
available, again using major highways. The intracoastal waterway and navi-
gation channels with additional minor waterways, provide ingress and egress
for a small number of visitors.

The Beaufort-Morehead Airport manager, Craig Willis, reports that more than
fifty private planes are.used by people vacationing in the county; rental
cars and taxies are available for local transportation. The commuter
airlines, Wheeler Airlines, reportedly discontinued service to the County
because of inadequate business. Piedmont Airlines offers limited service
to Jacksonville and New Bern, within reach of the County, but not convenient
enough to induce visitation to Carteret County attractions. An airport
study considering future expansion is underway. "Airport planning is essen-
tial" according to the Carteret County Land Use Plan prepared by the North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission.1

The Southern Railway system also serves the area, but does not provide
passenger service.

Local Access

Local congestion on state highways and local streets is obvious to the
visitor and frustrating to the resident at busy times. Beaufort residents
report that it takes one hour to get to Atlantic Beach, with traffic some-
times backed up for six blocks west from the intersection to the bridge
at 28th Street and Arendell Street in Morehead City. Highway 70 traffic
from the west has the same problem, with traffic reportedly regularly backing
up at least to the Plaza Shopping Center; at very busy times the line has
extended two miles west.2 Local streets are also occasionally congested
in Harker's Island, Cape Carteret, and the Cedar Point Area, as well as
that expected in the more populated areas.

The North Carolina Department of Transportation Carteret County Transportation
Plan of 1111 has not been implemented. Morehead City, which reports a traffic
increase of 30 percent between 1963 and 1973, has a "sketch thoroughfare
plan" which is expected to be completed shortly. Completion of the Salter
Path Road will improve some aspects of travel on Bogue Banks, but is con-
stricted by traffic at Atlantic Beach "circle" and at the two bridges to

I N.C. Coastal Resources Commission, Coastal Area Ranagement Act Land Use
Plan, Carteret County, N.C., Raleigh, N.C., 1978.
2 From 6/26/79 conversation with Major Condie of Morehead City Police
Department.
38

the mainland. Access to both the Morehead City and Beaufort waterfront
areas is accomplished by using local streets which are quite constricted
and unable to handle the potential volume of traffic generated by the water-
front attractions. Mayor Dixon of Morehead City would like their waterfront
area studied, designed and developed to better serve visitors to the area.3
The two waterfront areas, along with Fort Macon State Park and the Atlantic
Beach amusement area, constitute the major destination points for recreation
traffic.

Local Access for Recreation Uses

Most access for water-related recreation use is provided by commercial faci-
lities. It is expected this supply will continue as long as the market
holds up and as long as uses of the land continue to be seen by the owners
as the highest and best use for their respective properties. However,
those desiring simple access to water cannot depend entirely for their access
by the use of commercial or privately owned property; uses are likely to
change.

A wide variety of recreation uses require access: power boating and water
skiing, use of small boats and canoes, sailing, fishing, swimming, surfing,
scuba and skin diving, shelling, birding, nature observat@on, hiking or
jogging along the beach, four wheel drive or off road vehicle use, enjoying
vistas and visual uses, securing "wilderness" experience at remote places,
picnicking, camping, hunting, and possible other uses.

Access for recreational use of Cape Lookout National Seashore, is not in-
cluded in the scope or responsibility of this inventory, even though many
county residents use Core Banks and Shackelford Banks for family recreation.
Fort Macon State Park was also identified as being outside the scope of
this study, but the inventory does include Fort Macon facilities because
of their ease of access and importance to the non-boating public and to
the less affluent.

The Coastal Beach Access Inventory prepared-by the office of Coastal Manage-
ment staff and the inventory prepared by staff of the Division of Parks
and Recreation'which lists all recreation areas in Carteret County, were
used as the basis for inventory of access points. Additional minor access
points include private lands used by trespassing; highway right-of-ways
providing access for boat mooring, car top launching; and fishing or sun
bathing near bridges. Another type of access is that provided by the State
Port in allowing visitations to the port, when staff personnel are available
as guides.

An interesting opportunity is offered by the Sylvia II with tours of the
sound allowing passengers to take part in and experience the work of a small
commercial fishing boat, at the same time gaining information and apprecia-

3 Personal conversation 3/15/79.

t4on of local cultural and natural history. The vessel is docked near the
Taylor Boat works on Peltier Creek. Interpretation of "privateering" by
experience sailing on the Meka II out of Beaufort is another unique type
of recreation access available. Local head boats and 46 sport fishing
vessels provide additional access to the ocean. Recently added harbor tours
provide relatively low cost narrated scenic tours. Commercial businesses
in Atlantic Beach provide a variety of other types of access opportunities.

Some of the parking at Beaufort Launch Ramp July 4, 1979

VON
S I Te- I

*V0-
Whe

Fort Macon State Park Beach, July 8, 1979

0 U)
P ro (1) 1 Q) Cd U) U) P 0 1 CO EO 4 0)
0 -1 4-J CO @4 (1) "0 u "0 0 - LI-4 4-4 'ri a) 0 -W
w 4-4 :@ P4 0 H CO M )-4 -H P Q) -H U M U CO
ri 0 0 -H cc -4 0 "0 U) bo 1.4 P 0) Cd (3) :@ U)
60 'r. P P to -44 0 o @Q 0 10 (1) 0 r. 0) Cj a) 4-4 D' 4J
V) PL4 " 0 Pq -H @O 0 lao (1) rj rj a) 0 CO r-@ -H a) ca
En -H @D 44 C14 Q) 4-4 @4 -S& A '-i ro o
a) P u U) P 10 4.4 R: -r-f 0 P r. En 0 "0 P 10 '0 @Q
P 0 M P z U) 11c) ;j a) -H 0 4-J 4-4 Cd 0 H (i M Q) r-@
44 9 M .'j @O -- P EO 4J 0 r-@ 0 H 0 M @4 M 4.J 4-J
0 04 M U 4--j En Cd -H r-) w U Q) 10 4-j 'v - bc CO 0 ul
0 1 P P 0 ro P o Cd CO ro a) a) M 1-1 EO 0 P-1 r4 0
w --1 0 w 0 W W a) r. -H U T-@ CO I:$ -H 0
4.3 0 0 M ;> ri CO a) M
U) CO 0 0 t4-4 P 0 41 4J 0 4J (1) 0 @4
0 Lr) 0 cc 0) -H Cd H J-. 0) 0 LH 0 Cd -r-I 0 :j CO 0 0 0
[- 0 0 U 0 @4 U 04 0 z rz: @4 0 1 4-4
Public Restrooms P4 >4 x >4 x X1 Ix xIX 1 >4
Nature Observation x x >4
Ficknicking x x x x
Surfing x
Swimming >4 x x x >4 >4 >4 >4 x x x >4 x
Fishing >4 >4 x >4
Camping w/Water Access
Scenic Vista x Ix x x >4 x >4 x
Cartop Launch Site x
Small Boat Access, H r-I
of Ramps
ORV (4-WD) Access x
0 0 (t 0 0 0 0 0 Ln 0 0 0 00 0 0
En Parking Capacity M M Ln 000 r--I 1@0 00 LO M 00 Ln M

Sound/River Location x x >4 X x x x x
Ocean-side Location X. >4 x >4 Ix x x
Q) -W
0

CO
@4 U) Q) M
0 0 w
w P.
zcld
En w Q) 0
0 bc -L4 u H -W
4-J Q) 10 H u
0 4J w PL4 4j
0 H -H 0
4.J w 4-1 4-4
rI 0 rq 9 rI P-1 M
En 4-)W H P-4 0 P-4 0 10
go w u 41 H H P-4 u >) w A P@ En Q)
r-A 0 ro M Q) ca " @4 w 0
w r. a) rq Q) r-q -H 4J 4J
M Cd Pq 4A W 1 4 0 4 EO
0) r-@ 0 M 4-4 0 H En -H
w H 4J w u 44 M
a) 0 a) -H 0 0 @4
'rj 0 4J a) -ri 10 P;q P-4 A, 0
41.0 z a) 10 N T-q
-W a) -W 4-1 0 4j "i ca a) @4
'4 H 0 H " M w 9 H 0 0 Ca P@4
0 0 ru k -rq Q) 0 r-I P 0 41 to ro En
0 Z' a) 0 En P u P@ " o P to 0 a) x
I Pq J@d P4 P@4 H 0 En @E: H Pq u U

z r-I C*4 CY) -IT Lr) %D r-I CO M 1-4 ?.-4 1-4
.14 -:4 `44 -4
0 Cn I,::,

ca 4-) -H (1)
6 CLO @4 Cl)
co @4 -r4 r.4
ca tc cd
U) 0) 0 .@> @4 P 0 C bc 10 P Ea (1) U) @4 - U) 4 EM
ca 0 41 P" -W Z w H H m w t 10 -H a) 0 Q) m 0 m w 0 w
cd In r. 0 b4 P 0, a r-I -W 0 bo En P 0 C-) Q) 44 4J C) Ct U
P. a) a) -ri P P4 Ef) ca Cd 0 0 to tj llc@ U) () (1)
rj P., "0 > rq M - -H 4j r-4 -ri = 0 -H CU cl U) (L) ca Pq
ca w 0 P r@ -H 0 P@ 0 @3: r7k P :>N -14 tc bc "0 0 U) 0
Cl) H 0 P, - a P 0 . 0 r-i U) P r-i H bjD r. (1)
4J 9 P4 92@ 0 w 0 0 a) P4 r. P4 cd r-I Ca bC 4-J WU
U) En f@ Cd $4 41 r@ (u - r. o CA 0. cd -4 cd 0 C.) I@d H rq -H
-H (1) = 0 (1) cd a) Q) cd U) P4 -r-I a) @D Ej ca $4 f5 r. 10 P P $4
Pr4 En "0 @4 I= -0 4-) @3: @4 &J Q) 41 Ch -H P 41 'd 41 4j r
0 0 cc CO CO r-q - - Q) Pr4 cd ca 10 r-i 0 9 m co
0 r-q P "0 cc 41 .0 Q) 4w ;>) P. a) I -H ca ro Q) 4)
u U) 4-4 u 0 a) 4 U) 0 10 P P 0 10 co Q) ro ro
coo 0 rij P., ol OL) ri) z
ri) P 0) -H 4.) CU 0 (1) P u 0 w 0 a)
P4 F-I P4 F-I z En r--l Z b.:D 4J, In > z P-1 0 E-41 0 @4 P4 44 P-(
Nature Observation >41
SwiTnming/Sunbathing >4 X X
Fishing X >4 1>4 Ix x >4
Camping
Scenic Vista
Small Boat Access
>4 X
ORV (4-WD) Access
Approx.
P4 u) Ln Ln Ln Ln CD Ln C) 0 C) CD LO >@ LO 0 C) Ln Ln I
Parking Capacity r--q 04 N H
Q) Sound/River X XIx >4 X @4 >4 >4 >4 X X X X X X X >4
VI X X X x, X
Ocean-side Location

"0 0
P4 H 0
A H H w ca 4
ci @4 rq Iz 1; a) co r-I
En U) @a P X CL) Q) co
-H C%4 4 a) Pq PCI
P@ Cd bO 0 w @4
H z 4 0 u 13 U14
co -14 P r z H H 0 :j
z 41 4-1 P A-) @4 14 4J 0
-H (3) @4 rcj P D) ca rl:j 41 ca 0 -&j P
4 co P. P a) -ri 0 P co H ca U) tc
0 (L) P Z a) Q) 0 C) 4J P P I r-I
bc P Pq ,4 (s) 0 4-J En U L) 4-1 r.
P-1 10 u 4-1 P 0 00 r-I -4 9
@-N r.4 Q) 94 u Ic En 10 4-J U
to cid ND 0 (1) 4-1 a) ca
cli r-q
a) 0 Pq w 0 10 -W A 14 @4 -0 0 r-I 0 >1
0 r-i 0) 41 W 4@4 -ri P I a) P ca C*4 ca P 0 0 P P
(D w P 1-4 >) m 0 H 0 "0 (3) co Q) 1--, 0 A 0 0 0)
4-) H U H CO 9 @: Pq 4-4 H 0 P N rr. r-@ r-i A 41
Q) H cz 44 Q) - 0 a) 0 Q) a) CO) U) 0 0 @O 4J
cu V) P u) 4.4 Q) 0 Ea 0 Ea 4-4 4 H tc w 0 u 0 C)
tv -H 0 En 41 En ,-, -W a) 4) P 0 ITJ 0 0 Cd co (1)
9 Pq (1) 0 P @4 @q 1-4
0 @4 cd 0 4) 'a rj (1) v a
44 0 En a) a) 0 4-4 En u ca 0) cl W 0 4-1 E-1 @4 U 0 :J Pq m
4J 0 a) � $4 U) PA 0 r-I 0
ri 0 U 1.4 J@ 0 :3; M 4J 4J u 4J 0 tH PQ
P rj 4J 0
0 10 60 LH 0 0 En 4-4 4-4 0 a) 4-) 114 a) a)
Q) (a) 0 4J o ('V EO) 0 0 a) -H U) (1) t@C CLC 44 4-4 (1) 4J
>% 41 En P@ a) >, 44 -0 4-4 P u lizi (1) 1:; 10 0 0 0 -0 41 Cd
Q) 10 41 (1) W H 0 a) a) 0 U P -ri -ri P@ 0 EO
410
U 0 4J rtj -H -r4 '0 r@ CO Pq Pq 00,
co m 0 44 " U) m H a) 4-J 0
P4 @c cd u @; @: w a) .'r'- P14 Q) 4 IH 4 (1) u IT It
co V3 cd 10 t4 -0 41 ?3z a) 4-1 4-1 Q) Q) -ri 04 Cl 4J 4-3 H Ai I@j
4J co tc tc H CO @ - P U) W P P r-@ ul U) Cd 0 4-J CO
o -H 0 -ti 0 M H 0 4-t 0 4-j cd U U cd a) P @j 0 0
U) U) 44 N Pq En 0 U) u Z Z Pq 9
E-4 0 c-4 I.Cl Lr) -D r- oo c7N c) H c,4 cn
V) %D rl (10 r-q r-q r-q r-I r@ r-I r-I r-I cq N 04 N
1 4 t '0. Pq, P,
z Pq Pq m PA Pq Pq Pq P P q 4 Pq
@4 Piq Piq Pn

Public Lands/Easements Generally Restricted to Local Residents
Because of No Parking or No Access Identification

Map
Key Access Site. Uses Comments
C-1 Club Colony, Atlantic Beach; Pedestrian Ocean Beach
5 Easements Access No Parking Allowed
C-2 Atlantic Beach, 6 Road Ends Pedestrian Ocean Access No Parking Allowed
C-3 Ocean Ridge (E. of Atlantic
Beach); I Easements Pedestrian Ocean Access No Parking Allowed
C-4 Pine Knoll Shores ( 2 Parks) Parking and Pedestrian Owned by Homeowners Assoc.;
Access to Ocean Beach. Resident Parking only.
Internal Access to Sound Residents only
C-5 Hoffman Beach (E. of Salter
Path); 5 - 10' Easements Pedestrian Ocean Access No Parking Available
C-6 Emerald Isle Easements
1100' of development) Pedestrian Ocean Access No Parkin&_Allowed.
C-7 Cape Carteret Boat Launch
Areas (3) Boat Access to Sound No Parking Allowed.

Private Lands Regularly Used for Ocean Beach Access Without Permission
Key Access Site Owner, if own* Comments/Uses
D-1 Old Road West of "A Place at Habib Engineering Contrac- ORV, Pedestrian Access;
the Beach" Condominiums, ting_C6., Ltd. Much unregulated use-
D-2 Trail Opposite Croatan Trailer H. Morrison Johnston, et al,
Park
D-3 Trail Opposite Fast Fare Philip R. Taylor
D-4 Trail Approx. 200 yards East Edith C. Lumpkin, et al.
of Whaler Inn Pedestrian Access only
_D-5 Trail Approx. 100 Yards West of Frances Webb Roosevelt
Iron Steamer Pier Much unregulated use
D-6 Trail Approx. 1 Mile West of ORV, Pedestrian; Room for
Ramada Inn T.R. Roosevelt, et al. 10 Cars; Unregulated Use.
D-7 Trail off Old Highway at Walter C. Latham Room for 5 Cars;Pedestrian
Indian Beach access.
D-8 Trail Approx. 150 Yards West of ORV, Pedestrian access.
Indian Beach Trail (D-7) Walter C. Latham
D-9 2 Trails in Undeveloped Area Luther B. Fletcher, et al. ORV, Room for 10 Cars; Much
Between Bogue Pier and Islander Unregulated Use.
Motel
D-10 Clearing Immediately East of ? ORV, Room for,10 Cars; Wire
Islander Motel barricade regularly cut and
-posted siEns disregarded.
D-11 Trails about 1 Mile East of Am. Classic Ind. and Lewi.s ORV, Room for 15 Cars; Some
Bdgue Inlet R. Holding dune destruction from ORV's:
D-12 Area East of East End of Inlet Section Fifty-One OR Access
Drive Association

Source: Carteret County Tax Collector Records

a)
@4 r-i
0 r-@
0 r-i Q) U) En
9L co u U) En

>) U u
P u L) rKj
0) H a) ":4 -C4 r4
ri) > ca
41 rc$ I ul
r. (1) En 4-1
U3 CO @4 0 0 H
Q) o co r@4 1@d
u r-i P-4 0 0 CA P$
0 U u 0 0 . . .
u co 1 1-4 1-4 H H
bo Cd
0 (u 0, Cal ca co
1P4 Pq r-i L) u
of Launch Ramps N N Ir-q r-i q IN IN -i I I N q H I N I I I IH r-i r-i
Approx. Ln 0 C) 0 0 LO 00 in W) 0 C) L.n kn 0 Ln 0 V) Ln Ln Ln
N N N N N -4 r-q N cn N r-4 N
Parking Capacity
Approx.
Wet Storage Ln 0 0 0 C) V) 0 in 0 0 Ln C) N N C) 0 aN 0 V) 0
N N cn N r@ N N N N V) Llt r-l H m M
Capacity
Approx.
Dry Storage 0 C> 0 0 0 C3 0 C) 0 Ln Ln LO
H V) N 00 1.0 N H %-0 N
C
a r-q
a2 citY Ln C)

I= 14 0
@4 U) @4
w P H 0
1-14 w w 0 w 0 A
w @4 a) 44 Pq Pq 4 44 4J W W
14 - 0 cu P :3 u ci 0 H
'TJ P P :> u m u u ca m 0
0 0 bc 44 . a) r4 rq m a) Q)
m 14 PL P4 w Pq w 0 PA Pq -H -H -H :3: 0
a) r-l P i P I m 4 c . ;>)U u u H
H m w X 0 10 u 0 u 41 Z r-l 4-4 0
r. = u 41 u m r__l U P W 'rq 'ri 'ri J:@ "0 @U P 0 0 ra
4-1 .,q - :3 a) 41 -H 0 W 41 " u 0 M CO 0 P (a 0
0 H P C; '00 0 C; C: 4 41 Pq 0 9 a) Q) (L) Q Q) P4 r-4
En L) co U) a) ca ca 0 4 lz A P u P9 q
Cj Z .0 CO 0 P @4 U) r--i P-@ M W W W (1)
10 M rq Q) ri - ri 0 00 CO r-i -H " " W P H H 4-1
(1) U) C: -w u 1@4 10 P IL P 4-1 '0 Pq C.) 4j 0 0 0 4.j tv En
0 Q) u 0 0 P r. ca cd H (A r, r. z z z 1.4 cd -ri 44
L) u r. cd cz z cz H cj) cc A U) 0
H P P4 W Pq r-1 il CO 0 - C) ca rc:
ca C6 H
E, 10 Pq ci u Cd W @4 U) U) M CO P Pq U
C@ bc 0 41 co r. L) Q) -Y P.
0 U) 0 F-f CO r. HEn @-4 -H En P -W 14
H C; 41 P 4 w w 0 0 r!4 cd
r. r--j 0 1P >) M @4 ci @3: Q) P P U t64 -4
co r-1 R >@
w 0 (1) H C.) Q) -H M0 41 ;m co Cj 4j -@H W 4J C) 0 CO r-4
A 41 P m lb4 41 9 41 H P@ rq . z 41 1 4.) k -rl ;j 41
. @El .9 ,0 Pq 0 4 0
ca 0 0 0 En ::j 0 r, En u En (1) CO P M CO U U P cl
[a H ca z cd ;E: A H cr) Q) 0 -a) ;Ez 0 0 0
PCI 0 En P4 4
(1) (a '0 qj W t)z u u z @c w 10 P
U) r-l 0 4.) Z cz ca co cd -r4 H. 41 H P ca 0
(1) r-i (n to 1-4 k 0 0 Q) a) P 4.3 -H En ca Ln co P a) W P %j Q >-, M
-H4 4 (1) u CA 0 0 LO r-l o 9. 0 0 0 X 0 En Q) r-i
h4 t4 f-i 4) -r4 >@ r-i 0 a (1) Q) 0) A
X! 4-J 0 Q) T@
LOP P, W M 1-4 EO P r.P P CJ $4 -4 P 0 >) 0 H
co0 m ca co H 'r-1 M -H cd0 0 @.4 0 w a) P 0 9 ca f:4 0 4,
u PR 0-4 r%4 u N u E-4 En Z H co

41
0 0 r-l 04 CY) r*@ C6 m 16 1;-4 N m ,1 0 '0 r, w 0 H
z 4C4 Cf) @T Ln. %0 @ r@ 00 a% H r-l r-4 r-f -F-af 4) 1,44 1 r-i @ r-l C@4 N CN4 C*4 N C%q C@4 04 04 N C'Y) ICY) I I

- * G

-44

0
S

*At 141,
15
tA

1#0

41
Ul

Base Maps from N.C. D.O.T.
Carteret County Highway Map

c 0 u N T y

74, tell- 21 4, LLAI
L"I

kill

ILL.
us,
Ills
-iliz in Lift L"A

tat
Lim

Its, 0 PAS

ist 0
Ilia 0 so 1111L

kill
C4
Lil
oil 7

IL U.!!'

MUKtrit "Ell
CIT'Y
Ilia

r
A 1 1 & A
--ptAUFORT
0

N K
4ft

SIA

CKLMOR
H.* 61

4 -ou U004C3 For. 1.431
aid

0,
CO C,4 co 01. co 1-1 r- 1 B-1 2
4-1 Oca U U cn -u cc

1A
c
0 N E S 2

Ulu
1,u
4@ "P't
e.,
CO"

JAPA
IPA 3

B-18
0
17
A 16
u
C 7 12 1
-b
A - 15

IJJA
lilt ........
1110 "Vjto-
IHTR-ACOAS
JI.,
f,.Q. ---, It, :. U)
Ir
11 u c -
B-22
qc@@?, C.)
Roc,

-3
"fA

10 A 14
D 12 D I A
B 23 D I I \D 9 C-6 & D-8
T

Perceptions of Population Characteristics

The Neuse River Council of Government's Population and Socio-Economic Base
�Sud published in August, 1975, provided general information regarding
y
Carteret County, most of which reflects 1970 conditions:

1. Carteret County Population 1940 - 18,284; 1950 - 23,059; 1960
27,438; 1970 - 31,603; 1973 33,308.

2. 57.9/1. of residents were living in rural areas of the county.

3. The 1970 education level for those 25 and over in the county was
10.9 years (10.7 years in Region P).

4. The median age in 1970 was 28.3 years according to the Bureau of
Census.

5. The median family income in the county was $7156, this compared
to @6514 in Region P and $7774 statewide. (This is low compared
to the U.S. median of $9590.)

6. Carteret County had 16.6 percent of its population living in
11poverty families" in 1970; this is below the regional 22.2 per-
cent but a little more than the state average of 16.3 percent.

7. Of all counties in Region P, only Carteret County experienced
a net in-migration between 1960 and 1970, with 665 people moving
to the county.

8. The 1970 non-white population included 11.1 percent of the total
who were black, and .139 percent who were Indians.

R. Curtis Fleshman, Assistant Superintendent of Carteret County Schools, re-
ports 7,398 children in the school system; 1,415 of these are at West Carteret
High School and 873 at East Carteret High School. He indicated a gradual re-
duction in school populations, with most fluctuations affected by situations
at Cherry Point Marine Air Station.

Nancy Ward, a County Recreation Supervisor, reports that 15 percent of the
county population is 55 years of age or older (est. 7100), that the Recrea-
tion Department and schools provide activities for 16 educable mentally
handicapped residing in the county, and that county statistics indicate
there are 28 persons physically handicapped.

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission reports boat registration
in Carteret County as follows:

Year Number Registered Comments

1968 2,243
Ten horsepower or over: average
1970 2,591 six percent increase per year
1968 - 1977
1975 3,894

1976 4,971 All boats with motors (estimated
to include 783 boats under ten
horsepower).

1977 5,267 Six percent increase.
1978 5,477 Four percent increase.4

With the Office of State Planning and budget reporting 37,100 population
for the county in 1979, this equates to one boat for every 6.7 persons.
Carteret County has less than seven-tenths of one percent of the State
population and about 2.8 percent of registered boats in North Carolina.

Local Recreation Interests

The 1969 recreation interest survey by the Carteret County Recreation Com-
mission and the Environmental Studies program of Carteret High Schools re-
ported recreation interest of 744 students of East and West Carteret High
Schools. Respondents were asked to name two activities which take up the
majority of their leisure time. Team sports were first with 479 selecting
this, surfing was second with 200 choices, and sailing was the third ranking
activity with 125 identifying this choice.5

A 1979 study, again with the assistance of the Environmental Studies Program
at West Carteret High School, surveye"d 209 students from East and West
Carteret High Schools and 15 adults. Respondents were ' requested to identify
the number of times in the last year they had taken part in a water-related
recreation in Carteret County. Those recording participation ten or more
times or "on occasion" were recorded as having an interest in the respective
activities. Three exceptions, charter boat fishing, head boat fishing
and excursion boat rides, constituted an interest if five or more times
were recorded. An average of thirteen activities per respondent were re-

4 Ms. Helen Gournas, Boat Registration Section, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, May 22, 1979.
5 Carteret County Parks and Recreation Commission, A Plan for Parks and
Recreation in Carteret County, n.d. (estimated 1975).

corded as interests as follows:

No. Participating Percent of Those Surveyed(224) Water-Based Recreation Interest

148 66 Swimming/sunbathing at the
beach

125 56 Hiking/jogging/walking on
beach

112 50 Power boating on sound or
river

90 40 Visit waterfront areas to
watch commercial shipping
or look at vessels

79 35 Visit other shoreline area
to enjoy the scenery

76 34 Shell collecting/birding/
nature observation on beach

69 31 Clamming/oystering (non-
commercial)

68 30 Visit Ft. Macon

56 25 Fishing in sound or river

56 25 Launch boat from public
boat ramp

57 25 Power boating on ocean

53 24 Picnic on the beach

43 19 Fishing in ocean, other
than above

43 19 Go camping in tent or
trailer

39 17 Surfing

39 17 Sailing on the sounds

36 16 Four wheel drive vehicle
use in coastal area

35 16 Take excursion boat ride

29 13 Fishing from commercial pier

28 13 Hunt waterfowl or rails

25 11 Visit Core Banks

19 8 Surf fishing

17 3 Head boat fishing

17 8 Sailing on ocean waters

17 37 Water skiing

15 6 Skindiving/SCUBA

15 7 Charter boat fishing

11 5 Jet ski/pedal boat rental

4 2 Rent a boat

One hundred three, 46 percent of those surveyed, reported not owning a re-
creational boat. Fifty-four percent reported owning boats, with 22 of these
(10 percent of those surveyed) having more than one boat. Of the 121 persons
who own boats, 40 have a permanent mooring, 48 transport their boat when they
want to use it, and 12 have their boat in dry storage until it is used. It
is not known how many of the latter are in commercial dry storage warehouses
and how many are merely stored on land adjacent to a launching ramp. It is
assumed that most of the inboard motor boats shown below and some of the out-
board motor boats would be listed in the class of "part time commercial" but
are used for family recreation as well.

Number of Owners Percent of Those Surveyed Type of Boat

68 30 Outboar d motor boats

27 12 Inboard motor boats

24 11 Sailboats

15 7 Other (Prams, Rowboats)

9 4 Canoe

Attitudes and Opinions

Groups surveyed included.(l) those attending the April 10, 1979, pre-study
public meeting on access, (2) homerooms at East Carteret High School se-
lected at random, (3) the journalism class and Environmental Studies Program
classes at West Carteret High School, (4) other classes at East and West
Carteret High Schools selected by the ESP project team. With one exception,
all attitudes expressed by the various groups were reasonably consistent.
The one exception to those printed below is question "g" in which the adults
answering the survey-indicated the feeling that drinking water supplies
are adequate to accommodate growth. Numbers reported below are percentages
of those surveyed; numbers do not add up to 100 percent because those not
responding to the question are not shown.

%Yes %No

a. 46 38 Carteret County can accommodate additional growth and use
of shorelines.

b. 59 26 Growth of tourism and increased use of ocean and estuarine
areas will be of economic benefit to Carteret County.

c. 29 54 It is possible to accommodate more tourists in the County
and still retain pleasant living conditions.

d. 62 21 A moderate growth should be promoted, with additional beach
and boat access provided, to serve both residents and tourists.

e. 68 16 Growth in tourism in Carteret County will occur even if
nothing more is done to promote it.

f. 63 20 Highway transportation into Carteret County should be
improved.

g. 37 42 Drinking water supplies are adequate to accommodate growth.

h. 22 60 Waste water treatment facilities in the County are adequate
to accommodate growth.

i. 34 49 Present law enforcement systems are adequately handling
summer crowds.

j. 54 30 Subdivision developers should provide public access or allow
public purchase of access rights to ocean and sound.

k* 11 10 Estuarine and ocean shoreline resources can be damaged by
too much use or improper uses.

1. 34 46 Emergency evacuation (the reverse of access) opportunities
in the event of severe storms are presently adequate to
allow cautious people to obtain safety away from coastal
areas.

62 20 State Government should do more to assist in providing beach
access.

n. 66 17 County government should do more to assist in providing
beach access.

o. 63 21 Local government should do more to assist in providing beach
access.

p. 21 49 Providing beach access is a primary function of private
enterprise.

Showers at a beach park, Boca Raton, Florida

Delray Beach, Florida, Beach Access

416

Boca Raton, Florida, Dune Trail

SECTION VI

ANTICIPATED DEMAND

"The pressures on the nation's coastal zone are even more
severe than in 1972. Certainly, the need for additional
recreational access to the nation's coasts and waters
continues to grow."

Robert W. Knecht, "Coastal Zone Management
Comes of Age," Practicing Planner, Dec.
1978.

'-7-7777-7`

Bogue Point, July 8, 1979

Population Increase Demands

By 1990, local population is anticipated to increase 21 percent over the
present 37,100. In addition, it is assumed that maximum interest in popular
recreation sites is generated within one-half day's drive of the attraction
(Area 1 on map below). A lesser demand exists as distance, time and travel
costs increase. It appears that the principal market area for Carteret
County is within North Carolina and includes counties outside a 160 mile
radius: Alamance, Caswell, Forsyth, Guilford, Randolph, Rockingham and
Person Counties (Area 2 on map). Counties principally attracted, because
of their proximity, to Dare County and the South coast were not included.
Demand in counties reported includes demand for competing coastal areas.
An 18 percent increase is projected for these populations by 1990. An
estimated 3.6 percent of this group may be found in Carteret County on an
average summer weekend.

Population Estimatesi

Carteret County

1977 1980 1990

Carteret County 37,100 37,700 44,900

N.C. Counties within
160 miles (1) (above) 1,876,900 1,982.200 2,259,300

N.C. Counties within
160-200 miles (2) 836$400 872,500 944,100

2,750,400 2,892,400 31,243,300

Carteret County reportedly has 75,000 to 100,000 people within its borders
during summer weekends. Somewhere between 38,000 and 60,000 people would
be coming from outside Carteret County, with most of these going to locations
on Bogue Banks. Morehead City, although seen by some as a home for summer
residents, reportedly does not increase its public drinking water consumption
during summer months, thus showing a limited number of summer residents.
Once here, however, summer residents on Bogue Banks compete with permanent

I Source: N.C. Division of State Budget and Management.

residents for recreation amenities. Ten thou Iand additional seasonal
residents are expected in the next.ten years. Because they have driven
some distance, visitors are less likely to be disappointed by heavy traffic
or long lines at the boat launch. Demand, generally, is a function of
money, leisure time, and availability of the recreation resource. Thus,,
you could expect to find considerably more participation in coastal recrea-
tions by coastal area residents than you would find inland.

Activity Interest

Carteret County residents have an interest in some activities, but this
does not result in a demand for the activity because it is still too ex-
pensive for many to undertake. Carteret County high school students sur-
veyed in spring 1979, showed desires for some of the more costly recreations:
skin diving and scuba, sailing on the sounds and in the ocean, water skiing,
charter boat fishing, and four wheel drive vehicle use. Ten percent of
the respondents indicated a desire for one or more activities which were
11too costly". Ten percent is a low figure if the county continues to have
16 percent of its population at poverty level or below. On the other hand,
one boater responded, "I can go all over the place in a boat for $12 a day."
Money does not appear to be a problem to many. One fisherman interviewed
on Radio Island said, "The gas crisis won't keep me from driving here from
Statesville once or twice a year; you only live once."

The quality of the Carteret County environment and the type of local ex-
periences which can be gained in leisure, contribute to a significantly
higher demand for recreation activities related to the water than to other
recreations.

The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, in its 1978 update
did not determine demand as was expected earlier. Demand in this context
usually includes estimates of visitor days and specific activities, and
proposes standards for land.area in order to meet demand. Standards are
maintained for different types of recreation areas, these based on local
populations without considering needs of tourists or other visitors to the
area. Standards which are identified, e.g., "Specialized Outdoor Recreation
Area Low" which is that for boat access areas and others, shows a standard
of 8 acres per 1000of existing population to meet the demand created by
that population. Reportedly, a multiplier is built into the standard of
8 acres per 1000population to account for regional demand. Figures compiled
in 1976 by the State Division of Parks and Recreation show Carteret County
as being in need of 291 acres of "Specialized Outdoor Recreation Areas (low)"
and 728 acres of "Specialized Outdoor Recreation Areas (medium)".3

The University of Wisconsin, in 1976, studied Great Lakes boaters in the
Wisconsin coastal zone. They found the average boater was boating 42 days

2 Coastal Resources Commission,land Use Plan Carteret County, North
Carolina, 1978.
3 Inventory work sheet of N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation (See
Appendix B) 57

per year, with 80 percent 4 of this on the Great Lakes, because of the appeal
of large bodies of water. Eighty percent of boaters surveyed in 1975
listed fishing as the primary purpose of their boating, and they found
recreational boating increasing at 5.5 percent per year. They predicted
a doubling of registered boats in Wisconsin between 1968 and 2020. They
found the average boating trip to last 1.67 days and the average spending
$41.19 per trip per party. The report showed a Wisconsin demand for more
docks, more and cleaner toilets and showers, repair services, boating sup-
plies, food, pump outs, and additional marinas and/or additional slips.

The report seems to parallel situations in North Carolina. The North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission reports a 10 percent average increase in boating
licenses per year, although the last year only 4 percent was experienced.
Projecting present Carteret County boat registrations with an increase of
only.4 percent per year, 3,431 boats are predicted to be registered within
Carteret County in 1989; this is an increase of almost 65 percent over the
5,477 boats registered in 1973. Like most all outdoor recreations, interest
in the recreation increases at a faster rate than populations. Boat regis-
tration in Carteret County more than doubled, in the last ten years. Boat
registration has been increasing about 10 percent per year statewide.

In 1962 the U.S. Department of Interior in its Outdoor Recreation for
America, indicated that shoreline needs were pressing, that the coast lines
will be centers of more population in the future, and yet the present supply
of publicly owned shoreline for recreation was not adequate.5 The report
predicted the demand for fishing opportunities to increase by 50 percent
by 1976 and 150 percent by the year 2000. Fishing and other water-based
recreations are felt to have grown more than the report predicted; yet
at the time, the. report seemed overly optimistic; it is now seen as having
been conservatively drafted.

Tourism Related Demand

"A trend toward increasing income, population and leisure time has resulted
in greatly increased demand for recreational and tourist services.116
This is shown by a congestion of existing parks and rapid growth of private
and commercial recreation and tourist facilities. A trend is particularly
notable in the development and use of water related sites for recreation
homes, commercial recreation facilities and support services. It is proposed
here that increasing demands for recreation and tourist facilities in Carteret
County, and the attendant competition for space, has reduced the demand
to local residents during the tourist season. Unfortunately for the resident
who prefers more solitude at the beach, the commitment was made long ago
to promote tourism to the area; the economic health of the county is depen-

4 Economic Impact and Needs of.Wisconsin's G reat Lakes Boaters, Recreation
Resources Center, U.W. Extension, Madison, Wisconsin, 1976.
5 Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Outdoor Recreation for
America, Washington, D.C., 1962.
6 W. Cris Lewis & Others, Regional Growth and Water Resource Investment,
Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1973, p. 66.
518

CARTEaMT COUNTY TRAVEM INCOME

TOTAL
YEAR NO. OF FIRMS NO. OP EMPLOYEES TRAVEL EXPENDITURES

1963 185 690 4,329,000.00

1964 202 615 4,506,000.00

1965 Not Available Not Available 4,682,000.00

3.966 N.A. N.A. $-5,018,000.00

1967 N.A. N.A. $ 5-2780,000.00

1968 239 791 $ 5,815,000.00

1969 279 818 $ 6,317,000.00

1970 N.A. N.A. $ 7,020,000.00

1971 N.A. N.A. $ 7,'390,000.00

1972 N.A. N.A. s 8,050,000.00

1973 N.A. N.A. $ 8,607,000.00

1974 N.A. N.A. $ 9,117,000.00

1975 291 lo462 $ 907140000.00

1976 296 1,469 $11,007,000.00

1977 298 1,556 $15,200,000.00

1978 305 1,754 $16,937,000.00

SOURCE: Dr. Lewis Copeland
University of Tennessee

Reprinted from.Carteret County, North Carolina3, Statistical Abstract.

dent upon it continuing. The recession of 1973 did not apparently have
a materially adverse effect on the county, with about $1,000,000 increase
in business shown that year.7 Attendance at Ft. Macon State Park did go
down considerably, yet County retail income increased. In spite of the
threat of impending gasoline shortages, one major campground owner on Bogue
Banks reports a 10 percent increase in gross revenue during 1979, at the
same time with decreasing numbers of out of state visitors.

Demand for access to the new national seashore will have to be accommodated
by the National Park Service and is not part of this study. Access will
be through Carteret County, however, and visitors attracted to the seashore
will discover natural features that attracted others here before them.
It is likely that visitors to the seashore will generate income to the county
beyond that per capita spending generated by visitors to Ft. Macon State
Park. Low estimates of attendance show 500 persons per day and 200 overnight
in the National Seashore. The highest level of use shown was in the neighbor-
hood of 5,000 visitors per day with 1,100 overnight. It is expected that
demand, as a spin-off from Cape Lookout National Seashore use, will include
that for harbor tours, cultural attractions, access to places like Bird
Shoals and Carrot Island and visual access to shipping and scenic attractions.

In the attempt to respond to the market, provision of facilities and services
will generate additional crowded conditions. All major investments will
induce additional growth. Construction of the Highway 70 New Bern By-pass
has made it easier for some to travel to the coast; additional demand was
created.* While a third bridge will potentially provide easier access and
evacuation routes for those on Bogue Banks, it will have the effect of
generating additional traffic to the island. The same is true should a
convention center come on the scene. People will be attracted to the county;
they will have leisure time, mobility, and money to spend; and existing
resources for recreation will become more crowded than they seem now.
Interest on the par-t of local residents to take part in their favorite water
based recreations will be further reduced and constricted.

People and Water

"Competition for shoreline use . . . has put a premium on availability of
bathing beaches, boating facilities and other facilities for marine recrea-
tion. Along with decreased opportunities for expanding the number and size
of areas for recreation, there has been a continuing increase in the demand
for existing sites. The net effect has been overcrowding and the construction
of parking lots, bathhouses, boardwalks, marinas, and other facilities that
frequently detract from the natural character of the coastal landscape.,, 8

Carls reported on some recreation studies which indicated that a preferred
alternative to crowding is not necessarily the absence of all people. 9

7 Carteret County Economic Development Council, Carteret County, North
Carolina Statistical Abstract, Morehead City, N.C., n.d.
8 Carls, Dr. E. Glenn, IlRecreational Use of the Coastal Zone: Effects of
Crowding and Development", Visual Quality and the Coastal Zone, Pro-
ceedings of a Conference Workshop, SUNY Syracuse, New York, 1976.
9 Ibid. 60

We know that teenagers prefer places where their peers are located, such
as the Atlantic Beach Circle and the public beach there. Morehead City
and Beaufort residents have indicated on several occasions they go to Shackle-
ford Banks for their outing, "to get away from people", and they are happy
to find many of their neighbors also over-there. July 4, 1979, a mid-week
holiday, reportedly found Shackelford more crowded than ever before. Radio
Island provides the same sort of a place for those who do not have access
to a boat. As crowding in these places increase, they will also become
less attractive to local residents.10

Carls also identifies the desirability of water as a force which increases
recreational demand. A campground for instance, is more heavily used when
campers have a view of water nearby. Carls found that industrial or com-
mercial development which did not contribute to the recreation amenities
of an area, had a major effect in reducing preference and presumably user
satisfaction. Developments which are rustic and seen as desirable backdrops
to the recreation site are acceptable. Forty percent of those surveyed
in the 1979 Coastal Access Survey indicated they visit waterfront areas
to watch commercial shipping or look at vessels. In this case, the indus-
trial complex relating to the State Port is an interesting water related
feature. As an aside, it is reported that some ship captains allow visitors
to board their vessels and look around. Some waterfront buildings in Carteret
County are attractions and in themselves generate a demand for a recreational
use. The boat building places, the fish houses, the "clam shucking places"
and other structures which relate to the culture of the area are interesting
to those who are not actively part of commercial fishing and boat building
operations. In general, however, structures on the waterfront are seen
generally to be unattractive to coastal visitors.and serve to reduce demand
for use of adjacent areas; the shore is not available.

Demand Assumptions

The interplay of many variables and forces on a given urbanizing area makes
demand assessment extremely difficult. Interest in water related recreations
has been increasing at.least twice as fast as populations are growing. Po-
pulation in the market area of Carteret County is anticipated to increase
18 percent by 1990, and predicted to increase 20 percent within the county.

Dr. Leon Abbas, Marine Recreation Economist with UNC Seagra:nt, has indicated
in personal communication, that marina boat storage facilities in the county
are near capacity now, and will be at capacity within a year. Campgrounds
are at capacity on busy weekends, motels are full. Boat launch areas are,
over capacity on most weekends and many area residents stay home to avoid
the crowds of people trying to get to beach and waterfront areas.

10 Op. cit.

If only a linear projection were made, with recreation uses increasing only
as fast as population, by 1990, ocean beach and estuarine recreation uses
would increase by 20 percent over present levels. 1973 comprehensive state
plans for recreation, after watching 1965 federal projections fall far short
of actual increases, predicted annual increases in water-based recreations
averaging 8.66 percent. If this insight is correct, Carteret County may
expect increases in use exceeding the rate of population growth. Carteret
Count travel income is reported at an average increase of 13.7 percent per
year.11

However, retardants to growth are on the scene in the form of inflation,
rising costs of living, and decreasing supplies of automobile fuels. In-
creases in crowded conditions and reduced environmental quality also slow
rates of increase in recreation uses. The peak may never be reached in
Carteret County, for in relative terms, it is still undeveloped. It is
quite distant from heavy concentrations of people, and there are significant
numbers of local people who would like to apply brakes to the growth process.
All will have the effect of reducing demand for recreation in the county

Traditional standards for public swimming propose that three percent of
local populations be accommodated at one time in public swimming pools. In
coastal areas with attractive ocean and estuarine beaches, local populations
seek access in disproportionate numbers, although not limited to swimming.
It is estimated that 20 percent of Carteret County residents are taking part
in water-related recreations at peak times. Up to 50 percent participation
among area visitors requires establishment of State waterfront park standards
which are considerably higher than those presently used. Regional demand
cannot be met with previous standards as goals.

!.-WOO
ell

Triple Ess Pier, July 8, 1979

11 Dr. Lewis Copeland, University of Tennessee as reported in Carteret
County Economic Development Council, Carteret County, North Carolina,
Statistical Abstract, Morehead City, N.C., n.d. (included as Table
P.
62

Patterns of Demand for Selected Outdoor Recreation Activities
in the U.S. -- 1960*

Activity and Per- Days per Days Days
cent Participating Participant er Person per Person
(Summer '60)-- (Summer '60) Mmmer '60) Annual '60)

Physically Active
Recreation:
T-tdoor Games
Playing u
and Sports (30) 12.3 3.63 12.71
Bicycling (9) 19.4 1.75 5.17
Horseback Riding (6) 7.5 .42 1.25

Water Sports:
Swimming (45) 11.5 5.15 6.47
Canoeing (2) 3.0 .07 .12
Sailing (2) 3.0 .05 .11
Other Boating (22) 5.5 1.22 1.95
Water Skiing (6) 5.1 .30 .41
Fishing (29) 6.8 1.99 4.19

Backwoods Recreation:
'Ca`mpi ng (8) 5.7 .46 .86
Hiking (6) 4.4 .26 .42
Mountain Climbing (1) 3.7 .04 .09
Hunting (3) 5.6 .19 1.86

Passive Outdoor
Pursuits:
Picnicking (53) 4.0 2.14 3.53
Walking for
Pleasure (33) 13.1 4.34 17.93
Driving for
Pleasure (52) 12.7 6.68 20.73
Sightseeing (42) 5.2 2.20 5.91
Attending Outdoor
Sports Events*(24) 5..5 1.32 3.75
Nature Walks (14) 5.2 .75 2.07
Attending Outdoor
Concerts (9) .2.4 .21 .39
Miscellaneous (5) 8.4 .40 .57
*Rates shown are for persons twelve years old and over.

Source: U.S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, National
Recreation Survey, Study Report No. 19, Washington, D. t.-(W62).

Reprinted from Coastal Recreation Handbook: A Handbook for Planners and
Managers, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, OCZM, 1976.

(44-0.00)
ADULT ACTIVITY DAYS BY SELECTED ACTIVITY (In North Carolina)
1971-2020
Activity 1971 .1976 1986 2020 % Change
Hunting 3,275,000 C 3,397,400 1 3,672,200 1 12.1
Fishing 5,795,000 6,8oi,ooc 91005,700 2:L,893,200 277.8
Swimming Pool 6,127,ooo 7,530,20C 10,767,300 30,636,400 4oo.o
Swimming Other 7,017,000 8,355,30c lo,605,6oo 2416211100 250.9
Canoeing Exercise 5581000 625100C 790,900 1,713,700 207-1
Canoeing View Scenez-- 226,000 267,9 359,500 90913W _302.3
Hiking-Pack 423,000 58o,4o 952,700 3,392,400 702.0
Nature Walking 61428,000 6,875,4o 7,603,6oo 10,317,100 6o.5
Bird Watching 5,131,000 5,223, 5,123,OW 41581i500 -lo.8
Picnicking 9,024,ooo 9,985,8oo il,863,8oo 20,913,900 131.8
Camping 2,837,000 3,556,8oo .5.266 8oo 1,51947.700 462.1
Biking 2,505,000 3,155, 000 4,673,600 1411641100 465.4
Rock Hunting 770,000 952,4oo 1,384,loo 3,812,100 395.1
Sailing 483,000 654,8oo 11078,500 31812,100 689.2
Power Boating 2,777,000 3,378t2OO 4,799,500 13,499,6oo 386.1
Golfing 4,376,000 5,lo4,500 627229800 161017,700 226.0
7ennis 1,901,000 2,232,200 3,181,700 8,988,100 372.8
Play Outdoor Games 8,073,000 8,378,500 8,556,300 8,7o8,3oo 7.9
View Outdoor Games 8,028,ooo g,o48,200 11,144,8oo 221103,000 175.3
Water Skiing 11524,000 1,949,500 2,983,900 9,547,700 526.5
Snow Skiing 392,000 520,900 862,8oo 2,762,900 6o4.8
Ice Skating 573,000 699,4oo 970,700 2,553,000 345.5
Trap Shooting 241,ooo 297,6oo 467,4oo 1,503,8oo 524.o
Archery 483,000 506,000 503,300 454,700 -5.9
Target Shooting 1,132, 1,250,100 1,474,000 2,518,100 122.4
Horseback Riding 1,328,ooo 1,547,700 2,o4g,200 4,966,2oo 274.o
Wildlife Photo 513,000 67o,000 i,o6o,6oo 3,497,300 -581.7
Mountain Climb 1,147,000 1,235,200 1. 4,100 1,923,500 67.7
Show Horses Ring 453,000 476,200 503000 559,6oo 23.5
Pleasure Driving 27,947,000 _29,287,600 30,828,ooo 35,252,900 26.1
Sightseeing 16,373,000 17,769,000 20,276,4oo 31,091,100 89.9
Outdoor Concert Drama 785,000 997,100 1,474,000 4,44i,6oo 465.8
Historic 2,912,000 3,452,6oo 4,69:L,6oo 12,030 700 313.1
ultu-ra-1. 951,000 1,145,900 1,635,8oo 4,651,4-oo 389.1
Zoo 1,026,oc)o 1 1,145,900 1,348,200 21273,300 121.6
148,819,00o 179,755,000 349,731,000 161.9
Totals 133,531,000 1 1
Reprinted from 1973 N.C. Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 64

SECTION VII

ANALYSIS OF NEEDS

What publicly owned access is available in the several
beach cities? We do not have this information in detail.
We know there is a public beach at Atlantic Beach, Ocean
Isle, and Several other cities. The total amount and dis-
tribution in each city is not known. If it is one small
public beach (100 feet) along a ten mile beach, it would
not represent balanced access."

"Preliminary Report on Beach Access Status,
North Carolina," North Carolina Department
of Natural and Economic Resources, Recreation
Section, December, 1975.

...........

One of the Public Easements at Club Colony

Relationship of Supply to Demand

Demand, minus supply, equals need. The supply of access opportunities is
identified in Section V; additional commercial and informal access points
exist along developed shoreline areas and causeways; principle water access
points available to the public are shown. Demand is not as easy to identify.
State planning agencies do not have recent demand information; Carteret
County did not have financial resources to sample preferences in the area of
influence. Unfortunately, samples of adult users obtained Memorial Day
weekend were found to be invalid and were not used in the study. Informa-
tion was limited to that obtained from local people, primarily high school
students (highest participants in water-based recreation) with results
showing similar preferences to a study of ten years earlier. Some of the
surveys were conducted with the assistance of the Environmental Studies Pro-
gram of West Carteret High School. The study was very population-specific,
but acceptable, for primary concern in the study was to seek accommodation
of local interest in recreation access to coastal waters.

If there were no competing demands, from visitors to the area in this case,
local preferences and estimates of future use would be easier to compile.
Non-resident participation acts as a competing demand and affects partici-
pation rates by local residents. Both groups, therefore, have to be accom-
modated.

In sp ite of State estimates of need shown in Appendix B as excessive supply,
it is apparent without any study that beach and boating access points are
overwhelmed on busy days and grossly inadequate. Severe restrictions on
travel will reduce demand relating to non-residents and will increase demand
for local people. The July 4th crowd at Shackelford Banks, the Morehead-
Beaufort beach for those with boats, was the largest seen there by Neal
Lewis,, County Recreation Director. The Beaufort boat ramp was the busiest
of any day this year. It is estimated that most of the users were local
people. July 4th was mid-week, gasoline supplies were questionable, the
weather was pleasant, predictions of use were down, and local boaters turned
out.

Demand is also increased by increases in supply of facilities. The addition
of harbor tour service created a demand that quickly generated a competitor,
in response to a growing market. The addition of a major ocean beach with
support facilities and businesses will generate uses beyond present levels.

Access Standards

Except when in public ownership or in long term publicly held leases,
access cannot be expected to survive in a free market system unless access
use is worth more to the owner than other uses.

Recreation planners have, for many years, used the general standard that
ten percent of all shoreline within municipal jurisdictions be secured for
public use. This standard is not applicable when considering large coastal
counties such as Carteret, particularly when the standard was intended to
serve local interests. The addition of regional, state and national needs,
such as that present when'considering coastal shorelines, creates additional
demand beyond the responsibility of the county to respond in supplying needs.
Ten percent of all shoreline in incorporated areas should be in public owner-
ship regardless of regional or larger needs.

Ocean beaches are more significant for recreation than any other shoreline.
As a result, the standard, as a long term goal, should be to secure public
ownership of a strip of land paralleling the entire coast to assure legal
access at times of high tides. "Private property rights must be protected
and respected, but the rights of the public to use and enjoy publicly owned
resources must not be restricted by lack of access."

Perpendicular public access points should be located where the greatest
accessibility is provided the general public and where the least impactis
felt by neighboring residents.

Non-water dependent facilities should be located, whenever possible, away
from shoreline areas. This would include land based recreation facilities
and commercial support services. Access routes, bikeways or bus routes should
connect these with shoreline areas. Priority assigned water dependent de-
velopments should be high, Opportunity for coastal recreation should not
be blocked by other development except for that related to agriculture and
water-dependent industry. Develo2ment should not be permitted to interfere
with traditional public uses of shorelines.

It is proposed that Carteret County adopt a standard, seeking the long
term goal of four acres per thousand current and future populations, for
Eublicly owned and/or operated water access areas and waterfront parks.
This standard should be applied to numbers of seasonal residents as well
as those enumerated by the U.S* Census, It does not include state and
federal parks; nor acreage.in commercial uses however similar, because of
their lack of permanence.

Of the four acres per thousand, the following subordinate units are proposed:

Boat access areas and marinas: One-half acre per thousand population
Ocean waterfront parks: Two acres per thousand
Estuarine waterfront parks: One acre per thousand
Visual enhancement areas: One-half acre per thousand

1 Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Outdoor Recreation for
America, GPO, Wa shington, D.C., 1962.

Application of Standards to County Resources

1979 1990

Permanent residents 2 37,100 44,900
Seasonal residents 25@630 3711527

62,730 84,427

Four acres per thousand standard 251 acres 329 acres

Estimate of existing acreage
needed to meet the standard 201 acres 279 acres

Direct concern of county government is to administer unincorporated areas
within its jurisdiction. Although county park and recreation areas may be
located within corporate limits, functions of these properties are to serve
larger than local needs. With a major concern of this study oriented to
problems of access on Bogue Banks, it is thus paradoxical that in the future
there may be no unincorporated land on the island. The County, if it under-
took broad planning responsibilities, would be able to assume only an in-
fluencing posture in serving county residents. Urban sprawl characterizes
development on most of the Banks; with some development, by design, intended
to provide beach access only to residents. Inflated land values have been
precipitated by demand for water related second homes and promotion of the
area's assets. All contribute to a very short supply of land available for
public open space.

The same pattern exists on the mainland side of the@ county's southern sounds.
Should areas down east expand, there will be a greater need for public open
space in the population centers; this includes the need for water related
parks as well as traditional community parks. The existence of farms and
forests sometimes instills a false sense of adequacy regarding available
open spaces, particularly in urbanizing areas. The existence of open space
and public recreation areas assists in maintaining both neighborhood and
community identity and property values. In Carteret County, as it grows in
population, water based public open space may come to be the major (if not
the only) access point for traditional uses of marsh, shoreline and water.
In 1979, major access is provided using commercial and private property.

Public access facilities are in short supply. Most of the existing sites
are of poor quality and do not provide the type of experience desired. The
principal exception to this is the Beaufort waterfront, but even here, tra-
ditional traffic circulation subtracts from the visual experience during
busy times. Pine Knoll Shores, although well designed with good water access,
cannot be considered as providing public access to the water. This and
other development has interfered with traditional public use of public lands
and waters.

2 Coastal Resources Commission, Land Use Plan, Carteret County, North
Carolina, 1978.
68

With the exception of the Atlantic Beach circle shoreline, the small park
at 9th and Shepard Streets in Morehead City, and waterfront access in
Beaufort, no fully public access is administered by local government in
Carteret County. It is anticipated that the county may begin operating
at least a portion of the Airport Marina in the near future. All other
local public access sites are administered by either State or federal
-agencies. Minimum standards for public access opportunities are not being
met.

If Bogue Banks were undeveloped, it would be proposed that all development
be landward of a beach road, with the road located no closer than 300
feet from the high tide line, this to assure public access to the public
beach. An acquisition standard, then, would be to acquire the 300 foot
parallel strip. Although desirable from the point of view of providing
ocean access to maximum numbers,, as a public service goal, it is unrealis-
tic to assume this can be accomplished in Carteret County.

What are the opportunities remaining? It would appear important that
flood prone ocean hazard areas, particularly inlet lands and overwash
areas, be in public ownership. To the extent that the Federal Flood
Insurance Program-, following hurricane damage, will assist;use of state
and federal grant monies can be matched with local funds, and donations
can be generated, opportunity purchases of shoreline lands should be
consummated. The same action is proposed for flood prone areas on the
mainland, in and adjacent to populated areas.

Ideally, utilization should be secured of all publicly owned land within
the county adjacent to water resources, which appear to be in excess
of present need bX the administering agency, if those lands can be utilized
for public access purposes.. This includes local, county, state and federal
government properties of every description, whether on Radio Island, along
the Cedar Island highway, or wherever located. Several opportunities
exist; more will become available in the future.

Municipal governments should seek to accommodate local needs, with county
assistance. For example, if Calico Creek is dredged, in Morehead City,
creating potential access for the neighborhood around the 20th Street
Bridge, assistance should be provided by the county in developing public
water access opportunities. County assistance should not be provided
where access will be limited to municipal residents only.

Development and maintenance of public access areas should at least meet
the standard of adjacent propertiesL preferably setting the example in
aesthetic considerations.

Capacity for Expanding Present Facilities

Concerns of county government for expansion potential are limited to that
of the Airport Marina. Expansion is possible and is treated in Recommenda-
tion 15. Other limited potential expansions are also discussed in the
recommendations, but county action would be limited to cooperative and
influencing actions or grant support. Other recommendations propose acquisi-
tion of new facilities.

Expansion of commercial facilities will respond to the market and will
accommodate non-residents primarily and those more affluent.

V'@

Waterfront Park Trail, Boca Raton, Florida

SECTION VIII

FACTORS INFLUENCING ACCESS FACILITIES

"While the nation's beaches remain a locus for swimming,
fishing, sunbathing, and fraternizing, burgeoning use pres-
sures and changing public preferences have spawned growing
recognition of less tangible recreation-related values,
including esthetic enjoyment, ecological interest, historical
and cultural enrichment and spiritual renewal."

R.B. Ditton and M. Stephens, Coastal Recreation:
A Handbook for Planners and Managers, U.S. Dept.
of Commerce, NOAA, OCZM, Washington, D.C., Jan.
1976.

4C_-A

Radio Island

Space Requirements

Travel distance to recreation facilities, and travel time relationships,
determines the frequency of participation as much as any variable. Those
who live close to a water access point are likely to use it more than
those who live further away. As mobility has increased, people have been
willing to travel a greater distance for recreation experiences. In the not
too distant past, popular travel spots werelocated fairly close to homes
of the visitors. The more significant attractions, however, serve to in-
duce demand from more distant places, but may be once-in-a-lifetime trips
for many of the visitors. Carteret County residents need accommodations
for very frequent access to coastal waters.

Facilities attract users in direct proportion to their size. Generally, the
larger the investment, the larger the demand. Opportunity to participate
in ten different recreations at one general location will generate more
traffic than ten separate locations would induce.

Space between different activity locations also influences use of facilities.
It appears, for example, that surfing and fishing pier use is more a problem
of one invading another's "space" than a direct conflict between users. It
is reported that a "surfing and fishing pier" in Cocoa Beach, Florida, is
very popular. "Surfers: Beware of Fishermen," and "Fisherman: Beware of
Surfers" are signs found at the entrance to the pier. A compatible exis-
tence results; pier owners probably have more revenue than those who restrict
use to fishing only. For safety reasons, however, there is need to separate
some uses. Power boating should be prohibited in swimming areas. Sailboats
need more room for maneuvering than motor boats; water surface zoning is
sometimes desirable for these and other reasons.

Socio-economic Factors

It is found, generally, that people in middle income brackets participate
more using public recreation facilities than those above or below in income.
Those in upper income groups provide more of their own resources, and are
more likely to object to sharing space with lower income groups. The nicest
residential development on Bogue Banks is also the least tolerant of other
users. The absence of discretionary dollars by a family limits its activity
in leisure and its demand for costly recreation activity. In a study related
to the 1973 SCORP, the State learned that only 5.2 percent of those in the
under $4,000 income participate in power boating; and that participation
rates increased to 23.3 percent in the $10,000 and over income group. Age,
income, race, and proximity of recreation facilities affect participation
rates. There is a need to limit financial barriers in the provision of
water access.

User characteristics and attitudes also influence use of access areas.
Some Carteret County residents refrain from swimming along ocean beaches

because of their presumed danger of sharks. Many residents avoid places where
non-residents are likely to congregate. In general, people enjoy most those
leisure activities which place them with others they see most like themselves.
In all groups there are differences in values, perceptions and preferences.
it is important that there be a respect for these differences.

Recreation Trends

A Gallup Poll has found that the number of Americans who exer-
cise daily has risen from 24 percent to 47 percent in 16 years.
An estimated 19 million jog and 25 million are regular cyclists.

Attendance at National Parks, recreation areas, and seashores
rose from about 31 million in 1960 to 96 million in 1975.
Attendance at State parks nearly doubled between 1962 and 1975,
from 285 million to 566 million. (The figures include many
repeat visits by the same individuals.)

A. C. Nielsen says swimming is now the most popular sport for
Americans, with 104 million swimming at least occasionally in
1976. Fishing also ranked high, with 64 million active parti-
cipants. The number of women who fish increased from 9 million
in 1970 to 21 million in 1976. There were also 58 million
campers as well as 43 million involved in boating and sailing.1

It is likely that percentages of participation related to Carteret County
would show more spectacular increases than that above. A trend associated
with 'increases in use identifies a related decrease in environmental quality.
Americans have always been resilient, however, with "necessity the mother
of inventioii".Concern for environmental quality has increased with the recog-
nition that opportunities for working and living and playing may be reduced
or lost for lack of resource protection. Governments at all levels have
reacted and a great many volunteer organizations have become more concerned.

Carteret County has adopted some excellent ordinances regarding land preser-
vation; it appears they are acceptable to residents and will be enforced.
Waste water treatment planning has been proceeding for some time, and other
environment-related studies have either been completed or are still being
compiled.

Trends identified by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission in
1962 appear just as applicable today with the possible exception that mobi-
lity for the less affluent may be holding firm:

1. Urbanization can be expected to increase.

2. Mobility can be expected to increase.

3. Population can be expected to increase.

1 Douglas M. Costle, "Recreation, Jobs, and Health," EPA Journal, June 1979.

4. If sufficient opportunities are available, present tastes and
preferences for recreation in the short run can be expected to
continue.

5. Life expectancy of persons can be expected to increase.

6. Leisure time can be expected to increase.
7. Real income can be expected to increase.2

It is also perceived that participation rates in recreation will continue
to increase more rapidly than population increases. Federal government
agencies have, in recent years, participated rather generously in funding
local leisure services; this is expected to continue. 201 waste water
treatment facilities programs and the Coastal Management Program have re-
cently required recreation concerns to be added in apparent desire to
secure maximum benefit from public investments.

New recreation possibilities come on the scene regularly. "Wind surfing
becomes newest outdoor sport," was the headline of an article in the July 1,
1979, Raleigh News and Observer. The article reported popularity of the
sport in New York, Florida, Los Angeles and Wisconsin locations, with com-
petition in the latter. It would appear that the sounds offer great pos-
sibilities for this trend to spread to Carteret County. Interests in many
recreations are cyclical, some transitory. Water based recreations, how-
ever, tend to increase in popularity. It is anticipated that shortages of
gasoline, or high prices, will tend to give rise to increased popularity
of sailing and non-comsumptive recreations.

Tourism and Growth Promotion

The report includes an earlier section on demand related to tourism, which
should be referred to. Tourism promotion in Carteret County has had the
effect of limiting, to some extent, the provision of public access facili-
ties. Principal access opportunities are provided by commercial businesses,
and reduces some, the need for regional facilities. It does not relieve
the need for access services to local residents, most of whom are less
affluent than visitors. It is important that tourism and growth promotion
not proceed at a rate faster than the public infrastructure of waste treat-
ment, water supply and transportation facilities can accommodate.

Carrying Capacity of Related Systems

As indicated, Carteret County cannot continue to handle increasing numbers
of people without coming to the point that environmental resources will be
degraded and attractiveness reduced. There are substantial problems that
have affected life in other coastal areas because of lack of attention and

2 ORRRC, Outdoor Recreation for America, Washington, D.C., 1962.

investment applied to these concerns. "The continued use of septic tanks
in large developments will result in contamination of surficial sands and
adjacent water areas. This would close the rivers and s unds to recreation
and fishing and would damage the economy substantially."

The Convention Center report indicates that motels, restaurrts and other
services are operating at capacity during the peak periods. Leon Abbas,
Sea Grant economist has indicated in personal communication that marina
facilities in the county will be at capacity in 1980. Most of the camp-
grounds appeared to be at or near capacity during Easter weekend and early
summer periods in 1979. The Convention Center report showed 1764 motel
rooms and 1023 campground spaces.

"Carrying capacity" has been defined as "the ability of something to ab-
sorb outside influences and still retain its essence.115 Elements of car-
rying capacity for recreation uses involve physical carrying capacity or
the limit to which use may be made without damaging physical characteristics,
the erosion of dunes for instance. Difficult to measure, use in fragile
dune environments needs to be restrained and managed in order to retain
desirable features.

James Brown of the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, in personal communi-
cation, reports that most recreation use of estuarine waters will not endanger
the condition of fisheries habitat. Carrying capacities of surface uses
are not of major concern to fisheries biologists. Discharge of septic
holding tanks from boats is of concern and is damaging, according to Brown.

Brown's comments refer to ecological carrying capacity, the effect of users
on habitats, food chains and species behavior in marine environments. Too
much use, as indicated elsewhere in this report, would likely damage habi-
tat of colony birds on coastal islands and spoil banks. Development of
Bogue Banks will seriously reduce populations of non-game species of ani-
mals and of maritime forest habitat.

Psychological carrying capacity 1@ the Ileffect of the environment to yield
satisfying experience to others,"O the effect of crowding discussed earlier.
The over capacity of boat launching ramps takes access opportunities away
from those unwilling to wait. While ocean beaches, the area seaward of
the high tide line, can withstand any non-structural uses, the carrying
capacity is limited by the number of people who occupy a given space. The
Atlantic Beach area is the only place where this may becoming a problem.
At present, the crowdedness is an attractive feature to young people.

3 Henry vonOesen and Associates, Comprehensive Water and Sewer Planning
Report, Carteret County, N.C., 1970.
4 East Carolina University Regional Development Institute, Feasibility of
Constructing a Convention Center, Carteret County, N.C., Nov. 1972.
5 Joseph W. Penfold, et al, National Parks for the Future, The Conservation
Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1972, p. 35.
6 Ibid.
75

Local zoning codes, county ordinances and CAMA permit process and other
regulations identify limitations and protection needed to treat environ-
mental resources compatibly.

Regulation of Population and Use Density

Land use patterns have been determined by developers in the county, and
unless resubdivision occurs, ultimate populations have already been es-
tablished. Indian Beach and Atlantic Beach would seem crowded by many
standards. If desired, the only potential for reduced numbers of future
populations per square mile exist in unincorporated areas; this is very
limited on Bogue Banks. Some areas of beach are not crowded. If an area
can hold more people, additional parking will generate it. Parking re-
strictions will reduce use. In years past, Fort Macon State Park has had
a practice of limiting use by restricting swimmers within markers; manage-
ment needs were satisfied; users were not. Supervised areas are available,
but swimming and surfing are now allowed in other areas to those wishing
that freedom.

Management Problems

The Fort Macon situation is a management problem, these more intense in
areas of intensive use. Leadership or supervision increases liability and
generally restricts freedom. Some areas need to be supervised to provide
the option to those who wish this type of access. When supervised areas
are provided, well-trained lifeguards are essential, and they must be
clearly identified. To avoid user problems, some ocean beaches fly a green
flag from lifeguard platforms to show the beach is open to swimming. The
provision of supervised beaches implies to users that a safe beach exists.
It is therefore important that both underwater and shoreline hazards be
identified and removed. Most of the more populated beaches around the
country use beach cleaning machines. It is possible that such machines
will be needed the whole length of Bogue Banks when population levels in-
crease. It would seem most economical that a coordinated, cooperative
program be established at that time, perhaps managed by the county.

Management of off-road vehicles appears to be a growing need. The County
Sheriff's Department reportedly will shortly have a vehicle which will
operationalize this and accommodate other public safety needs, in unincor-
porated areas. Vehicles should be prohibited from the beach during high
visitation, including Easter and Memorial Day weekends. Commercial fisher-
men and sports fishermen driving on beaches should be encouraged to use
approved access places. 'Only the barest minimum of these ramps should be
provided to avoid worse problems in managing the land. Both the state road
at Salter Path and the Emerald Isle ORV access points show serious erosion
problems which could be accentuated by storm tides.

Clamming is popular as a recreation. A concerted attempt should be made
to eliminate "clam kicking" in order to perpetuate this resource for both
recreational and commercial fishing.

Identification of access points appears desirable. A sign for this purpose
is proposed, for primary use on public areas. Should landowners or commer-
cial establishments desire to denote free access across their property, use
of the sign should be allowed on an annual basis. Landowners allowing re-
creational use of their lands are immune from tort liability by State
Statute (See Section II, Responsibility for Providing Access).

Recre ation access, as part.of the total system of recreation in the county,
including public parks, recreation programs, commercial recreation and in-
formal family and private recreation, should be included in the broad con-
cerns of the Carteret'County Parks and Recreation Department. A periodic,
informal evaluation should be made to assure that the total complement of
recreation options are available to residents of the county and to propose
modifications intended to improve either the quantity or quality of offerings.

Interpretation of Access

If visitors or residents do not know of access opportunities, the access
is non-existent. Opportunities are also limited by lack of skill or know-
ledge needed to participate in leisure activities. The State of Georgia
provides fishery publications for each coastal county, available free of
charge upon request. The State of North Carolina publishes a chart of salt
water fishes, available for interpretation at marinas and other access points,
but which is used primarily for non-productive access uses; there is a
charge of 50 cents each. The State of Michigan issues a Michigan Harbors
Guide which identifies by location and aerial photo major marinas on its
shores.7

Ocean shorelines, and most estuarine shorelines, are poor places to learn
to swim. Only 66 percent of high school students surveyed in May of 1979
indicated they participate in swimming. This may be a function of lack of
water safety instruction opportunities., The County Parks and Recreation
Department does provide a small program at two motel pools, but this is
inadequate in scope. SCUBA participants undergo extensive instruction to
allow free recreational pursuits. Motor boating, sailing and a variety of
other water based sports require a learning process for one to become in-
dependent. Bogue Sound appears to offer a great resource for wind surfing;
interest in this might be generated by wind surfing instructions. The same
is true for fishing and many other activities.

Harbors of Refuge and Other Safety Considerations

A Harbor of Refuge is designated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when

7 Michigan Department of Natural Resources,.Michigan Harbors Guide,
Lansing, Michigan, 1977. 77

ACCESS SIGNAGE

Proposed By Recreation and Park Consultants, Inc. 78

ORPS OF ENGINEERS U. S. ARMY

f V
6D

N I
-9

GASCULE OWE 90
MON. CL.
VENT. CL
a... 'NSU, " 0
Sur -I.- ... F. OR. N PROJECT
Veer. CiL. 4.T- mv. .0 10
.1 LaWL DRAW CLOSED
LOCALITY MAP
co"t
GALLANT SCALE OF MILES'
DINT 9tAVFOMT
MAPS AIRPORT
Z or
ki
AARTERET COUNTY

r
ro..
o

"'s 10
Lft
ON

N.C. STATE I
POSTS
AUTH.
0 A D 10
ISLAND
0# A,
11,
UL

%,
c &SOL
3NI
r N
" : & 010

NOGUE C.S. BTA.9
RANK, FORT
"Ace.

0 f

41
$MAC
P:L1TFORO
IN
"14 C 0
4 4 4 'V
C
84,, 'Its

0 C

Mil@0905 in Gallants and Bulkhead Channels OF* Measured from the
old U.S. 70 highway bridge.
MilOO90 in the channel in front of the town of Beaufort and Taylors
Creek is measured eastward from interseclion with Bulkhead Channel.

BEAUFORT HARBOR,
---------- NORTH CAROLINA

VARYING
SCALE Of FEET
3 VARYING tooe, 0 See* '000 $000
TYPICAL SECTION IL CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON, N.C.
L MAP REVISED JUNE 1973

a remote harbor is provided specifically to accommodate transient vessels,
not to provide a home port for water craft in the immediate area. G. T.
Swain, engineer with the Wilmington.office of the Corps of Engineers has
interpreted berthing needs for transients as the provision of public wharf
space sufficient to accommodate two "average size" vessels. Eighty to 100
feet of space would be required. Harbors.of Refuge must be 20 miles dis-
tant from the nearest available harbor. The Corps does allow docking and
mooring adjacent to the H.O.R., but temporary docking space must be available
for transient craft. This is normally concerned with commercial craft, but
larger recreation vessels can also use these for refuge.

Harbor of Refuge facilities in Carteret County have some problems . Mr , Swain
identified these as including the following:

Atlantic: Piers built into the Harbor of Refuge.

Harkers Island: Some of the ar ea has been filled and platted.
"Corps cannot maintain until the County makes some
improvements."

Cedar Island: "Private property owners are tying up and denying
.others from tying up."
Beaufort: The County has not gomplied with its agreement in providing
public wharf space.

It would appear that transient recreation craft would have difficulty finding
refuge in the event of a severe storm. Several other harbors exist, most
of them down east, primarily serving commercial fishing vessels. Boaters
have identified, however, that when problems occur they have no difficulty
being accommodated by area residents. The only instance of difficulty re-
ported was of a disabled catamaran which beached at the Fort Macon State
Park swimming area in 1978, and was told to "get out". Because of change
in personnel at the park, this is unconfirmed. The present Park Superinten-
dent reports that boats are.able to use the beach except at the jetties
and within the protected swimming area, for safety reasons. This is cer-
tainly acceptable.

The risk of hurricanes seems to be higher with each year of insignificant
damage. Unfortunately, the study found that most p*eople are not aware of
emergency procedures even though a hurricane plan exists. Emergency pre-
parations should not be implemented for any but severe storms to avoid
calling "wolf," but the system should be improved-to inform and interpret
to visitors, in particular, evacuation procedures.

In spite of fairly heavy use of boats and.beaches in the county, only seven
drownings were reported for 1973, four related to boating. This is still

8 Personal conversation 5/24/79.

seven too many, but should not precipitate beach and swimming restrictions.
Very often recreations are attractive which have an element of risk in them
and users need the option to use unsupervised beaches and waters. Super-
vised public beaches are available at the State Park, Atlantic Beach, and
Emerald Isle.

Boating safety laws and other regulations are being enforced by the U.S.
Coast Guard and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. The N.C. Division
of Marine Fisheries has assisted at times aiding boats in trouble.

Scott Daughtry, Superintendent at Fort Macon State Park, reports that the
jetties at the inlet are the source of most accidents, with fishermen and
others sometimes slipping on the rocks.9 Two locations in the park provide
emergency access to the beach; eleven others have been located in the county
which are somewhat more public (see inventory of access points in Section V).

Funding.Sources

Throughout the study, issues regarding growth keep surfacing. Growth pro-
ponents generally are seeking increases in per capita income or gross
spending in an area, to increase the private wealth of an area. It is
found, generally, that while one may be interested in seeing an area grow
in population, there is also a strong feeling against the growth of govern-
ment. The two are tied together. Growth in use of the beaches has preci-
pitated a recent action by the County Board of Supervisors to provide
Sheriff's Department patrolling of the beaches. Growth of resident popula-
tions will require additions to waste water treatment capacity - or -
additions to the waste water treatment facilities will allow additional
growth of populations and/or industry. Relationships regarding provision
of recreation access are similar, with one exception: recognition by
private industry that a profitable market would result from investment in
access facilities may provide an alternative to public investment in this
area. Because market conditions change, however, services providing basic
access to at least resident populations should be a governmental function.

Local government has several (limited) sources of financing its operations:

1. Current tax revenues

2. Operating revenues

3. Future bond authorizations

4. State grants

5. Federal grants

6. Donations from private sources

9 Personal conversation 7/11/79.

All of these have application in financing access improvements in Carteret
County. Regarding the first three, and the funding of local match monies
which may be required by the last three; public policy decisions determine
which spending is for essentials that must be done, which is for those that
should be done, and which is for desirable options that might be done.10
With practical politics added to this mix, decisions include those based
on opinions of that which can be afforded, and that which the body chooses
to afford. In addition, priorities must be set on internal competing demands
to maintain acceptable levels of service in all departments.

State grants most often are extensions of federal programs. The 1979
session of the General Assembly did, however, appropriate money for beach
erosion abatement grants to coastal areas. A condition of the grants is
that public access must be provided to those areas improved with state
funding. (Beach improvement activities of the Corps of Engineers have the
same condition.) Utilization of these or subsequently appropriated funds
may provide beach access "through the back door," if used for example, at
Bogue Inlet. Acquisition of.access lands by the State Department of Ad-
ministration is possible, thoughunlikely, unless responsibilities of the
N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation would be broadened to administer
smaller areas or unless the Division's mission were broadened to include
the total supply of local recreation, including recognition of impacts of
regional visitors on local recreation opportunities. Sites acquired by the
state which are too small or remote from existing parks should be transferred
to local government administration. Should there be lands along Salter Path
Road in excess of need for the 100 foot right of way, use of these should
be sought for parking and access to the low capacity foot trails, if the
trails can be secured for general public use.

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has limited funding for
construction of boat launch areas. Local sponsors must provide the land.
According to William Jansen of the Commission Boating Division, there are
no plans for funding Carteret County projects in the next five years.11

Potential for future assistance is provided by several federal programs.

1. The U.S. Department of Commerce was authorized by the Coastal
Zone Management Act to provide 50 percent matching grants for
acquisition of beach access. Eighty percent federal grants
are available for planning. Acquisition funds, although author-
ized, have not been appropriated by Congress.

2. Section 308 of the CZMA covers the Coastal Energy Impact Program,
which provides funding for "planning grants, credit and repayment
assistance and environmental and recreational loss grants". Should
Carteret County be impacted in the future, by refining, transpor-
tation or storage activities related to the energy program,

10 Research Triangle Regional Planning Commission, The Research Triangle
Region of North Carolina Economic Indicators, Raleigh, N.C., 1970.
11 Personal conversation 3/5/79.

recreation loss mitigation funding should be sought. A resolution
adopted by the Coastal Resources Commission June 6, 1979, indicates
the absence of recreation impact consideration in the Core Creek
refinery by the Corps of Engineers and requests this be corrected.

3. The Coastal Plains Regional Commission and associated Economic
Development Administration grants and EDA loans contribute to
tourism development (where none before or where there is a shortage
of local private capital in a tourism-dependent area). Grant
monies earmarked for the convention center by EDA are presumed
to make it very difficult to secure other grants for Carteret
County from this source. CPRC grants for recreation have been
tied to net economic increases. It seems unlikely grants would
be awarded for facilities which do not have a direct relationship
to tourism income, e.g., free beach or boat access.

4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers programs provide 100 percent grants
or costs assumed for navigation projects; and when there is avail-
able money, 50 percent grants for recreation. Dredging of channels
to benefit recreational boaters, and other recreation projects,
are allowed within Corps programs; because of few projects many
Corps personnel are not aware of this possibility.

5. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently added recrea-
tion concerns to 201 waste water treatment grant programs, for
planning only. Should Carteret County get to the point of pro-
viding ocean outfalls or have other waste water treatment projects
which are related to bodies of water, recreation uses are suggested.
The related Section 208 planning program will shortly provide
recreation-related information; this program is intended to make
all waters "swimmable and fishable by 1983".

6. Both Title I Community Development funds and Revenue Sharing Funds
can be used to supply local match money in other federal grant
programs.

7. The grant program most relied upon by park and recreation agencies
is that administered by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service in the Department of Interior. Fifty percent grants are
available through an administering state agency (NRCD, BOR) which
fund acquisition and development projects. The program allows the
value of donated land (if not accepted prior to grant receipt) and
"bargain sale" donations, to contribute to the local match. "In
kind" contributions, or the value of local work associated with
the project may aiso contribute to the local match money.

A variety of publications describe in detail the above and other assistance
programs of the federal government.

Location of Areas Recommended for
Access.-Improvement 000
1.11 GO

107 General Location of' Improvement Proposed;
Keyed to Recommendation Number.

CRAVEN COUNTY

r
10 Newport
....... I- "Ioe%.) 1111ston Dev

Stella

end It e. rahellbe
0

Ce ft at sland
anti
0
J
V t h
z rald Isis
0
2

U
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. <

co
Base Map Provi,ded by Carteret County Planning Department

SECTION IX

RECOMMENDATIONS

"There is a balance between beauty and business that must
not be ignored."

James A. Michener, in The Quality of Life

@iv r

Beaufort Harbor Tours
4- 4
,%@Rw@f - ,

General

Recreation planning, as indicated earlier, should include the broad scope
of park and recreation functions, facilities and administrative services,
including provision of ocean beach and estuarine recreation access. When
considering total recreation needs and desires, there is an overlapping
relationship of water-related activities with other recreations. This in-
cludes concerns for informal family and individual recreation preferences,
provision of open space to preserve property values and environmental qua-
lity; and the provision of a balance of recreation options, including water
and shoreline activities. Planning activities within Carteret County should
accommodate this spread of interest, and work to avoid situations where
recreation options for local populations are reduced by the pressure of
tourists competing for use of finite resources.

Recommendations for action by local, state or federal agencies are intended
to precipitate discussion by county officials. If found acceptable, the
county should communicate their concerns and interest to appropriate offi-
cials.

It is proposed that, except for the seashore at Atlantic Beach, Bogue Banks
beaches continue to serve primarily as places for family recreation, without
provision of adjacent commercial zoning that would precipitate visitation
by large numbers of young people.

Access in down east ar eas should be limited, aimed at providing local access.
It seems appropriate that the county attempt to retain the character and
culture of down east fishing villages, not adding facilities which will in-
duce growth beyond that generated by traditional patterns or local community
decisions. Assuming that a majority of present down east residents and land-
owners want perpetuation of the rural atmosphere around the settlements, it
would appear desirable to secure a consensus of area residents as a prelude
to adoption of a county ordinance (or amendments) which will satisfy local
desires.

The Harker's Island community will be impacted by need for access to Cape
Lookout National Seashore and is likely not to retain its character to the
extent of other down east areas. It appears that access to the sound is
reasonably available to down east residents. In many cases this involves
a first come, first served claim for dockage of work boats and part time
commercial boats as well as recreation craft, along highway rights of way
and other access locations including those adjacent to and within Harbors
of Refuge.

The Beauty-Business Balance

If, as it appears, a majority of present Carteret County citizens are con-
cerned about land uses in the county, feel a threat of impending disaster

to their quality of life; if permanent population will grow to 70,000 by
2025 and potentially with present zoning, to over 150,000 (including sea-
sonal residents), then it may already be too late to significantly moderate
the growth trend. It is not too late to develop a cooperative system of
planning which will seek consistency in development efforts and retain
desirable features of the coastal environment, It is not too late to seek
coordination with state and federal programs and policies, as well as with
private development interests. Discussion of the Carteret County Land Use
Plan, and changes desired, would provide one jumping-off place for such
cooperative activity to begin. Local values need to be protected.

RECOMMENDATION 1: Develop a vehicle for coordinating a search for and
work toward county-wide goals, including recreation,
preservation and development. This might be achieved
by assignment of responsibility to County staff,
creation of an ad hoc committee; or the Board of County
Commissioners could play an active role in concert with
principal elected officials from the municipalities.
In all cases, the County Planning Commission and planning
department staff should participate actively. There is
a need for a resident consensus effecting a self-deter-
mination toward enhancement of life in Carteret County.
There is need for a method of communicating concerns
to the various municipalities to encourage local pro-
grams which would complement county-wide goals. An
example of this is the basic need to improve waste water
treatment capacity before the sounds become polluted
(as they have in other places), and before the economic
base and environmental quality are degraded.

RECOMMENDATION 2: Establish advisory committee of mainland down@east
representatives, appointed by the County Board, for the
purpose of discussing local determination alternatives.

RECOMMENDATION 3: Acknowl edge and/or modify the Carteret County Land Use
Plan, prepared by the North Carolina Coastal Resources
Commission, and secure copies of the land use map asso-
ciated with it for use in the County. The Plan should
be expanded, including policy statements on siting of
energy facilities, beach erosion and beach access. It
is recommended that sites of previous overwash on Bogue
Banks be considered for designation within Areas of
Environmental Concern.

RECOM14ENDATION 4: Associated with the above or as a second related action,
establish an advisory committee for the purpose of
recommending actions to assure adequate operation of
the Harbors of Refuge and availability of safe refuge
for transient vessels. This group should be broad enough
to evidence concern for the Beaufort (Gallants Channel/
Town Creek) Harbor of Refuge.

RECOMMENDATION 5: Ass ist in retaining open space across from the Harker's
Island School and Rescue Squad Headquarters. It appears
this is seen by the Islanders as a key feature of the
Island, with use allowed by the owner apparently without
complaint. Residents and others use the area for visual
access to the sound, Shackleford Banks and Cape Lookout
and for other informal uses. Harker's Island residents
reporting a desire to retain this local amenity also
report acquisition is unlikely to be accomplished
(1) because of property value and (2) because of the
desire to keep the land in the owner's family. It may
be possible to secure development rights or a scenic
easement or provide preferential taxation which will
assure, temporarily at least, existence of this open
land, picturesque trees and comfortable vista.

REC OMMENDATION 6: Secure use of excess state land to be made available by
relocation of the bridge over Salter's Creek, to es-
tablish a boat launch ramp, courtesy dock, and 40 car/
trailer parking area, to provide access to the new Nelson
Bay-Long Bay channel, a shorter route to Pamlico Bay from
Core Sound. Purchase of some adjacent land may be neces-
sary in order to provide parking. "Part of old roadway
will be available for access to the channel",, according
to William G. Marley of the N.C. Department of Transpor-
tation.

RECOMMENDATION 7: Seek improvement of the small beach and car top launch
area on State Right of Way at the Harker's Island bridge
(storage area for pilings). The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers will shortly undertake a dredging project
adjacent to this, estimated to produce 20,000 cubic yards
of spoil. The site is now used for car top boat launching
and some sunbathing. The shoulder and parking area could
be graded occasionally. No other improvements should be
made; a paved ramp would not have adequate slope and
would generate too much use for this location. Several
area boaters have requested access to this area. The
N.C. Department of Transportation should be contacted
for support.

RECOMME NDATION 8: Promote improvement of Beaufort Jaycee Park/Wildlife
Resources Commission Boat Launch area. Parking available
is inadequate to serve the two launch ramps. The exist-
ing ramps can handle twice present capacity of parking
area., with a short wait during busy times. Construction
of additional ramps would not improve capacity because
of parking limitations. The parking area should be
improved and expanded, and parking spaces clearly

identified for maximum utilization. Parking spaces should
also be identified on streets. Approximately 120 cars
were parked at this location July 4, 1979.

RECO114ENDATION 9: Acquire 6-10 acres for a waterfront park in area of
Lennoxville Point. Facilities should include three boat
ramps, 130 boat and trailer parking spaces, courtesy
docks, boat beaching area, public restrooms and picnic
area. A vista of the sound is desirable. This area is
within zone V4 and A4 (Base Flood el. 8' MSQ of HUD
Flood Hazard Boundary map and is undeveloped, but has
development pressure.1

RECOMMENDATION 10: Seek improvements to W/R Commission/International Paper
boat launch area at Cedar Point. Secure "First Right of
Refusal" for acquisition of property east of ramp (appears
to be 2 lots, one improved). Construct one additional
ramp and a car top launch area. Provide a beach area
for temporary placement of boats leaving the water.

RECOMMENDATION 11: Acquire 15-25 acres for a waterfront park and major boat
launch area east of Cape Carteret, for operation as a
county park and outdoor recreation area. Facilities
should include'four boat ramps with spaces for parking
40 cars per ramp, courtesy dock, boat beaching area (also
used as car top launch area), fenced dry surface storage
area for 40 trailers and/or boats, restrooms, area mana-
ger office/concession stand, picnic area and rental slips.
A community park ballfield and/or other needed recreation
facilities adjacent could utilize parking areas during
slack times and contribute to other recreation needs.

West Bogue Banks

The Town of Emerald Isle controls beach access for 10 miles from Bogue
Inlet East. Current political controversy over beach access will likely
culminate in voters determining local beach policy by either re-electing
current or electing new Town officers. Traditional access to Bogue Point
has been prohibited by imposition and strict enforcement of no parking re-
gulations. Many in the area including some Emerald Isle residents, have
expressed frustration because of the closing action. Some Cape Carteret
.residents were shown access points to the ocean at the time of land purchase
there (2 miles from the beach), and have been frustrated by change in land
use in one case and by parking prohibitions in another. Hammocks Beach State
Park is five to seven miles distant (close to the area), but caters to wil-
derness uses and requires great vigor to walk to the shadeless beach

1 U.S. Department of HUD, Flood Insurance Study, Carteret County, North
Carolina (Unincorporated Areas), n.d.

(acceptable for wilderness uses and preservation). A beach recreation area
is needed at the west end of Emerald Isle, but is expected to be very dif-
ficult and expensive to secure.

RECOMMENDATION 12: Assist in securing public access to Bogue Point. A
non-commercial beach access area, with parking for 100
cars, public restrooms, drinking water, pedestrian cross-
overs and temporary lifeguard chairs should be sought
for this area. The Corps of Engineers is studying Bogue
Inlet and "beach erosion problems" on several miles of
Emerald Isle ocean front. It is likely that beach im-
provement activities of the Corps will require public
access to the improved beach in order to proceed with
the project. These lands are all within the corporate
limits of Emerald Isle. If the majority vote in the
fall to continue prohibiting access to non-residents,
an impasse may be reached and the circle of frustration
broadened. Take no action that will officially involve
the County in Emerald Isle pre-election politics. Seek
participation of Emerald Isle officials in County-wide
planning activity described in Recommendation 1.

RECOMMENDATION 13: In the event the Swansboro Coast Guard Station is
abandoned, the County should take whatever action is
necessary to assure it is transferred to other public
ownership. The site would provide limited parking and
access to the shoreline, and meeting room space for lei-
sure time activities and interpretation of cultural
history and recreations on and around Bogue Banks. Some
anticipate the Station will one day be located on an
island, in which case public ownership of the site will
be beneficial.

RECOMMENDATION 14: Assist in expanding capacity of public access at Atlantic
Beach. Unlike other beach communities, it appears the
Town of Atlantic Beach is interested in promoting growth
and use of the beach by the general public. Additional
capacity can be gained by securing beach access and
parking west of the developed area. A fee for parking
would assist considerably in generating operating revenue;
other concessions could be provided. A 500-car parking
area would.satisfy many people who are otherwise unable
to use the beach on busy days. (See Recommendation 27).
The cost of land on Bogue Banks and the desirability of
avoiding development of new commercial areas makes ex-
pansion of capacity of Atlantic Beach particularly
appealing.

RECOMMENDATION 15: Improve Airport Marina. Construct 30'-100' public
(See Page 92) wharf for temporary and emergency use associated with
and within 25' of adjacent Harbor of Refuge and to meet
agreement with Corps of Engineers. Include three boat
launch ramps, "courtesy" piers/boarding docks, adjacent
small beach area for car top launching and boat beaching,
finger piers and parallel piers for slip rental, parking
for 100 cars, fish-cleaning station, boat sanitary pump-
out station, boat washing station, site manager's office/
concession/rest rooms, perimeter fence with gate, en-
trance sign and flag pole. If possible, provide space
for Mariner's Museum boat-building facility. Dry stack
storage, more economical of water space, cannot be pro-
vided because of small site (maximum of five acres),
location in line with airport runway, and building height
restrictions. If development of the full site is imple-
mented, it is possible, and more desirable, that commer-
cial boat storage facilities fill the need for storage
capacity. A site analysis and master plan are necessary
as preliminary steps toward permitting and construction
contracts. Over-riding public benefits to be realized
from encroaching on a small amount of marsh are expected
to result in project approval by permitting authorities.

RECOMIENDATION 16: Consider for a major boat launch site, 10 acres of the
33 acre spoil bank at the east end of the Morehead-
Beaufort high rise bridge. Preliminary analysis indicates
feasibility as a launch site; sand can be stabilized, and
a channel can be dredged on the east side of the site.
A feasibility analysis and functional design study is
desirable, however, to best determine access ramp location,
traffic circulation, parking and site access. The N.C.
Department of Transportation should be requested to
undertake a signalization study for the Highway 70 in-
tersection with Morgan Street and Inlet Drive, and should
be approached regarding highway modifications to allow
storage and turning lanes. Use of the north 23 acres
as a I'put and take" spoil bank, its practicality and
potential for funding development and operation of the
site need to be reviewed. In State ownership, State
Ports Authority and N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
staff are both tentatively agreeable to the proposal;
additional commitment is necessary. The State Ports
Authority has indicated possible future need for port
expansion. A sketch prepared for the Marine Fisheries
Division several years also in included as Appendix C.

RECOMMENDATION 17: Request emergency evacuation preparation improvements.
Recent acquisition of the Navy surplus LCU's by the

IA&

T
'\OFFICE
=NCESSIONSA c
REVROOM

BOAT LAUNCHING
RAMP %
FLAG PLE

BEA

COUR ESY PIE
fit

BOAT LAUNCHING RAMPS

53 RENTAL BOA LIPS

SKETCH PLAN' SCALE
AI-RPORT MARINA
RECREATION & PARK
CONSULTANTS,.INC.,
R A I,F I GH, N. C..

N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, for use out of their
Morehead City headquarters, improves somewhat the oppor-
tunity for emergency evacuation of Bogue Banks and Cape
Lookout National Seashore. Utilization of the craft for
evacuation is to be triggered by the State Division of
Civil Preparedness. For the safety of those who secure
access, and to seek the least expenditure of public funds,
the county's operational evacuation plan must be further
developed and interpreted to result in timely evacuation
and minimum property damage and personal injury. It
appears there is a lack of citizen information regarding
evacuation activities. An education process is necessary.
Installation of warning flag/weather flag locations
throughout the county, operated perhaps by volunteers and
public safety agencies with associated flag chart signs
for interpretation, would provide interest to visitors
and boaters, and assist in early warning communication.
With each year of hurricane-free damage, the risk of
severe storms seems to increase.

RECOMMENDATION 18: Seek changes to Federal Flood Insurance Program to bene-
fit both access preservation and economy. The Federal
Flood Insurance Program and federal disaster programs in
general, are subsidized by the people of the United States.
Carteret County has qualified for the emergency phase of
the flood insurance program. County ordinances prohibit
rebuilding or repair of any buildin@ damaged more than
60 percent of its pre-damage value. Not enough is done
to prohibit reconstruction in hazard areas, but such
prohibition contravenes the Federal Flood Insurance Code.
It would seem appropriate that a system be promoted
th'rough local, state and federal authorities, that would
reduce future public liability for flood damage claims,
(1) by imposition of flood plain-flood prone area develop-
ment prohibitions (sites of predictable or previous over-
washes includ*ed); (2) by funding for public use, access
and conservation, acquisition of undeveloped shorefront
property, and property seriously damaged within flood
prone areas; (3) providing relocation assistance and full
replacement costs for new structures in non-hazard areas;
and (4) working to secure public access to water in hazard
areas, when and where public liability is assumed for
private hazardous actions and continued use of pre-existing
structures. Without waiting for changes in the Flood
Insurance Program, an attempt should be made to influence
developers not to build in overwash areas and other areas
subject to flood tides.

2 Section 60.4, Zoning Ordinance of Carteret County.

RECOMMENDATION 19: For preservation of natural systems which make ocean
beaches attractive, (1) require boardwalks over frontal
dunes for continued unrestricted use of existing pedes-
trian access; (2) limit and identify ORV access points.
At all locations where permitted, wooden ramps should
be provided for vehicle crossovers to allow continued
use and in order to maintain frontal dune elevations.
Existing State and Emerald Isle vehicle crossovers should
be included. This may require additions to the'"Outer
Banks Land Protection Ordinance of Carteret County".

RECOM14ENDATION 20: Seek legislative assistance, and assistance from Wild-
life Resources Commission members and staff to broaden
the financial base of the Commission,, encouraging their
participation in State Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
funding programs (Land and Water Conservation Fund of
U.S. Department of Interior (HCRS), and use of State
General Funds for acquisition, development and operation
of areas. The Wildlife Resources Commission needs to be
influenced to seek and accept funds other than those
which are sportsman-generated to meet needs for boat
access areas. The Commission practice in the past has
been to limit itself to traditional programs and practices
in order to perform well in those areas. Boating programs
have suffered. The policy of accepting, for administration
and maintenance, existing boat launch areas does not add
to the inventory of sites available, only to the manage-
ment load. Their need to have land acquired previous
to construction of ramps and the provision of only small
amounts of construction dollars have contributed to the
inadequacy of access in Carteret County. The Commission
does not appear to have funds available for improvements
11promised" for the Beaufort access area.

RECOMMENDATION 21: Improve access opportunities for those recreationally
disadvantaged.

1. Accommodating the Physically Handicapped. Unfor-
tunately, one cannot push a wheelchair down the beach.
High vantage points are difficult to reach for those
with walking impairments. A blind person cannot enjoy
the sight of sailboats in the sound or the oyster catcher
on the spoil bank. In Carteret County there are a few
places where one can see the ocean from *an automobile,
but literally no place one can reach the top of a dune
by way of a 5 percent or less slope. There are innova-
tions, however, which are allowing greater numbers of
recreationally disadvantaged to enjoy more of these
simple pleasures in life. Trails for Braille-readers
have been constructed, gentle crossover ramps and plat-
forms provide vistas to handicapped and aged in Florida,

fishing places have been provided for those in wheel-
chairs (rails are lower and planking is not gapped);
and in Carteret County, the Marine Resources Center has
a ramp which allows handicapped access, for interpreta-
tion of the coastal scene. Gravel paving in the parking
area makes it difficult to reach the ramp, however. The
best existing access for wheelchairs is at the Ft. Macon
jetties.

Public recreation programs could provide special event
tours for the handicapped if there is enough local demand.
Tours could include a boat ride, tour of the State Port,
Mariners Museum or Radio Island, a fishing experience,
a look at the ocean from Triple Ess parking area, a
trip to A boat builder, look at a fish or clam processing
house, or any number of other experiences.

2. Accommodating the Less Affluent. Head boats, fishing
piers, rental cottages, motels, campgrounds and other
rental opportunities provide access to those not able to
afford the luxury of boat or second home ownership. Some,
of course, are not able to afford even these, but can enjoy
use of public beaches, go clamming, fish at many places
along rivers and sounds--if transportation is within reach.
The road to Radio Island (Highway 70) seems hazardous;
yet one can occasionally see a Beaufort fisherman on a
bicycle heading to the LST Ramp. Radio Island is avail-
able for many uses as long as owners including the U.S.
Navy don't object or don't develop the industrial sites.
With 16+ percent of Carteret residents reported at poverty
level or below, many cannot afford much. It may be ap-
propriate to provide public recreation opportunities
similar to those proposed for physically handicapped, at
minimum or subsidized fee, without low income or handi-
capped pre-qualification. The Community Action Agency
does allow transportation for recreation, but cannot
accommodate those with severe handicaps. They report
"full use" of present vans, but should be requested to
look for funding and opportunities to add amenities for
program clientele, perhaps by extending service hours
and use of volunteers.

RECO14MENDATION 22: Consider establishing a volunteer work force, perhaps
among retired residents, who would supervise and assist
boaters in launching and retrieving boats, thus reducing
launch time. This service is needed on days when the
Beaufort and Morehead City access sites receive high use.
Parking assistance provided may increase capacity and
reduce feelings of insecurity some boaters have toward
leaving their car at the site. Local authorities and
Wildlife Resources Commission should approve.

RECOMMENDATION 23: Consider acquisition or use of federal or state property
that may in the future be declared in excess of need.
The Salters Creek-Highway 70 right-of-way is one that
shortly could be secured to enhance water access for
residents. As hindsight, continued seasonal operation
of the Cape Carteret-Emerald Isle ferry would have been
attractive as a cultural experience adding to typical
water uses.

RECOMMENDATION 24: Support activities and opportunities to enhance har-
monious development of commercial water-based recreation
services and support functions. Improvement of waterfront
aesthetics, such as Beaufort accomplished, is a good
example. Ownership of Town Marsh acreage, across from
Front Street, serves to protect scenic values and en-
hances the harbor development. Use of the Morehead City
waterfront would be enhanced by redesign of both local
circulation and the waterfront itself (see Recommendation
27).

Third Bridge to Bogue Banks

Issues related to feasibility of a third bridge are broader than this access
study, It is anticipated that the independent study being carried out by
Acres American Inc. will shortly have recommendations for the North Carolina
Department of Transportation. Construction of a third bridge should reduce
congestion at the Atlantic Beach causeway, improve conditions at the Emerald
Isle bridge and reduce traffic problems in Morehead City, temporarily at
least. Growth vs. no growth policies need to be considered. Completion of
a third bridge will most likely induce further growth, development and traf-
fic on Bogue Banks and possibly on Highway 58 and Highway 24. Regional access
will be improved much as the New Bern Bypass improved access to the region.
It is felt, however, that the New Bern Bypass induced traffic to and increased
congestion in Morehead City and Atlantic Beach by allowing more vehicles ease
of access to the area without attendant local improvements. It is anticipated
that Salter Path Road (now Highway 58) will not be able to handle local traf-
fic to and from three bridges without further changing the design cross
section of the improved road.

RECOMMENDATION 25: Review growth-inducing potential of a third bridge to
Bogue Banks. It is recommended that the county secure
information from the N.C. Department of Transportation
which estimates the amount of traffic, growth and develop-
ment which will be induced by the construction of a third
bridge. A conscious action should be taken to establish
county policy regarding growth. A third bridge is anti-
cipated to further reduce beach access to permanent
residents, while making beach access more available to
tourists and summer residents. This may properly be
addressed in Recommendation 1 on County-wide goals.

Inter-city Bus and Train Transportation

It is expected that the automobile will continue as the most convenient form
of transportation into and within Carteret County. For the long range, how-
ever, it may be practical to institute excursion train and bus service from
Raleigh-Durham east, leaving on Friday nights and returning on Sunday nights
during the heavy tourist season. It is possible that the gasoline shortage
and high prices may ultimately make feasible an autotrain/passenger train
terminating at a site west of Morehead City, perhaps on land leased from
the Southern Railway and linked with local attractions by a shuttle bus
system.

RECOMMENDATION 26: Determine the market for inter-city public transportation
service. The beginning step would be to seek funding
for a study, hopefully following indication of tentative
support from the Southern Railway.

Local Access

Preliminary analysis indicates that a bus or tram system with parking on the
mainland is not feasible at this time. Bogue Banks does not have a large
number of visitors who go to the island for a day's experience or family
outing who do not see themselves in need of automobile transportation. The
urban area on the mainland is not populated enough to make such a system
feasible. Population concentrations on the island are spread the entire
length of the island, making operating costs more prohibitive than presently
can be justified. The exception to this is the area of Atlantic Beach and
Ft. Macon State Park. (Ft. Macon has more of a family beach atmosphere than
Atlantic Beach.)

Consideration and study of a weekend or seasonal bus or tram system for the
beach areas should be tied to both a possible passenger railroad terminus
and a local shuttle/excursion bus serving Morehead City and Beaufort water-
front and historic areas.

RECOMMENDATION 21: Study the feasibility of a public transportation system
to and from high use areas.' An automobile parking struc-
ture may be too expensive and season too short to amor-
tize costs from revenue produced. In anything but publicly
owned surface parking storage facilities, land uses and
prices are such that operation of a parking facility
would not be the highest and best use of land in central
locations. Public transportation systems are not usually
self-supporting, but will often provide public benefits
which exceed the net operating loss expected. The study
of a potential public transportation system should ad-
dress several considerations and alternatives, including
the following:

(a) The likelihood of extended cooperative activity
between the municipalities involved and establishment
of either public, quasi-public, or private transporta-
tion agency.

(b) Establishment of automobile-free zones in areas
with central attractions. This might include the Atlantic
Beach "circle", the historic area of Beaufort, and certain
waterfront areas. Similar actions are popular in Europe
and used in Williamsburg, Virginia. Actions such as these
will result in disbenefits to automobiles.

(c) Timing of bus or tram schedules coordinated with
harbor excursion tours, bridge openings and arrival of
excursion trains.

(d) The provision of parking areas on the fringes of
the central locations with services to avoid impeding
commercial traffic.

(e) A shuttle bus with limited parking may be one al-
ternative at Atlantic Beach. To effectively extend the
public beach at Atlantic Beach, a cooperative effort
should be initiated between Carteret County, the Town
of Atlantic Beach and the State of North Carolina, for
the funding of access and development of a parking area
immediately west of the Town.of Atlantic Beach. (See
Recommendation 14.)

(f) Bus transportation to fishing piers, particularly
those on the east end of Bogue Banks, may become a
practical source of access if other rail and/or bus
systems develop. Seasonal minibus or van operation by
a cooperative group of pier owners may be practical;
with customer pickups at motels and central parking lo-
cations.

(g) An open tram in Atlantic Beach and causeway area,
circulating among various attractions and motels.

Bikeway/Pedestrian Way on Salter Path Road

The potential for bicycle-automobile accidents makes a bikeway somewhat
infeasible directly adjacent to Salter Path Road. It seems possible, how-
ever, that a parallel bikeway is practical for the entire length of High-
way 58 on Bogue Banks, particularly with the likelihood of continuing
gasoline shortages and high prices.

RECOMMENDATION 28: It is recommended that the N.C. Department of Transportation
Bicycle Coordinator be requested to make a feasibility
study for a County bikeway system. Modify the County
Zoning Ordinance regarding walkways and bikeways to en-
courage development of safe bikeways and safe pedestrian
ways, rather than restrict them through excessive set
back provisions (included only in Section 73-A.3 of
Residential Resort District).

Bogue Banks Parking Lot Access

Similar to the situation within central business districts, surface parking
may not be the highest and best use of land to a private developer, because
of the increasing costs of property on Bogue Banks. Parking facilities
which are not in public ownership will likely not remain as parking facili-
ties because of the market for land. Parking structures are not financially
feasible on the island with only four or five months of use. State acquisi-
tion of the 25 acre Roosevelt property at Salter Path is reported to require
public access and limited parking as a condition of the potential gift.

RECOMMENDATION 29: The State Department of Administration should be en-
couraged to proceed to secure access to the Roosevelt
property, and should also be requested to survey, imr-
prove and identify its property adjacent to the Iron
Steamer Pier (a 100 foot strip) as a public parking and
ocean beach access location. This could be accomplished
by either agreement with the pier owner or construction
of highway access. The former would provide the maximum
of service to both the public and the pier. Management
of both sites by the State should be most economically
provided by extending management responsibility of Fort
Macon State Park; park staff presently administers the
Theodore Roosevelt Natural Area nearby.

RECOMMENDATION 30: The*practicality of parking strips or lanes on the Salter
Path Road right-of-way should be recommended for study
to the State Department of Transportation, in order to
make publicly-owned beach foot paths more accessible.
This would be particularly beneficial to residents,
off-season surfers, and others willing to walk to the
ocean beach from the road. Considerable parking may
already be possible along shoulders of the improved
road. Identification of parking areas and access points
is recommended; however, roadway/traffic safety must be
taken' into consideration.

Implementation Proposal

Many of the recommended actions have fairly equal priority and can be car-
ried on concurrently. In general, however, actions are listed in order of
priority. Generalized Capital
Cost Estimates
Phase I

1. Request comments on the report, including the following:
County advisory commissions, N.C. Coastal Resources Com-
mission and Departments of Administration, Commerce, Nat-
ural Resources and Community Development and the Wildlife
Resources Commission; locil legislators and municipal
officials. $

2. Implement Recommendations I and 3, with staff support as-
signed by the County Manager.
'3. Implement Recommendation 2, and with concurrence, Recom-
mendations 5 and 7. - - -

4. Contact Town of Beaufort regarding Recommendations 8, 9,
and 15. Seek joint action on 8 and 9. - - -

5. Contact N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission on Recommen-
dation 7, 8, 9, 10, 16 and 20. - - -

6. Contact Towns of Beaufort and Morehead City regarding
'Recommendation 22. - - -

7. I'mplement Recommendatfon 4; establish contact with Mr.
Q.T. Swain, engineer with Wilmington Corps of Engineers. - - -

8. Contact N.C. D.O.T. regarding Recommendations 4 and 6
establishing boat access, and number 23. - - -

9. Seek grant from Coastal Resources for construction
planning of Airport Marina parking, two ramps and
bulkheading (Recommendation 15). 1,000 (County)

10. Discuss grant funding criteria with NRCD Division of
Parks and Recreation and State Bureau of Outdoor Rec-
reation; identify projects and desired funding. In
addition, seek major State participation in Atlantic
Beach and Emerald Isle projects, but propose local
operations. - - -

11. Discuss Recommendation 12 and 13 with Emerald Isle
officials, seeking a long term solution to Bogue Point
access. Establish contact with Corps of Engineers on
the issue. - - -

12. Contact Town of Atlantic Beach regarding Recommendation
14. Seek agreement for bargain sale or donation of land.

13. Seek bargain sale (for owner's tax benefit) or donation
of property and/or execute option or "first right of refu-
sal" aggreement for waterfront park east of Beaufort
(Recommendation 9).

14. Seek "first right of refusal" agreement on Cedar Point
land CRecommendation 10). 500. (plus land
15. Seek "first right of refusal" agreement on land east eventually)
of Cape Carteret Mecommendation 11) 1000.
169 -formally indicate interest in Spoil Bank (Recommendation
16) to State Ports Authority and NRCD Division of Marine
Fish-erfes. -

17, Request N.C.D.O.T. study of Highway modifications pro-
posed tn Recojumendation 16. - - -

18. Implement Recommendation 19 through. ordinance review and
acttvttles of Dunes Protection Officer.

19., Seek implementation of Recommendation 17 through County
Ctvtl Preparedness Office. 0 ?

20. Contact NRCD Flood Insurance Coordinator regarding
Recommendation 18, seeking its implementation. With
the State, draft a contingency plan to acquire flood
hazard lands; other coastal counties may participate. - - -

21. Identify to N.C.D.O.T., U.S. Coast Guard and others,
interest in Recommendations 13 and 23. - - -

22. Discuss Recommendation 24 with Towns of Morehead City
and Atlantic Beach regarding redesign of waterfront areas
and the "circle" to maintain and improve circulation and
M
roperty values. Request funding comments from Neuse
er Council of Governments. - - -

23. Request Neuse Ri-yer COG to respond to Recommendations
26 and 27. - - -

24. Request N.C.D.O.T. to respond to Recommendations 25, 27,
28 and 30.

25. Request N.C. Department of Administration to respond to
Recommendation 29. - - -

26. 'Request Chamber of Commerce or County Parks and Recreation
Department to prepare information brochure on access op-
portuni'ties, includfng those for the handicapped. 500

101

27. Encourage adaptation of public and commercial access
facilities to accommodate physically handicapped. $- - -

28. Review conditions and ordinances prohibiting surfing
within 500 feet of commercial piers and prohibiting
fishi.ng frojo certain bridges. - - -

29. Encourage Fort Macon State Park to design and paint
parking lines to increase beach parking capacity.
Encourage establishment of a trail to the Sound. - - -
30. Seek construction funding for improvements to Airport 60,000 (County)
Marina CHCRS, CRC, Corps of Engineers).
Total Phase I . . . . . . . . . 63,000

Phase II -'$6cond Year

1. Assess extent to which access program is meeting goals.
Revise program accordingly. $-

2. Constder bond issue funding to provide local match monies
for acqutsftton and &velopment of the following:
Airport Martna - docks, piers, building, fencing 70,000 (County)
Cape Carteret area park - acquisition, road, gravel
parking and boat launch area 130,000 (County)
Lennox,ville Point - acquisition, road, gravel parking
and boat launch area 130,000 (County)
Salter's Creek Boat Launch development 5,000 (County)
Portion of Atlantic Beach local match money 20,000 (County)
CEstimated to total $400,000 for Acquisition)
Portion of Bogue Inlet local match money 10,000 (County)
(Esti@mated to total $300,000)
Total Phase II . . . . . . . . $365,000

Phase III - Third Year

1. Review previous activities.; revise program accordingly - - -

2. Assuming "put and take" spoil area is functional (Recom-
mendatton 16) use funds generated from sale of sand as
match for construction grant on Highway 70 site. Secure
planntng grant from CRC; project cost should be limited
to that generated from sand sales and grant match. - - -

102

GENERAL REFERENCES

Baker, Simon, Storms, People and Property in Coastal North Carolina, U;NC
Sea Grant Publication 73-15, Raleigh, N.C., 1978.

Brower, David J., et al, Access to the Nation's Beaches: Legal and Planning
Perspectives,-UNC-SG-77-18, Raleigh, N..C., 1978.

California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, California Coastal Plan,
Sacramento, 1975.

Carls, E. Glenn, "Recreational Use of the Coastal Zone: Effects of Crowding
and Development," Visual Quality and the Coastal Zone, Proceedings of a
Conference/Workshop, SUNY, Syracuse, 1976.

Carteret County Economic Development Council Carteret County, North Carolina
Statistical Abstract, Morehead City, N.C.: T.-d.

Carteret County Parks and Recreation Commission, A Plan for Parks and
Recreation in Carteret County, n.d.

Center For Marine and Coastal Studies, Proceedings of a Conference on
Coastal Management, UNC-SG-74-16, Raleigh, 1974.

Coastal Zone Resources Corporation, The Economic Impact of Conmercial Sports
Fishing Activities in Morehead City, North Carolina, 1972.

Ditton, Robert, and Thomas Goodale, Marine Recreational Uses of Green Bay:
A Study of Human Behavior and Attitude Patterns, Univ. 6f @Wisconsin Sea
Grant Pub. 72-217, 1972.

Dunham, J. W. and A.A. Finn, Smallcraft Harbors: Design, Construction and
Operation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Belvoir, VA, 1974.

East Carolina University Regional Development Institute, Feasibility of
Constructing a Convention Center, Carteret County, N.C., Greenville, N.C.,
T 9 7 -2.

Elfers, Karl and Maynard M. Hufschmidt, Open Space and Urban Water Management,
Water Resources Research Institute, UNC, Chapel Hill, 1976.

Floyd, C.F. and C.F. Sirmans, The Economic Impact of Recreational Land-Use
in an Island Environment: A Case Study of Jekyll Island, Georgia,
Georgia Marine Science Center, Skidaway Island, GA, 1976.

Geoffrey McLean and Co., Comprehensive Land Use Element, Neuse River Council
of Governments, New Bern, N.C., 1976.

Graetz, Karl E., Seacoast Plants of the Carolinas, UNC-SG-73-06, 1974.

103

Henry von Oesen and Associates, and Wm. F. Freeman Associates, Carteret
County Complex 201 Facility Plan, n.d. (Est. 1975)

Lewis, W. Cri's, et al, Regional Growth and Water Resource Investment,
Lexington Books, Lexington, NA, 1973.

Marine Extension Service, University of Georgia, Fishing Locations and
Information, Brunswick, GA, n.d.,

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan Harbors Guide, Lansing,
1977.

National Park Service, Environmental Assessment, Cape Lookout National
Seashore, North Carolina, Denver, 1978.

Neuse River Council of Governments, Population and Socio-Economic Base Stwd-y,
New Bern, N.C., 1975.

Neuse River Council of Governments, An Inventory and Analysis of Recreation
Open Space and Historic Sites in the Neuse River Regionof North Carolina,
New Bern, 1974.

North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission, Coastal Area Management Act Land
Use Plan, Carteret County, North Carolina, Raleigh, 1978.

North Carolina Department of Administration, North Carolina Municipal Popula
tion, 1977, Raleigh, Dec. 1978.

North Carolina Department of Local Affairs, Community Facilities Plan and
Public Improvements Program, Carteret County, N.C.9 Raleigh, 1969.

North Carolina Department.of Natural and Economic Resources Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Raleigh, n.d. (Esi. 1973)

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development,,
North Carolina Water Resources Framework Study, Review Draft, Raleigh,

North Carolina State Goals and Policy Board, A Balanced Growth Policy For
North Carolina-, Raleigh, 1978.

Office of Management & Budget, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance,
G.P.O., Washington, D.C., 1979.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Outdoor Recreation for
America, Washington, D.C., 1962.

Owens, David W., et al, Access to the Nation's Beaches: An Annotated
Bibliography, UNC Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Chapel Hill,
1978.

104

Pilkey' Orrin H. Jr., et al, How to Live With an Island, N.C. Department of
Natural and Economic Resources, Raleigh, 1975.

Recreation and the Environment, EPA Journal, Washington, D.C., June 1979.

Recreation Resources Center, UW Extension, Economic Impact and Needs of
Wisconsin's Great Lakes Boaters, Madison, 19

Research Triangle Regional Planning Commission, Economic Indicators, The
Research Triangle Region of North Carolina, Raleigh, 1970.

Sargent, Frederic 0., Rural Environmental Planning, University of Vermont,
1976.

Schoenbaum, T.J. and K.G. Sill iman, Coastal Planning: The Designation and
Management of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, UNC-SG-76-09,
Raleigh, 1976.

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1970
Salt Water Angling Survey, Washington, D.C., 1973.

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, OCZM, Coastal Recreation: A Handbook for
Planners and Managers, Washington, D.C., 1976.

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, OCZM, State of North Carolina Coastal
Management Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Washington,
D.C., n.d.

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, OCZM, Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Prepared on Amendments to the North*Carolina Coastal Management Program,
Washington, D.C., 1979.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Flood Insurance Study,
Carteret County, North Carolina (Unincorporated-A-r-e-as-T,-n.d.

U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Assistance in Outdoor Recreation, G.P.O.,
Washington, D.C., 1968.

U.S. Department of Interior, Report of the Barrier Island Work Group,
Washington, D.C., 1978.

U.S. Department of Transportation, A Bikeway Criteria Digest, n.d.

Urban Research Development Corporation, Optimum Recreation Carrying Capacity,
Prepared for Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Bethlehem, PA, 1977.

Wilkening, E.A., et al, Quality of Life in Kickapoo Valley Communities,
'Center for Human Systems, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, 1973.

105

APPENDIX A

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA RECREATION AND
TOURISM RESOURCE POLICIES*

Recreation

It is State policy:

(1) To protect and preserve its land and waters for the
benefit of all its citizenry by acquiring and preserving
park, recreational and scenic areas. As set forth in
Section 5, Article 14 of the Constitution of North
Carolina 'and implemented under all authorities mentioned
below.

(2) To preserve to the greatest extent feasible, the public's
opportunity to enjoy the physical, esthetic, cultural,
and recreational quality of the natural shorelines of
the State. As set forth in and implemented under the
CAMA.

(3) To maintain superior quality of water and air resources
to ensure continued enjoyment of the natural attractions
of the coast. As set forth in G. S. 143-211 and imple-
mented under authority of G.S. 143-214.1 and G.S.
143-215.1.
(4) To provide or help provide outdoor recreation opportuni-
ties for all citizens and visitors. As set forth in the
"State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan" (SCORP)
and implemented under authority of G.S. 113-34,
Acquisition and Control of State Forests and Parks.

(5) To plan and promote
recreational develop-
ments in these areas,
with emphasis upon
making the seashore
areas of North Carolina
attractive to permanent
residents. As set forth
and implemented under
G. S. 113-14. 1, Promotion
of Seashore Industry and . ......
Recreation.

(6) That the State acquire,
locate and manage state-
owned lands in a manner
generally consistent
with local land-use and
land classification
plans, and with local
land-use regulations.
As set forth in the
CRC's "State Guidelines for Local Planning" and imple-
mented under the authority of the CAMA. 106
*State of North Carolina Coastal Management Program, pp. 110-112.

(7) To maintain a continuing planning program for outdoor
recreation to guide decision-making in outdoor recreation
programs and needs. As set forth in the "State
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan" (SCORP) and
implemented under authority of G.S. 113-34, Acquisition.
and Control of State Forests and Parks.

(8) To acquire adequate examples of natural outdoor recre-
ation features and to preserve them in as close to a
natural state as feasible. Such natural features should
be made accessible to the public for outdoor recreation
to the extent that such use does not destroy or degrade
the resource. As set forth in the "State Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan" (SCORP) and implemented
under authority of The Natural and Scenic Rivers Act
of 1971 (G.S. 113A-30 et seq); The@ North Carolina
Trails System Act (G.S. 113A-83 et seq); and G.S.
113-34, Acquisition and Control of State Forests and
Parks; and G.S. 113-29 et. seq., Acquisition and
Development of State Forests.
Tourism

It is State policy:

(1) To assist in the sound development of the seacoast
areas of the state, giving emphasis to planning and
promoting attractions and facilities for travelers in
these areas; with particular interest upon the develop-
ment of the scenic and recreational resources of the
seacoast. As set forth and implemented under authority
of G.S. 113.14.1, Promotion of Seashore Industry and
Recreation.

(2) To coordinate the activities of local government and
state and federal agencies in planning and development
of seacoast areas for the purpose of attracting visitors.
As set'forth and implemented under authority of G.S.
113-14.1, Promotion of Seashore Industry and Recreation.

(3) To discourage sprawl and strip development and roadside
advertising where they detract from scenic quality by
encouraging the Department of Transportation and local
governments to adopt and enforce design standards for
all roadside advertising. As set forth by the Land
Policy Council and implemented under authority of
G.S. 136-122 et. seq., Preservation, etc., of Scenic
Beauty of Areas Along Highways.

(4) That reforestation and preservation of vegetative cover
be encouraged as much as possible toward enhancing
state visual quality. As set forth by the Land Policy
Council under authority of the Land Policy Act (G.S.
113A-50). 107

Unique Cultural and Natural Resources

It is State policy:

(1) To promote ana encourage
throughout the coastal
area knowledge &nd ap-
preciation of North
Carolina history and
heritage by providing
assistance for identi-
fying places of his-
torical significance
and, where feasible,
acquiring such pro- A-
perties. As set for
and implemented under
authority of G. S.
121.9, Administration
of Historic Properties.

(2) To foster the preservation of coastal complex natural
areas, unique coastal geologic formations, and coastal
areas that sustain remnant species by receiving and
studying recommended acreas that may fall into those
categories, designating as AECs areas as are deemed
to qualify, and establishing a management program for
the preservation of those areas. As set forth in the
"State Guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern"
and implemented under authority of the CAMA.

Beach Access

It is State policy:

(1) That in the 75 foot estuarine shoreline AEC high
priority of land use allocation shall be given water
access proposals, provided that public resources will
not be detrimentally affected. As set forth in CRC's
"State Guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern"
and implemented by authority of the CAMA.

(2) That in the ocean hazard area (ocean beaches, frontal
dunes, and inlet lands), structural access ways to the
beach may be permitted on or seaward of the frontal
dunes, provided that their specific location and design
are demonstrated to be the most suitable alternatives
I W@i

7_7

and will not damage the dunes. As set forth in CRC's
"State Guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern"
and implemented by the authority of the CAMA.

108

APPENDIX B

BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION OPEN SPACE CATEGORIES AND,
N.C. DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION INVENTORY SHEET
FOR CARTERET COUNTY

Chapter 11 22-1.10

Summary of Findings, Policies, and Recommendations 2 of 2

BOR
Class Subclass Designation
High Density Recreation Areas

01 Mini-Park
02 Playground
03 Neighborhood Park
04 Combined Neighborhood Park and Playground
05 Playfield
06 Community Park
07 Citywide Park
08 District Park

Ii General Outdoor Recreation Areas

09 Countywide Park
10 Specialized Outdoor Recreation Area
Low Intensity Use (SORA LOW)
11 Specialized Outdoor Recreation Area--
Medium Intensity Use (SORA MED)
12 Specialized Outdoor Recreation Area-
High Intensity Use (SORA HIGH)

Natural Environment Areas

13 Natural Specialized Outdoor Recreation
Area --Low Intensity Use
14 Regional State Park
15 Destination Park/Recreation Area

IV Outstanding Natural Areas

16 Unique Natural Area

V Primitive Areas

17 Wilderness Area

VI Historic and Cultural Sites

18 Historic/Cultural Area 109
Pany-in+@A @P-:_ e4._4-_-__A_ mitdoor Recreation Plan

N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation Inventory Worksheet Region
County CA

County Population X Subclass Cross Need Present Supply Net Need
Subclass- In Thousands Standard

Neigh* Bnphe 2.5 49 L 0
41 (3. 0 ................
000009900"0000 see.**.
C 2o5 L4 1
or=* Bmph. 1 8 L4
ie*06000400*900 ..... 04--o-00- 4-94*0069004... 0 ............ 400*000000
1 2 1
C0::y06Peaqr*ke0qq*0 1 5.0

1089*60.9.0 0.00000.*460060*06006 .1 ............ 0............ .........
*:::r0i0c0t**P*a0r*k* so
D
, 7/ 2.5 6,7
*0.00000 6 Z.0
1 0 0 all, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C:unty Park
36
q 0 C) 1.0.0
............ *0011*0*100*00* 6440..;0.611 ........... 10 0.......... ............... 0i ...... q.
SORA LOW
I's 'Is
7
.......... ............. ........

SORA MED
20oO
660006090*0966, ...... 0....... 00-004-0 ...... 04-0 .......... 40-0 ....... 0---i ....... 0-
SORA HIGH 2.0
713
7,3
00000000000000; ............ 0 ....... 4....... 0-400 ......... 04 ........... 0 .... .........
III SORA LOW 150.0
60
14 Of/
0@) Z F, S,5@
00000000000410* ;--0 . . . . .00 . . . . . . 0004-0 . . . . .04 0 1. 4. . . 0- 0000000000 4-- 00**
State Park 15.0

Dest. Park 125.0 q
-----0 ........ 1000009000-Yo..o...o.ioooo..o.o..io ...... 0.01.0 .... 0 .........
0000600600
N 0 T E S A" 76

110

Z@
77

116

Perspective Sketch of Recreation Development Proposed
Earlier for Spoil Bank East of Morehead Bridge
(Provided by James Brown, N.C. Division of Marine
Fisheries)

33b

APPENDIX D

C iv EEff
Dogs
4(
0.

4b 10

SPOIL AREA
MARKERS ISLAND
HARBOR OF REFUGE

0 4w goo cm

SC&LE IN FEET

T:,
T

ATLANTIC

HARBOR OF REFUGE

c 400 boo Woo

IIIALf NO Farf

WATERWAY CONNECTING PAMLICO SOUND AND
BEAUFORT HARBOR, NORTH CAROLINA
MLW DETAIL OF SIDE CHANNELS
--I ------------
VARYING AND BASINS
4

VA I N i
`0
-00010.,7

4,
a: CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON,N.C.
-SEC
Y P J.C. L:' CT40N Z
t." MAP REVISED JUNE 1972
HARKER'S ISLAND AND ATLANTIC HARBORS OF REFUGE 112

APPENDIX E

SKETCH PLANS OF TWO
WATERFRONT PARKS

0 <

w
CL
to
u
LA
Lr -o

01
10

0 Q6
F

113

A.ITL-@@ Ic-

law

SKETCP DEVELOMENT PLAN
HALLENUALE MACW PARV
HALLENDALP, FLORIDN

PI&CLI: SALLEGALL BU& PAW
34C@Icll C@N OF RULCALL, FLORIDA
UZOALL FLORIDA
MY 'ARK
TYPEIP.UM: 5 EZJ
SUE xxs
950 ILAUlk
=IA7E] @Llp.ICRR I I.C,

::z%
L
TRANSIENT SHORE FRONT PARK
HOUSING HOTEL
Y A C H T CLUB
COMPLEX
TRANSIENT HOUSING
FFUT. DRY-'
STO
I, RACE. 1100
.8 LAUNCH:"-I@ IW L;
It" 4 L@ di
W
BOARDING DOCKS L; Z ca
z IL
WAVE BREAKER -4
Go -9 1 CL 0.
co
HARBOR WASTER
--MR
-9 VISITOR'S DOC go a.
ADM.BLDG.-7
K7
FUEL DOCK
'REPAIRS*-
==pc PROjECT DEPTH (TYPA cc
"71
COAST GUARD
_j
CC=
C==40 III A R'N
x0- 4A N
C 0 M M.". T.
64 !
ARD
FISH.
PROCESSING S F z _j

W1
CD cc z co
W ANCILLARY
CL Q. CL
Cr
4 OR
ANCILLARY FACILITIES
FACILITIES A. F.

PUBLIC- -ROADWAY

Schematic layout of a marina showing desirable interrelation of facilities.
Plan -credit: U S. Army CQastal Engineering Research Center, Kingman Building, Ft. Belvoir,
Ln
Virginia 22060

DATE DUE

CAYLORDIN.. 2333 PRI'NTEDI;:L'SA

-3 6668 14106-2028-