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

                                                CAMA

                            LAND USE PLAN UPDATE

                                                   FOR

                                      HYDE         COUNTY

                                                  1986

                                  LOCAL ADOPTION, MAINLAND    MARCH i6q 1987

                                 CRC CERTIFICATION, MAINLAND   MARCH 27, 198T

                                LOCAL ADOPTION, OCRACOKE ISLAND    APRIL 6, 1987

                              CRC CERTIFICATION, OCRACOKE ISLAND   JUNE 5, 1987

                H D
                211
                .N8
                C 3
                1987

                                                  %)tkTY 0

                                                   1712

                                               CAMA

                            LAND USE PLAN UPDATE

                                                  FOR

                                                      prc:-)c':-'t'-y C5
                                     HYDE COUNTY

                                                 1986
                                                               DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE N00
                                                                         Q CENTER
                                                          COASTAL SERVICEc
                                                          2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                                          CHARLESTON , SC  29405-2413

                                  LOCAL ADOPTION, MAINLAND   MARCH 160 1987

                                CRC CERTIFICATION, MAINLAND   MARCH 27,1087

                               LOCAL ADOPTION, OCRACOKE ISLAND    APRIL 6, 1087

                             CRC CERTIFICATIONs OCRACOKE ISLAND   JUNE 5, 1987

           7Z

                                       ow.            -w"

                                                                                         HYDE COUNTY

                                                                                      VIRGINIA

                              TENNESSEE

                                                                          L   J,
                                                                                                                 v,
                                                                                         L

                       G E 0 R G I A

                                                                                                       f                         d@ 611%
                                                            S-0 U T H CAROLINA

                                                                               Scale in Miles

                                                                        0     25    50    75   100

                                                                                                                                     MAP I
                                                                                                                               LOCATION MAP

                     THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE RESIDENTS

                                              OF

                                 HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

                                   BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:

                                 Alton M. Ballance, Chairman
                                Hal G. Swindell, Vice Chairman
                                     Michael T. Swindell
                                         J. B. Cahoon
                                         J. B. Berry

                              Clifford Swindell, County Manager

                             LAND USE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

              Alton Ballance                            Dan Smith
              Ernest Cutler                             Ray Spencer
              David Fletcher                            Walter Melvin
              Ellen Gaskill                             Charles Equills
              Thomas Jefferies                          Doris Smithwick
              Kay Riddick                               June Myers
              David Styron                              Jack Mason
              Wayne Teeter                              James D. Toppings, Sr.
              John Ivey Wells

                              Technical Assistance Provided By:

                               Talbert, Cox & Associates, Inc.

                                        P. 0. Box 1730

                               Wilmington, North Carolina 28402

                               Kenneth Weeden, Project Planner

                                  HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
                                  LAND USE PLAN: 1986 UPDATE

                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

              PART I: The Mainland                                          PAGE

              SECTION I: Analysis of Existing Conditions
                A. Establishment of Information Base                         1
                B. Present Conditions                                        3
                     1.  Population                                          3
                     2.  Economy                                             6
                         a.  Agricultural                                    6
                         b.  Commercial Fishing                              8
                         c.  Commercial Forestry                             9
                         d.  Tourism                                         10
                         e.  Employment & Income                             11
                     3.  Housing                                             12
                     4.  Impact of Seasonal Population                       14
                     5.  Existing Land Use Analysis                          14
                         a.  Current Conditions                              14
                         b.  Compatibility Problems                          16
                         c.  Major Problems from Unplanned Development       17
                         d.  Areas Experiencing or Likely to Experience
                             Major Land Use Changes                          18
                         e.  Areas of Environmental Concern                  18
                     6.  Current Planst' Policies and Regulations            22
                C.   Contraints: Land Suitability                            27
                     1. Physical Limitations                                 27
                     2. Well Fields                                          34
                     3.  Fragile Areas                                       34
                     4.  Areas with Resource Potential                       37
                D.   Constraints: Capacity of Community Facilities           38
                     1.  Water System                                        38
                     2.  Sewage Disposal                                     38
                     3.  Solid Waste Disposal                                39
                     4.  Schools                                             39
                     5.  Transportation                                      39
                     6.  Medical Services                                    40
                     7.  Emergency and Protective Services                   40
                E.   Estimated Demand                                        41
                     1. Population                                           41
                     2. Future Land Need                                     41
                     3.  Community Facilities Need                           41
                F.   Summary: Section 1                                      43

              SECTION II: POLICY STATEMENTS                                  44
                A. Resource Protection                                       44
                     1. Areas of Environmental Concern: Development
                         Policies                                            44
                     2. Development in Areas with Constraints                47
                     3. Hurricane and Flood Evacuation Needs                 49

                  B.  Resource Production and Management Policies                52
                      1.   Agriculture                                           52
                      2.   Commercial Forestry                                   53
                      3.   Mining Resources Areas                                54
                      4.   Commercial and Recreational Fisheries                 55
                      5.   Off-Road Vehicles                                     56
                      6.   Residential and Commercial Land Development           56
                  C.  Economic and Community Development Policies                57
                      1.   Types and Locations of Desired Industries             57
                      2.   Local Commitment to Service Provisions                59
                      3.   Desired Urban Growth Patterns                         60
                      4.   Redevelopment of Developed Areas                      61
                      5.   Commitment to State and Federal Programs              62
                      6.   Assistance to Channel Maintenance                     62
                      7.   Energy Facilities Siting                              63
                      8.   Tourism                                               63
                      9.   Density of Development                                64
                      10.  Land Use Trends                                       64
                  D. Continuing Public Participation Policies                    64
                  E. Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post-Disaster Recovery,
                      and  Evacuation Plans                                      67
                      1.   Storm Hazard Mitigation: Discussion                   67
                           a.  High Winds                                        67
                           b.  Flooding                                          67
                           c.  Wave Action                                       69
                           d.  Erosion                                           69
                           e.  Summary: Storm Hazard Mitigation
                               'Considerations                                   69
                           f.  Policy Statements: Storm Hazard Mitigation        70
                           g.  Implementation: Storm Hazard Mitigation           71
                      2.   Post-Disaster Reconstruction Plan                     72
                      3.   Hurricane Evacuation Plan                             76
                      4.   Re-Entry                                              76

                SECTION III:   Land Classification System                        78
                  A.  Developed                                                  78
                  B.  Transition                                                 79
                  C.  Community                                                  80
                  D.  Rural                                                      80
                  E.  Conservation                                               81
                SECTION IV: Relationship of Policies and Land
                Classifications                                                  82
                  A. Developed and Transition Classes                            82
                  B. Community   Class                                           82
                  C.  Rural Class                                                82
                  D.  Conservation Class                                         83

                                     HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

                                     LAND USE PLAN: 1986 UPDATE
                                        PART I: THE MAINLAND

                                       List of Tables and Maps

               TABLE NUMBERS                                                       PAGE

                1. Hyde County Population, 1990-1995                                 3
                2.   Hyde County Racial Composition:
                      1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995                                     4
                3.   Hyde County Population Distribution by Townships:
                      1970-1980                                                      5
                4.   Hyde County: Estimated Population, July 1, 1985,
                      by Age, Race, and Sex                                          5(a)
                5.   Hyde County: Projected Population, April 1, 1990,
                      by Age, Race, and Sex                                          5(b)
                6.   Hyde County: Projected Population, July 1, 1995,
                      by Age, Race, and Sex                                          5(c)
                7.   Hyde County Crop Production Income: 1981-1984                   7
                8.   Hyde County Livestock and Livestock Product Income              8
                9.   Hyde County: Seafood Landings Comparison, 1965-1984             9
               10.   Commercial Forestry Income in Hyde County                      10
               11.   Hyde County Annual Employment, 1980-1983                       11
               12.   Hyde County Per Capita Personal Income, 1981-1983,
                      North Carolina and United States Comparisons                  12
               13.   1980 Hyde County Housing Summary                               13
               14.   Selected Housing Conditions Summary, Hyde County               13
               15.   Hyde County Land Use Changes: 1980-1985                        15
               16.   Ferry Schedule                                                 .24
               17.   Hyde County Ferry Operations, Fiscal Years
                      1978-1979 and 1981-1985                                       24
               18.   Hyde County School Enrollment Figures                          39
               19.   Primary Road Traffic Counts: 1981 and 1985                     40
               20.   Percent of Structures Subject to Storm Drainage
                      Factors, Hyde County                                          71

               MAPS

                1.   Location Map
                2.   Hyde County Townships                                           4(a)
                3.   Existing Land Use Map                                   (attached)
                4.   Flood Hazard Areas                                      (attached)
                5*   Estuarine Erosion Areas                                        29
                6.   General Soil Map                                               31
                7.   Composite Hazard Areas                                  (attached)
                8.   Land Classification Map                                 (attached)

               FIGURES

                1.   Flooding in the Albemarle Sound Region from
                     Hurricanes Hazel, Connie, Diane, and Ione
                     (1954-55)                                                      69

                                             PREFACE

                                         HYDE COUNTY
                                  LAND USE PLAN UPDATE, 1986
                  Analysis of 1981 Policy Statements/Implementation Actions

                   The CAMA Land Use Plan for coastal communities is essentially
              a policy document aimed at guiding localities toward sound growth
              management. Because circumstances, conditions, and issues change
              over time, the Coastal Resources Commission, under State law,
              @equires the local land use plans to be updated every five years
              in order to "take a second look" at old policies for their
              relevance as well as examine newly emerging trends and concerns.
              The Commission is also requiring in all 1986 updates an assessment
              of the previous policy statements and implementation steps taken
              to effectuate them. This summary analysis of the 1981 policies is
              being presented here as a "Preface" to the 1986 Plan Update of
              Hyde County's Plan for the mainland part of the County.

          Policy Area

                Resource Protection
                                                            Status/Relevancy
                Policy/Implementation                       Actions

                1. The County, in carrying out its          1. This policy was
                policies on managing development            carried out in part,
                within the AECs, will continue to           except the County did
                support uses which are permitted            not appoint or acti-
                under the State Administrative Code.        vate a "Development
                However, it is the belief of Hyde           Review.-Board."
                County that variances to the restric-
                tions of uses within the AECs should
                be permissable on the basis of a
                case-by-case review if an applicant
                for a proposed development can clear-
                @y demonstrate that no major or
                irreversible damage would result. To
                help determine the "clear demonstra-
                tion" of no major or irreversible
                damage, the County Board of Commis-
                sioners will appoint a Development
                Review Board. This Board, working
                with the County Manager, the local
                CAMA Implementation and Emforcement
                officer, and the Building Inspector,
                shall review each proposal for devel-
                opment within an AEC or natural or
                cultural resource area.

                                            i

                 2. The County will seek to establish          2. Not implemented.
                 an Historic Properties Commission.            However, the Arch-
                 This Commission will have the author-         aeology Branch of the
                 ity to take necessary steps to protect        State Division of
                 properties of historic or architectur-        Archives and History
                 al significance. Prior to developing          has been actively
                 such a Commission, the County will            cataloging cultural
                 consult with the N.C. Department of           resources in the
                 Cultural Resources.                           County.

                 3. The County will discourage devel-          3. Implemented. The
                 opment in high flood-prone areas.             County has received
                 However, Hyde County will continue to         final flood maps from
                 participate in the Federal Flood              FEMA and is scheduled
                 Insurance Program. Proposed develop-          to enter the Regular
                 ments which are not otherwise damaging        Phase of the National
                 to other AECs may be permitted in some        Flood Insurance Pro-
                 flood-prone areas, provided protective        gram in late 1986.
                 measures which comply with flood
                 insurance requirements.

                 4.. Since a County-wide sewage collec-        4. This action was
                 tion and disposal system was shown to         explored by the
                 be economically infeasible (1978 201          County and discussed
                 Facilities Study), Hyde County will           with State officials,
                 explore the feasibility of developing         but due to a low-
                 "limited-area" sewer systems which            density population
                 would coincide with existing popula-          was determined to be
                 t-'Lon clusters and the current water         economically infea-
                 service area.                                 sible.

           B.    Resource Production and Management
                                                               Status/Relevancy
                 Policy/Implementation                         Actions

                 1.  The County will continue to               1.  Although existing
                 support the maintenance of existing           drainage rights-of-
                 drainage rights-of-way for farm drain-        way are maintained,
                 age, including the use of the County-         the County-wide per-
                 wide Agricultural Drainage Permit             mit process has not
                 process.                                      been viewed as very
                                                               effective.

                 2. The County will encourage, as much         2. Nothing has been
                 as feasible, agricultural drainage to         done toward this
                 run directly into Lake Mattamuskeet or        objective.
                 some of the canais which drain the
                 lake and which empty directly into the
                 Pamlico Sound.

                 3. The County will seek Federal and          3. Nothing has been
                 State aid to have the Outfall Canal          done toward this
                 cleaned and maintained. This is a            objective.
                 major drainageway running southward
                 from Lake Mattamuskeet directly into
                 the Pamlico Sound, which could be very
                 useful in the drainage network to get
                 freshwater directly into the Sound.
                 4. Because of the potentially favor-         4. A major peat
                 able economic and employment benefits,       mining proposal for
                 Hyde County encourages and supports          the White Tail Farms
                 the development of peat mining. Since        area is currently
                 mining operations are relatively new,        being held up, pend-
                 the County will seek to develop more         ing judicial clari-
                 information on the various impacts of        fications and adop-
                 peat mining. It is the desire of the         tion of environmental
                 County that mining activities cause no       regulations.
                 major or irreversible damage to any
                 Area of Environmental Concern, or
                 significant cultural or natural
                 resource. Also, the County will
                 encourage and support Federal and
                 State regulations requiring land
                 restoration and
                 reclamation.
           C.    Economic and Community Development           Economic & Community
                 Policy/Implementation                        Development - Actions
                 1. The County will establish more            1. On-going. This
                 active contact with the State's indus-       is still being pur-
                 trial development representative for         sued with State offi-
                 the region, and revive or make reap-         cials. Prospects
                 pointments to its existing industrial        have been presented
                 development committee. This will be          or discussed with the
                 done in order to develop an industrial       County, but nothing
                 "sales team" approach. The County,           definite has been
                 will actively explore funding assis-         developed.
                 tance to develop an industrial park
                 near the airport at Engelhard.
                 2. Hyde County will continue to pro-         2. The County is
                 vide new water service tap-ons to            currently seeking to
                 areas presently served. This will be         expand both its water
                 both economical and foster growth in         supply and service
                 already established communities. The         area, with assistance
                 County will also explore the                 from the FmHA.
                 feasibility of developing limited            Centralized sewer
                 sewer services to certain areas of the       service has been
                 County where development may                 determined to be not
                 concentrate.                                 feasible.

           D.   Continuing Public Participation            Continuing Public
                Policy/Implementation                      Participation - Actions

                1. It is the belief of the Hyde            1. Not implemented.
                County Board of Commissioners that all     After the completion
                citizens be afforded adequate oppor-       of the 1981 Plan
                tunities for participating in the          Update, the Committee
                governmental and planning decisions        did not meet again.
                which affect them. Therefore, the
                County will maintain the Land Use
                Advisory Committee even after the
                updated plan is completed. This will
                provide continuous citizen review and
                comment on development proposals and
                useful input into governmental deci-
                sions.

                                                iv

       I
       i                                                                                                   k
       I
       I
       I
       I
       I
       I
       I

       I
       I
       I
       I
       I

                                                                                                          PART I
       I                                                                                              SECTION I
                                                                         DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
       I
       I

              A. ESTABLISHMENT OF INFORMATION BASE

                    This Land Use Plan Update for Hyde County has been prepared
              in accordance with requirements of the North Carolina Coastal Area
              Management Act (CAMA). Specifically, this document complies with
              the Land Use Planning Guidelines, as amended, June 17, 1985.

                    The initial Land Use Plan was prepared for Hyde County  in
              1976, with a revised Plan being prepared in 1981. According   to
              the Land Use Planning Guidelines, the major purpose of periodic
              updating of local land use plans is to identify and analyze emerg-
              ing community issues and problems. An additional element which
              was not required in either the 1976 Plan or the 1981 Update is a
              "Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post-Disaster Recovery, and Hurricane
              Evacuation Plan," and is required to be included in the 1985
              Update. This element is designed to help local governments effec-
              tively coordinate policies and actions relating to the impact of
              hurricanes or other severe storms.

                    The guidelines further give the following objectives the
              update should meet:

                       to further define and refine local policies and issuest
                       to further examine and refine the land classification
                       system and the land classification map;
                       to assess the effectiveness of the existing land use
                       plan and its implementation;
                       to further explore implementation procedures; and,
                       to promote a better understanding of the land use plan-
                       ning process.

                    The initial Land Use Plan and the 1981 Update provided much
              of the needed information base for this update. However, in many
              cases, new information had to be developed, particularly for
              Ocracoke, which, as was the case with the 1981 Update, is being
              addressed primarily as Part II of this plan. Part 1, likewise,
              will address primarily the mainland portion of the County. A
              number of data sources were tapped during the preparation of this
              plan in order to obtain updated population, housing, economic
              (including agricultural, fisheries, forestry, and tourism), and
              land use information. Most of the data came from primary and
              secondary sources in the form of direct contacts,with represen-
              tatives of various state and federal agencies and/or previously
              published documents or reports. Efforts were made to obtain data
              that was as up-to-date and accurate as possible.

                    The data analysis showed that in most cases, the changes
              since 1981 have not been dramatic, and in some cases, minimal or
              non.-existing. The major conclusions of the updated 1986 Land Use
              Plan are:

                                             1

                    1.  Hyde County's population grew moderately between 1981
                        and 1985, reversing a five-decade-old trend of popula-
                        tion losses-noted in the 1981 Update. However, the rate
                        of growth was somewhat slower than forecast in the 1981
                        Plan Update. Moderate population growth is projected to
                        continue through 1995.
                    2.  The economic importance of agriculture will remain dom-
                        inant in the County throughout the next 10 years, but
                        tourism, as an economic activity, will increase in
                        significance (particularly on Ocracoke). The mining of
                        peat resources, although virtually untapped, still has
                        the potential to become significant within the next 10
                        years.
                    3.  The overall land development pattern, being one with a
                        predominantly rural, scattered residential character,
                        will likely continue. The rapid clearing of forestland
                        for conversion into agricultural use appears to have
                        stabilized, but is still an issue requiring policy
                        attention.

                    4.  The major community facility needs in Hyde County will
                        be additional potable water supplies, and some alterna-
                        tive to on-site waste water disposal facilities in the
                        developed and developing communities.

                    5.  In order to provide for economic expansion for the bene-
                        fit of the overall populace, industrial development
                        activities need to continue.

                    6.  Growth pressures in Ocracoke, especially since the 1981
                        Plan Update, has made the issue of developing some form
                        of local land use controls a critical one.

                                              2

               B. PRESENT CONDITIONS

                     1. Population

                     The historical nature of Hyde County's      population has been
               and remains today that of a scattered, rural populace dominated by
               agriculture. With one of the smallest county populations in all
               of North Carolina, Hyde experienced population losses in six of
               the first seven decades of this century, i.e., from 1900 through
               1970. A small gain was noted between 1920 and 1930. However, the
               1980 U.S. Census population figures, as reported in the 1981 Plan
               Update, also showed for the second time in this century a small
               decennial gain. The 1980 population census indicated that the
               trend of population loss for the County was being supplanted by a
               growth trend. Notice Table 1, below.

                                                TABLE 1
                                   HYDE COUNTY POPULATION 1900-1995

               YEAR     POPULATION      NUMERICAL CHANGE       PERCENTAGE CHANGE

               1900       9,278
               1910       8,840               -438                       -4.72
               1920       8,386               -454                       -5.13
               1930       8,550               +164                       -1.96
               1940       7,860               -690                       -8.07
               1950       6,579              -1,281                      -16.30
               1960       5,765               -814                       -12.37
               1970       5,571               -194                       -3.37
               1980       5,873               +302                       +5.42
               1985       6,013               +140                       +2.38
               1990       6,141               +128                       +2.12
               1995       6,306               +165                       +2.69

               Sources: U.S. Census of Population, 1980 Advance Reports
                         N.C. Office of State Budget and Management (May 9, 1985)
                 All of the figures were provided by the N.C. Office of        State
               Budget and Management, except for 1980. The 1980 figure         is the
               actual final count provided by the U.S. Census.
                    Since the 1980 Census, State figures indicate that Hyde
               County has experienced a modest population gain of 140 persons, an
               increase of 2.4%. This rate of increase is somewhat less than the
               projected rate of increase contained in the 1981 Update.
                    The 1981 Plan Update showed.a population projection for 1990
               of 6,386, with an increase of 8.73% over the 1980 figure. Since
               the preparation of the 1981 Update, however, the N.C. Office of
               State Budget and Management has developed revised population pro-
               jections for Hyde County. The 1990 population figure is currently

                                                  3

               forecast to be 6,141, thereby still showing an increasing popula-
               tion trend from 1980-1990, but at a very moderate rate. Also, an
               increase of 2.69 percent, or 165 persons, is projected to occur
               between 1990 and 1995, again reflective of a slow to moderate
               overall growth rate between 1985 to 1995. A net gain of only 293
               persons is forecast for the 10-year period.
                    The out-migration of non-whites is a trend noted in the 1981
               Plan Update and continues to occur (see Table 2, below). For the
               period 1980-1995, the non-white population is steadily declining,
               while the white population is increasing, thereby slightly alter-
               ing the County's racial composition.

                                               TABLE 2
                  HYDE COUNTY RACIAL COMPOSITION: 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995

                                 WHITE                   NON-WHITE
               YEAR         NO.     PERCENT          NO.     PERCENT          TOTALS

               1980        3,777     64.3           2,096     35.7            5,873
               1985        4,049     67.3           1,964     32.7            6,013
               1990        4,282     69.7           1,859     30.3            6,141
               1995        4,585     72.7           1,721     27.3            6,306

               Source: U.S. Census; N.C. State Office Budget and Management

                    As was noted in the 1981 Plan Update, a shift in the age
               groups of Hyde County's population is continuing (see Tables 4, 5,
               and 6, pages 5a - 5c). School-age groups appear to be stabil-
               izing, with a stea3-y but.slight decline through 1995. The depen-
               dent population (under 19 years and over 60) is expected to de-
               crease from roughly 51% in 1985 to 48% by 1995. The 1985, 1990,
               and 1995 projections also indicate that the middle group (ages
               20-44) will continue to increase during the late 1980's and
               19901s. Since this group presents perhaps the most productive
               portion of the population, its growth is likely to have substan-
               tial impact upon future land use decisions. The formation of new
               households will increase the demand for housing, the employment
               base will need to expand in order to provide more job opportuni-
               ties, and some community services may have to expand.
                     There are five townships in Hyde County, as Map 2, Page 4a,
               shows. Although there are no inter-censal data on townships for
               1985, the trend is likely the same as identified in the 1981
               Update (see Table 3, page 5         The Ocracoke Island Township grew
               at a faster rate than the '@ther four townships from 1970-1980
               with Currituck and Swan Quarter Townships next in line in popula-
               tion increases, growing at roughly the same rate. Lake Landing
               Township, which contains the communities of Engelhard, Gull Rock,
               and Nebraska, is the most populous township, but experienced a
               decrease in population for the 10-year period, as did Lake
               Mattamuskeet. Deviation from these trends may be indicated in,

                                                  4

                                                           u
                                               u
                                           c      r           c k                                                          Lake           Lan
                                                                                       a rf      etd

                                                                                         U n--'      -gan
                                                                                                              ized                W
                                                                               V I

                                                                                                                                   141
                                                                                              K E    M A T. T A.M V S K f z r
                                                                                              T e      ritory

                                 A.

                                              Zk-
                                                          wall. -

                                                                                                                                   0 c rja

                TOWNSHIPS
                   HYDE COUNTY

                      NORI'li CAROLINA
                                                                     Af
                                                                                          cl      0

               future census data; however, for the present time, the previously
               identified population patterns are assumed to be continuing.

                                              TABLE 3
                  HYDE COUNTY POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY TOWNSHIPS: 1970-1980

                                                              NUMERICAL     PERCENTAGE
               TOWNSHIP                 1970        1980        CHANGE        CHANGE

               Currituck               1,133      1,302          169            14.9
               Fairfield                 541         582           41             7.6
               Lake Landing            2,377      2,217          -160         - 6.7
               Ocracoke                  541         658         117            21.6
               Swan Quarter              958      1,098          140            14.6
               Lake Mattamuskeet          21          16        - 5            -23.8

                  TOTAL                5,571      5,873          302              5.4

               Source: 1980 U.S. Census of Population and Housing; Advance
                        Report; 1981 Land Use Plan Update

                                                  5

                                                  TABLE

                                                   HYDE

                    ESTIMATED POPULATION9 JULY lo 1985v BY AGE9 RACEt AND SEX

                                          WHITE                            OTHER
       AGE          TOTAL
                               TOTAL      MALE     FEMALE       TOTAL       MALE    FEMALE
      TOTAL         6013        4049      2023       2026        t964        915      1049
       0-4           447          313       163       150         134        67         67
       5-9           460          308       163       145         152        77         75
      10-14          451          260       144       116         191        90        101
      15-19          466          280       149       131         186        89         97
      20-24          483          297       163       134         186        96         90
      25-29          522          349       189       160         173        82         91
      30-34          479          343       176       167         136        66         70
      35-39          351          256       137       119         95         42         53
      40-44          294          207       104       103         87         45         42
      45-49          282          198       97        101         84         33         51
      50-54          274          187       85        102         87         37         50
      55-59          272          189       98         91         83         32         51
      60-64          299          209       95        114         90         42         48
      65-69          269          196       93        103         73         34         39
      70-74          275          196       81        115         79         35         44
      75-79          181          120       50        .70         61         22         39
      80-84          120          84        25         59         36         13         23
      85&UP            88         57        11         46         31         13         18

                                         PERCIENT OF COLUMN TOTAL
       0-4          7.43        7.73      8.06       7.40       6.82      7.32       6.39
       5-9          7.65        7 *61     8.06       7.16       7.74      8.42       7.15
      10-14         7.50        6 *42     7.12       5.73       9.73      -9.84      9.63
      15-19         7.75        6 a92     7.37       6.47       9.47      9.73       9.25
      20-24         8.03        7034      8.06       6.61       9.47      10.49      8.58
      25-29         8.68        8 062     9.34       7.90       8.81      8.96       8.67
      3,3-34        7.97        8 047     8.70       8.24       6.92      7.21       6.67
      35-39         5.84        6 -32     6.77       5.87       4.84      4.59       5.05
      40-44         4.89        5 *11     5.14       5.08       4.43      4.92       4.00
      45-49         4.69        4 -89     4.79       4.99       4.28      3.61       4.86
      50-54         4*56        4.62      4.20       5.03       4.43      4.04       4.77
      55-59         4.52        4.67      4.84       4.49       4.23      3.50       4.86
      60-64         4.97        5.16      4.70       5.63       4.58      4.59       4.58
      65-69         4.47        4.84      4.60       5.08       3.72      3.72       3.72
      70-74         4.57        4.84      4.00       5.68       4.02      3.83       4.19
      75-79         3.01        2.9,6     2.47       3.46       3.11      2.40       3.72
      80-84         2.00        2.07      1.24       2.91       1.83      1.42       2.19
      85&UP         1.46        1.41      0.54       2.27       1.58      1.42       1.72

      SCURCE    NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF                   BASED ON 70-80 CENSUS DATA
                STATE BUDGET      MANAGEMENT                      PREPARED MAY 9, 1985

                                                  5(a)

                                                  TABLE 5

                                                      HYDE

                      PROJECTED POPULATIONt APRIL It 1990v BY AGEt RACEt AND SEX.

                                             WHITE                           OTHER
           AGE         TOTAL      TOTAL       MALE    FEMALE       TOTAL      MALE    FEMALE

          TOTAL         6141       4282       2153      2129       1859        856      1003

           0-4           457        333       173        160        124         62        62
           5-9           407        260       140        120        147         71        76
          10-14          475        326       175        151        149         76        73
          15-19          455        270       155        115*       185         84        101
          20-Z4          434        Z95       15Z        143        139         58        81
          25-29          436        313       174        139        123         68        55
          30-34          542        384       209        175        158         78        80
          35-39          479        355       180        175        124         58        66
          40-44          347        265       144        121          82        38        44
          45-49          294        206       lot        105          88        45        43
          50-54          288        204         97       107          84        29        55
          55-59          282        197         91       106          85        37        48
          60-64          279        200       105         95          79        31        48
          65-69          300        206         86       120          94        45        49
          70-74          224        161         73        88          63        27        36
          75-79          223        167         64       103          56        22        34
          80-84          127          81        26        55          46        15        31
          85&UP            92         59          a       51          33        12        21

                                           ,PERCENT OF COLUMN TOTAL

           0-4          7.44       7.78       8.04'     7.52       6.67       7.24      6.18
           5-9          6.63       6.07       6.50      5.64       7.91       8.29      7.58
          10-14         T.73       7.61       8.13      7.09       8.02       8.88      7.28
          15-19         7.41       6.31       7.20      5.40       9.95       9.81      10.07
          20-24         7.07       6.89       7.06      6.72       7.48       6.78      8.08
          25-29         7.10       7.31       8.08      6.53       6.62       7.94      5.48
          30-34         8.83       8.97       9.71      8.22       8.50       9.11      7.98
          35-39         7.80       8.29       8.36      8.22       6.67       6.78      6.58
          40-44         5.65       6.19       6.69      5.68       4.41       4.44      4.39
          45-49         4.T9       4.81       4.69      4.93       4.73       5.26      4.29
          50-54         4.69       4.76       4.51      5.03       4.52       3.39      5.48
          55-59         4.59       4.60       4.23      4.98       4.57       4.32      4.79
          60-64         4.54       4.67       4.88      4.46       4.25       3.62      4.79
          65-69         4.89       4.81       3.99      5.64       5.06       5.26      4.89
          70-74         3.65       3.76       3.39      4.13       3.39       3.15      3.59
          75-79         3.63       3.90       2.97      4.84       3.01       2.57      3.39
          80-84         2.07       1.89       1.21      2.58       2.47       1.75      3.09
          85&UP         1.50       1.38       0.37      2.40       1*78       1.40      2.09

          SOURCE    NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF
                    STATE BUDGET & MANAGEMENT                         PREPARED MAY 9, 1985

                                                5(b)

                                                            TABLE 6
                                                                HYDE

                           PROJECTED POPULATIONi JULY 19 19959 BY AGE9 RACEP AND SEX

                                                     WHITE                                 OTHER
            AGE            TOTAL
                                         TOTAL       MALE       FEMALE         TOTAL       MALE       FEMALE
           TOTAL           6306          4585        2312        2273           1721         783          938
            0-4              440           335         174         161            105         52          53
            5-9              465           344         182         162            121         61          60
           10-14             413           278         154         124            135         64          71
           15-19             452           336         177         159            116         55          61
           20-24             422           289         166         123            133         62          71
           25-29             451           328         17t         157            123         53          70
           30-34             443           332         183         149            ill         59          52
           35-39             533           396         216         L80            137         69          68
           40-44             483           361         182         179            122         56          66
           45-49             358           275         144         131            83          35          48
           50-54             303           219         109         110            84          41          43
           55-59             294           216         104         112            78          28          50
           -60-64            284           198          85         113            86          37          49
           65-69             245           173          86          87            72          27          45
           70-74             2.51          179          72         107            72          31          41
           75-79             181           129          52          77            52          21          31
           80-84             156           108          39          69            48          17          31
           85F.UP            132             89         16          73            43          15          28

                                                   ,PERCENT OF COLUMN TOTAL
            0-4            6.98          7.31        7.53   1    7.08          6.10        6.64        5.65
            5-9            7.37          7*50        7.87        7.13          7.03        7.79        6.40
           10-14           6.55          6.06        6.66        5.46          7.84        8.17        .7 57
           15-19           7.17          7.33        7.66        7.00          6.74        7.02        6:50
           20-24           6.69          6.30        7.18        5.41          7.73        7.92        7.57
           25-29           7.15          7.15        7.40        6.91          7.15        6.77        7 46
           30-34           7.03          7.24        7.92        6.@56         6-.45       7.54        5:54
           35-39           8.45          8.64        9.34        7*92          7.96        8.81        7.25
           40-44           7.66          7.87        7.87        7.88          7.09        7.15        7.04
           45-49           5.68          6.00        6.23        5.76          4.82        4.47        5 12
           50-54           4.80          4.78        4.71        4.84          4.88        5.24        4:58
           55-59           4.66          4.71        4.50        4.93          4.53        3.58        5.33
           60-64           4.50          4.32        3.68        4.97          5.00        4973        5.22
           65-69           3.89          3.77        3.72        3.83          4.18        3.45        4.80
           70-74           3.98          3.90        3.11        4.71          4.18        3.96        4.37
           75-79           2.87          2.81        2.25        3.39          3.02        2.6@8       3*30
           80-84           2.47          2.36        1.69        3.04          2.79        2.17        3.30
           85&UP           2.09          1.94        0.69        3.21          2.50        1.92        2.99

           SOURCE      NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF                          BASED    ON 70-80 CENSUS      DATA
                       STATE BUDGET & MANAGEMENT                                  PREPARED MAY 9,      1985

                                                       5(c)

                 2. Economy

                       a.   Agriculture

                   As noted in both the 1976 and 1981 Plans, during the 1970's,
              the economic picture of Hyde County improved significantly. Total
              retail sales for the County in Fiscal Year 1970-71 were
              $5,801,429. The total retail sales figure for Fiscal Year 1983-84
              was $21,340,851--which is nearly quadruple the total over ten
              years ago. Though price inflation is a factor in-this increase,
              there are other indicators of increased spending in the County,
              notably the increase in tourism on Ocracoke Island, for example.
              However, agricultural production has been and remains the major
              element in the County's economic base and, although there was a
              decrease in production income from 1983 to 1984, is growing.
              Table 7 below shows crop production income by crop harvested for
              1981-1984.

                                             6

                                              TABLE 7
                          HYDE COUNTY CROP PRODUCTION INCOME: 1981-1984

                                                        DOLLAR VALUE
                                        1984         1983       1982         1981
               crop

               Field Crops
                 Corn for Grain    $8,460,000 $10,045,000 $6,138,000       $6,227,500
                 Wheat              1,474,000     1,260,000    1,215,000     ql0j000
                 Grain Sorghum          52,060                    50,600       54,480
                 Soybeans           7,318,500    10,931,250    7,131,750    6,532,680
               Vegetables
                 Carrots-processing     19,500        32,500      75,000       33,600
                 Corn, sweet (5 doz)                            192,500      230,850
                 Cucumbers, fresh
                  market                74,175      793,350     487,500      421,875
               Nursery & Greenhouse
                 Tomatoes               17,500
               Fruits & Nuts
                 Pecans                                           18,000       97,500
               Subtotal            $17,415,735 $23,062,100 $15,308,350    $14,508,485

               Government
                Payments               256,264      575,729     282,169      207,377

               TOTAL CROP
               PRODUCTION
               INCOME            $17,671,999   $23,637,829 $15,590,519    $14,715,862
               Source:   Data Worksheets of Cash Farm Income - 1984,     1983, 1982,
               and 1981, Hyde  County Agriculture Extension Office

                    As noted in the 1981 Update, production yields and price
               increases have accounted for some of the continued overall
               increase from 1981 to 1983. The conversion of forestland into
               productive croplands still is a significant factor in the County     .
               The 1974 U.S. Department of Commerce Census of Agriculture showed
               that there was a total of 54,750 acres of farmland in crops. The
               1978 Census of Agriculturefigures showed 65,300 acres as being in
               cropland, and the 1982 Census of Agriculture reported 78,546 acres
               in cropland for the County. This represents a rather dramatic
               increase of 23,796 acres of cropland between 1974-82. 'However, it
               appears that land clearing is leveling off in the County.
                    Income from livestock production increased substantially
               during the 19701s, and seems to be fluctuating in the 19801s,
               considering a decrease in production income f   -rom 1982 to 1983  and
               no real gain from 1979 to 1984. Notice the income comparison
               between 1979 and 1984, as is shown in Table 8, below.

                                                7

                                              TABLE 8
                       HYDE COUNTY LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCT INCOME

                    YEAR                   DOLLAR VALUE

                    1979                   $2,497,250
                    1982                   $3,517,668
                    1983                   $1,985,250
                    1984                   $2,101,400

               Source:    Estimated Income from Sale of Farm Products and Govern-
                          ment Payments, By County, Extension District, and State
                          of North Carolina; N.C. Agricultural Extension Service
                          and N.C. State University, Raleigh, N.C.; Hyde County
                          Agriculture Extension Office; 1981 Land Use Plan
                    A significant feature in the growth of the agriculture sector
               of Hyde County's economy, as noted in the 1981 Update, was the
               development of so-called "superfarms." The term "superfarm" was
               defined as large, highly mechanized farming operations with a
               corporate or conglomerate ownership. These farms, mainly because
               of mechanical sophistication, have the capacity to rapidly alter
               the landscape by clearing and draining new farmland on a massive
               scale. These farms, perhaps more than any other entity, have been
               a major factor in the conversion of woodlands into productive
               agricultural land during the last 15 years. Economically, these
               so-called "superfarms" are also quite significant, providing a
               substantial percentage of the County's tax base.

                          b. Commercial Fishing

                    Commercial fishing is still an important sector of Hyde
               County's economy, although since the 1981 Plan Update, overall
               landings and income declined from $4.1 million in 1980 to $2.9
               million in 1981. However, 1983 and 1984 witnessed relatively
               "good" years. Table 9 below shows seafood landings and values for
               the years 1981-1984.

                                                 8

                                                TABLE 9
                       HYDE COUNTY: SEAFOOD LANDINGS COMPARISON, 1965-1984

                     YEAR                   POUNDS                    VALUE

                     1965                  1,883,100              $   269,428
                     1966                  3,384,800              $   305,940
                     1967                  2,970,100              $   279,962
                     1968                  3,311,400              $   574,805
                     1969                  5,784,300              $1,214,393
                     1970                  4,781r100              $   654,648
                     1971                  2,944,100              $   913,614
                     1972                  2,448,700              $   531,414
                     1973                  2,224,900              $   615,937
                     1974                  3,663,500'             $   924,528
                     1975                  3,203,700              $   769,914
                     1976                  2,875,600              $   938,959
                     1977                  4,993,400              $1,604,012
                     1978                  8,327,500              $1,885,652
                     1979                  8,014,800              $2,040,321
                    @1980                 13,055,684              $4,181,970
                     1981                 10,251,802              $2,956,529
                     1982                  9,537,139              $3,457,336
                     1983                  9,190,366              $3,632,096
                     1984                 10,121,620              $3,286,808

               Source:    N.C. Division   of Marine  Fisheries

                     From 1981 to 1984,   total fish landings decreased by about     one
               percent.   The total value of the catch in 1984, however, increased
               by about 10% over the 1981 dollar figure. This is reflective of
               the increased 1984 flounder harvest and moderate price increases.
               Also, Hyde County has been consistently ranked fourth in the state
               for coastal counties seafood landings during the period 1981-1984.

                          c. Commercial Forestry
                     Commercial forestry ranks third in importance among the
               resource extraction industries in Hyde County. Dollar values for
               1982-1984 are indicated in Table 10, below.

                                                 9

                                              TABLE 10
                            COMMERCIAL FORESTRY INCOME IN HYDE COUNTY

                                    YEAR                  INCOME

                                    1982                 $717,016
                                    1983                 $794,475
                                    1984                 $907,500

               Source:    Estimated Income'from Sale of Farm Products and Govern-
                          ment Payments, by County, Extension District, and State
                          of North Carolina for 1982, 1983, and 1984; N.C. Agri-
                          cultural Extension Service and N.C. State University,
                          Raleigh, N.C.
                    From  1982 to 1984, there was a substantial increase of 27% in
               commercial forestry income in Hyde County. Many of the County's
               residents are employed in the forestry industry. Income from
               forest products, as indicated in Table 10, is valuable to the
               County's economy.

                          d. Tourism

                    The fourth major element in Hyde County's economy, and which
               was noted as increasing in importance in the 1981 Update, is
               tourism. The appeal of Ocracoke Island, sportfishing, waterfowl
               hunting, deer hunting, and the wildlife refuge areas, continue to
               provide strong attractions for thousands of visitors each year..
               Also, bird watching is growing in significance as a tourist
              .attraction in Hyde County. The appeal of the natural resources of
               the County are still important generators of vital income for many
               businesses, providing jobs and increased sales receipts. Ocracoke
               Village is almost totally reliant upon tourism for its economic
               sustenance. (See Part II for a more complete discussion of
               Ocracoke.

                     The tourist season extends throughout the late spring and
               summer months, and through the autumn and early winter hunting
               seasons. Since the County receives revenue from the State on the
               basis of total retail sales, the continued vitality of tourism is
               important to the County, both on the mainland and in Ocracoke.
               Figures from the State Ferry Traffic Report for July 1, 1984, to
               June 30, 1985, indicated that 772,872 passengers used the ferries
               going to and from Ocracoke. However, compared to fiscal year
               1978, this represents a significant decrease in traffic, i.e., a
               decline of 144,769 passengers, as reported in the 1981 Update (See
               Table 17, page 24). Despite this decrease in the number of tran-
               sient visitors, the revenue generated fAom tourism in the County,
               and particularly on Ocracoke, remains a steadily growing factor in
               Hyde County's economy. This is demonstrated in the following
               discussion. The North Carolina Department of Commerce, Division
               of Travel and Tourism, estimated that in 1981, tourism accounted
               for $10,445,000 in expenditures in Hyde County, but $12,094,000 in

                                                  10

                1984. This represents a formidable increase of almost 14% during
                the three-year period. In fiscal year 1983-84, the North Carolina
                Department of Revenue reported that total retail sales in Hyde
                County were $21,340,851, with tourism accounting for almost 57% of
                that total. The impact of tourism, obviously, is no small matter
                in Hyde County. In 1976, the Division of Travel and Tourism
                reported tourist expenditures in Hyde County to be $2,309,000;
                therefore, almost a decade hence, tourism has grown by 89%.
                Tourism continues to assert itself as a growing and vital sector
                of Hyde County's economy.

                           e. Employment and Income

                     Overall employment has decreased in the County since the
                preparation of the County's Land Use Plan Update in 1981. Figures
                in Table 11 below, which were obtained from the North Carolina
                Bureau of Employment Security Research, indicate that employment
                increased at about the same rate as the growth in the labor force
                from 1981 to 1982. However, from 1982 to 1983, both the labor
                force and overall employment declined, which caused the unemploy-
                ment rate to increase.

                                                TABLE 11
                              HYDE COUNTY ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT, 1980-1983

                YEAR   LABOR FORCE      EMPLOYED     UNEMPLOYED      UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

                1980     2,950           2,720           230                  7.8
                1981     2,870           2,630           240                  8.4
                1982     3,720           3,400           320                  8.6
                1983     2,660           2,310           350                 13.2

                Source:    N.C. Bureau of Employment Security Research

                     Income in  Hyde County, compared to both North Ca-ro'lina and
                the United States, is low. According to data compiled by the U.S.
                Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the
                personal per capita income for Hyde County in 1981 was only 53
                percent of the national per capita income, and 64 percent of
                the statels. By 1983, per capita income had grown by 5 percent in
                the County, but still at a much slower pace relative to North
                Carolina and the United States. The 1983 per capita personal
                income in the County increased over the 1982 figures -to only 59
                percent and 50 percent of state and national figures, respective-
                ly. Notice Table 12, below. The major employment sectors in Hyde
                County, i.e., farming, fishing, forestry, and tourism, generally
                do not provide for high-paying jobs.

                                             TABLE 12
                       HYDE COUNTY PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME, 1981-1983
                          NORTH CAROLINA AND UNITED STATES COMPARISONS

                                            1981         1982        1983

              Hyde County                 $ 5,546      $ 5,590     $ 5,810
              North Carolina                 8,655       9,148       9,805
              United States                 10,544      11,113      11,687

              Source:    N.C. Office of State Budget and Management

                    To summarize Hyde County's economic conditions, it can be
              stated that the resource extraction industries continue to retain
              their historical significance to the County's economy. Tourism,
              however, has emerged as an important economic sector for the
              County. The 1981 Update implied that peat mining would also grow
              in economic importance. However, to date, no substantial activity
              involving the mining of peat has taken place. Nevertheless, the
              potential is still there. Hyde County has an estimated 80,640
              acres of peat deposits containing about 70 million tons of
              moisture-free peat. If peat is ever mined on a significant scale,
              the employment and income potential for the County could be sub-
              stantial. Finally, since income in the County is generally low,
              coming from the existing major employment sectors discussed above,
              any major expansion in both jobs and income will likely have to
              come from increased manufacturing activities within the County.
              This is an issue which will be addressed in Section II of this
              part  under "Economic and Community Development," beginning on page
              56..

                    3.   Housing

                    In that no actual housing figures for Hyde County were avail-
              able  for the 1981 Plan Update, it is difficult to describe changes
              that  have occurred since that time. However, in the table below,
              housing information based on the 1980 Census is presented, with
              mobile home units comprising 12% of the total year-round units.
              This percentage seems high and may indicate that mobile home units
              may be on the increase due to rising housing costs and relatively
              low incomes. Of the total year-round units, 551, or 21 percent,
              are vacant.

                                                 12

                                               TABLE 13
                                  1980 HYDE COUNTY HOUSING SUMMARY

                     ITEM                                     NUMBER

                     Total Units                              2,836
                     Vacant Seasonal and Migratory               256
                     Year-Round Units                         2,580
                     Vacant Year-Round Units                     551
                     Occupied Year-Round Units                2,029
                     Year-Round Mobile Home Units                321
                     Persons in Occupied Units                5,859  (5,481 in 1970)
                     Average Household Size                     2.89

               Source:    1980 U.S. Census

                     More detailed housing information based on     the 1980 U.S.
               Census is summarized in the table below. Just over one-half
               (53.6%) of the total housing units are connected to a public water
               system, whereas only roughly 5 percent of the units are tied-to a
               public sewer system. Therefore, about 95% of the units must rely
               on a septic tank, cesspool, or other means of waste disposal.
               Only 69% of the units are equipped with at least one complete
               bathroom. Almost one-third of the total units were built before
               1939.

                                               TABLE 14
                         SELECTED HOUSING CONDITIONS SUMMARY, HYDE COUNTY

                     ITEM                                     NUMBER

                     Units with Public Water                  1,522
                     Units with Public Sewer                     150
                     Units with Complete Kitchen
                     Facilities                               2,096
                     Units with No Heating System                 52
                     Units with Air Conditioning                 979
                     Units with 1 or More Complete            1,953
                     Bathrooms
                     Structures Built Before 1939                812

                     The above information and land use surveys conducted in late
               1985 indicate a significant number of substandard units scattered
               throughout the County, particularly in the Lake Landing and
               Fairfield Townships. The County received Community Development
               Block Grant funding from the N.C. Department of Natural Resources
               and Community Development in fiscal year 1982. These funds were
               used to rehabilitate eight dwellings and make drainage improve-
               ments in the St. Lydia Housing Rehabilitation Area (between
               Engelhard and Swan Quarter), for a total of 37 beneficiaries. No
               extensive rehabilitation has been conducted since that time.

                                                 13

                     According to the Hyde County Maintenance and Inspection
               Department's "Report of Building or Zoning Permits Issued and
               Local Public Construction" (for U.S. Department of Commerce,
               Bureau of the Census), there were 35 permits issued for single-
               family detached housing units in 1985 (compared to 26 permits in
               1983--1981 figures were not available), and 56 permits issued for
               mobile homes (compared to 42 in 1983). Due to aged housing stock
               and a large concentration of substandard housing, mobile homes
               appear to be increasing as a viable housing alternative. Most new
               construction appears to be taking place in the Lake Landing Town-
               ship, particularly around the community of Engelhard.

                    4.   Impact of Seasonal Population

                    As noted under the discussion on current economic conditions
               (Page 10), the major impact of the thousands of visitors who come
               to the County each year is upon the economy. Most of the tourists
               on the mainland are "day visitors," who come to hunt, fish, or
               visit the wildlife refuge areas. On Ocracoke, many tourists are
               transients who spend more time in the Village than day visitors do
               on the mainland. Since the 1981 Update, several new motels have
               been developed on Ocracoke. Ocracoke, however, also attracts
               substantial numbers of day visitors during the tourist season.
               (More details on Ocracoke's seasonal population are included in
               Part II of this Plan, beginning on pageII-I-)

                    It is difficult to assess or estimate the number of tourists
               frequenting the mainland at any one time. Tourism does not have
               as significant an impact upon the mainland as it does on Ocracoke,
               a factor also pointed out in both the 1976 and 1981 Plans.
               Because of the tremendous importance of agriculture in the County,
               migrant farm workers also constitute a seasonal population in Hyde
               County. However, as noted in the 1976 Plan and the 1981 Plan
               Update, their impact is minimal and the major concern is for ade-
               quate housing. Two group housing facilities for migrant workers
               are located in Hyde County, one in Swan Quarter, and one in Fair-
               field. Both of these facilities are privately owned. An addi-
               tional facility located in Swan Quarter has been closed since
               1981, as a reduction in the planting of sweet corn also reduced
               the need for migrant workers and, therefore, the need for an addi-
               tional facility. The two remaining facilities are considered
               adequate by the County Health Department.

                    5.   Existing Land Use Analysis

                         a.    Current Conditions

                    The overall land development pattern on Hyde County's main-
               land is essentially the same as it was when it was mapped for the
               1981 Land Use Plan, although additional once-forested acreage has
               been cleared. The residential patterns are still the same, with
               most of the dwelling units being located along the frontage of

                                                14

               primary and secondary roads (see Map 2, Existing Land Use Map).
               Hyde County is a predominantly rural county and, as pointed out in
               the discussion on its economy, is dominated by agriculture and
               resource extraction activities. The overall land use pattern is
               reflective of the County's economic base. This is noted on both
               the 1981 Land Use Map and the updated Land Use Map attached to
               this updated Plan. Again, most significant land use changes since
               1981 concern the conversion of forestland into productive agricul-
               tural land and other uses. As reported in the 1981 Plan, this has
               occurred mostly in the Ponzer, Fairfield, and Engelhard areas.

                      It is rather difficult to obtain detailed data on the land
               use mix in Hyde County, especially during "off census" years.
               Therefore, a variety of sources were carefully reviewed (some with
               conflicting data items) and compared to the estimated land use
               acreage for 1980 contained in the 1981 Plan Update. The results
               are shown in Table 15, below.

                                               TABLE 15
                             HYDE COUNTY LAND USE CHANGES: 1980-1985

               LAND USE                   1980           1985        CHANGES (ACRES)

               Federal                   76,403         76,403             N/C
               State                     18,856         12,850             N/C
               Urban &  Built Up           2,730          2,930            200
               Small  Water Area              133           133            N/C
               Cropland                  79,187         78,546         -   641
               Pastureland                 1,000          2,126        +  1,126
               Forestland                188,911       187,936         -   975
               Other (ditch banks,       25,100         25,390         +   290
                roadways, etc.)

               Sources: Department of Commerce, 1982 Census of Agriculture,
                          Preliminary Report, Hyde County; N.C. Agricultural
                          Statistics, 1985; and N.C. Division of Forest Resources

               There were no changes in the Federal, State, or small water areas.
               The projected change in urban and built-up land reflects mainly
               increasing activity in and around Engelhard, Fairfield, and Swan
               Quarter. It is also of interest to note that the amount of "crop-
               lands" decreased by a small amount, while pasturelands appears to
               have increased a little. Forested acreage, according to estimates
               contained in Table 15, declined at a significantly lower rate than
               reported in previous plans. Massive-scale land clearing appears
               to be leveling off in Hyde County.

                    Although the large corporate farms have the capacity and
               mechanical sophistication for rapid clearance of large tracts of
               land, as reported in the 1981 Plan Update, the previously identi-
               fied massive land clearing trend appears to be leveling. This,
               according to local officials, is the result of strict enforcement

                                                  15

              of permits required by CAMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
              and the expense (approximately $500/acre) of clearing land. As
              was thoroughly documented in the 1976 Plan and discussed in the
              1981 Update, surface water drainage is virtually essential for all
              crops in Hyde County because of the low, flat topography and high
              water table. Drainage of large tracts of land increases the sur-
               ace run-off of freshwater into many of the estuaries which border
              much of the mainland, causing a potential decrease in the salinity
              f

              level. The effect of this extensive drainage was discussed in
              some detail in the 1981 Plan Update.

                        b.   Land Compatibility Problems

                   Within the conventional concept of land use planning, there
              are no significant land compatibility problems on Hyde County's
              mainland. As stated in the 1976 Land Use Plan, "normally... com-
              patibility problems are identified as those where two or more land
              use types are adjacent to each other and one is restrained from
              expansion due to adverse conditions, thus new investment is dis-
              couraged." A specific example might be the intrusion of an indus-
              trial development into a residential area. However, in a broader
              sense of land use compatibility, adverse environmental effects can
              also be a major consideration. In Hyde County, these adverse
              environmental effects still involve two areas: (1) septic tank
              suitability, and (2) agricultural freshwater drainage. Although
              both of these problems were addressed on pages 15-16 of the 1981
              Land Use Plan Update, updated information is provided for each:

                             i.   Septic Tank Suitability: Hyde County does not
              have a central sewage system, and the feasibility of developing a
              County-wide system is still not promising. A 201 Waste Water .
              Facilities Plan for Hyde County was completed in 1978. The plan
              indicated that due to the lack of significant population concen-
              trations, the costs of such a system would be prohibitive and user
              charges would have to be excessive. This plan did not include
              Ocracoke. In many areas of the County, the high water table
              impedes the proper functioning of septic tanks. on the other
              hand, other areas have high organic soils containing peat, which
              in some cases have a consistency similar to sawdust. These soils
              conditions also are not supportive of proper septic tank function-
              ing. The basis for the environmental incompatibility is that
              currently on the mainland, septic tanks provide the only means for
              waste water disposal.

                             2.   Agricultural Freshwater Drainage: The North
              Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries began conducting a study in
              1977 on the effect of freshwater drainage into primary estuarine
              nursery areas of the Pamlico Sound, including Hyde County. This
              study was still in progress during the development of the 1981
              Land Use Plan, but has since been completed and published. The
              conclusion of the study supports the preliminary findings, which
              were reported in the 1981 Plan Update. It should be noted that

                                             16

               all of the study areas were located in Hyde County. According to
               Marine Fisheries officials at the Washington, North Carolina,
               Regional office, increasing levels of freshwater intrusion into
               the estuarine nursery areas, i.e., the bays and creeks along Hyde
               County's border with the Pamlico Sound, has caused "drastic fluc-
               tuations" in the salinity content. In proper concentrations, salt
               content is essential for the g@owth and development of many spe-
               cies of shellfish and finfish in the estuaries, including spot,
               flounder, shrimp,.oysters, and crabs. The Marine Fisheries study
               showed, by comparing some estuaries which received drainage to
               some which did not receive direct run-off, that productivity
               levels were significantly lowered in the drainage receptive areas.
               This was demonstrated through a process of taking frequent sam-
               plings from both nursery areas. The study sites were located in
               the Rose Bay, Swan Quarter Bay, and Germantown Bay areas. The
               Division of Marine Fisheries will be conducting an additional
               study in the spring of 1986 at Broad Creek, off Long Shoal River
               in Hyde County, whereby @iological responses will be measured
               after artificially inducing freshwater drainage into the nursery
               areas, and comp@rinq those results to "normal" nursery areas.
               Lower productivity in the nursery areas will eventually mean lower
               catches for fishermen. However, drainage, as documented in the
               1976 Plan and the 1981 Update, is virtually essential for farming
               in Hyde County. Commercial and sports fishing is also important
               in the County. It should be noted that there may be factors other
               than agricultural drainage affecting the fish harvest, as 1983 was
               a relatively dry year with little agricultural runoff. 1983 was a
               l
                ood farming year (See Table 7, page 7), but had a relatively low
                ish harvest (See Table 9, page 9).
                    As agricultural freshwater drainag@ into nursery areas may or
               may not adversely affect fish harvest, it must be noted that the
               converse, or salt water intrusion into agricultural lands, is also
               a significant concern in Hyde County. According to Soil Conserva-
               tion Services personnel, salt water intrusion through ditches and
               canals spreads over the land, ruining crops by sterilizing the
               soils, and damages the productivity of the land itself. The area
               affected by salt water intrusion covers about 3,000 acres. There
               are currently proposals for two diking systems to alleviate this
               problem (one in Swan Quarter/West Canal and one in the Engelhard
               area). Although the completion date is dep(@ndent upon many fac-
               tors, it is hoped that the diking systems will be completed by
               1988.
                    Another issue of land use compatibility in Hyde County, and
               in several other coastal counties, is the extent of military air-
               space controlled by the Department of Defense, and proposals to
               expand this "restricted" space. The almost continual presence
               over Hyde County of low-flying military planes on subsonic train-
               ing missions has been the source of many complaints from County
               citizens. Both fishermen and farmers voice dissatisfaction with
               these flights.
                         C.   Major Problems from Unplanned Development
                    As population projections indicate Hyd  e County is not in a
               "rapid gro@rth" situation, particularly 'on the mainland. The most

                                               17

              extensive use of land is for agriculture and forestry, neither of
              which connotes "development". Although Hyde County has not his-
              torically emphasized County-wide planning controls, no major prob-
              lems from unplanned development have resulted on the mainland.
              Lack of a centralized sewage facility and continued reliance upon
              septic tanks, however, have caused many individual homeowners
              problems with improperly functioning on-site systems. Some on-
              site systems, though not all, can be modified in order to func-
              tion. However, because of the high-organic content of the soils,
              even modifications such as mound systems, sometimes do not func-
              tion properly.

                        d.   Areas Experiencing or Likely to Experience Change
                             in Predominant Land Use

                   The major land areas experiencing change on the mainland has
              been, historically, the conversion of forests and woodlands into
              agricultural land. This activity appears to be slowing down some-
              what. A notable change which may occur, however, is the develop-
              ment of condominiums in the White Plains Marina area. This area
              was classified "rural" in the 1981 Update, but if it is developed,
              will need to be reclassified for higher density uses. Generally,
              the overall residential and development pattern will likely remain
              the same on the mainland, unless local land use controls, such as
              zoning or subdivision regulations, are imposed. Also, if a
              limited-area sewage system were to be developed, a change in the
              development pattern might also result.

                        e.   Areas of Environmental Concern

                   The Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's), which occur in
              Hyde County, were identified in both the 1976 Land Use Plan and
              1981 Update. The statutorily-defined AEC's are described within
              two broad categories, i.e., Estuarine System AEC's and Ocean
              Hazards AEC's. All of the AEC's on Hyde County's mainland are
              included within the Estuarine System Category. The Ocean Hazards
              AEC's apply only to the ocean side of Ocracoke Island, which is
              under federal control as part of the Cape Hatteras National
              Seashore Recreation Area. There is no need for detailed discus-
              sion of the Ocean Hazards AEC's since they are not within the
              County's jurisdictional control. No new AEC's have been added or
              expanded in area or location since the 1981 Update. The Estuarine
              System AEC's will be defined and described below:

                             1.   Coastal Wetlands

                   Coastal wetlands or marshlands are defined as any salt marsh
              or other marsh subject to regular or occasional flooding by tides,
              including wind tides (whether or not the tide waters reach the
              marshland areas through natural or artificial watercourses), pro-
              vided this shall not include hurricane or tropical storm tides.

                   Coastal marshlands contain some, but not necessarily all, of
              the following marsh plant species:

                    (a)  Cord Grass (Spartina alterniflora)
                    (b)  Black Needlerush (Juncus roemerianus)
                    (c)  Glasswort (Salicornia spp.)
                    (d)  Salt Grass (Distichlis spicata)
                    (e)  Sea Lavender (Limonium spp.)
                    (f)  Bulrush (Scirpus spp.)
                    (g)  Saw Grass (Cladium jamaicense)
                    (h)  Cat-tail (Typha spp.)
                    (i)  Salt Meadow Grass (Spartina patens)
                    (j)  Salt Reed Grass (Spartina cynosuroides)

                    Included in this definition of coastal marshlands is "such
              contiguous land as the Secretary of NR&CD reasonably deems neces-
              sary to affect by any such order in carrying out the purposes of
              this Section." (G.S. 113-230[al)

                    Hyde County residents prefer to use the term "marshlands,"
              instead of wetlands. "Marshlands" is more descriptive of the area
              included as an Area of Environmental Concern. The marsh areas are
              an essential element of the estuarine system. Without the marsh,
              the high productivity levels and complex food chains typically
              found in the estuaries could not be maintained. The 1976 Land Use
              Plan noted that there were both regularly flooded and irregularly
              flooded marsh areas in Hyde County (pp. 83-87). The regularly
              flooded salt marsh is located on the Sound side of Ocracoke Island
              within an area under the control of the National Park Service as
              part of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. On the mainland,
              there are approximately 36,500 acres of irregularly flooded salt
              marsh, and about 3,400 acres of freshwater marsh. The irregularly
              flooded salt marsh of the County provides not only nutrients for
              shell and finfish, but also provides habitats for raccoon,
              muskrat, otter, and black duck. In addition, these same areas
              serve as a deterrent to shoreline erosion, especially in marshes
              containing heavily rooted species of Juncus roemerianus, known as
              Black Needlerush.

                    The location of the irregularly flooded salt marsh is exten-
              sive and found continuously from the mouth of the Long Shoal River
              to a point near Able Bay in Currituck Township. Refer to Map 7,
              page 84, 1976 CAMA Plan, for a graphic illustration (see Appendix
              1). The location of the freshwater marsh is principally along the
              western boundary of the County, on the banks of the Pungo River.
              Freshwater marsh may also be located at the intersection of
              N.C. 94 and the intracoastal waterway (see Map 3, attached).

                    2.   Estuarine Waters

                    Estuarine waters are defined in G.S. 113A-113(b)(2) as "all
              the water of the Atlantic Ocean within the boundary of North

                                              19

              Carolina and all the waters of the bays, sounds, rivers, and trib-
              utaries thereto seaward of the dividing line between coastal fish-
              ing waters and inland fishing waters, as set forth in an agreement
              adopted by the Wildlife Resources Commission and the Department of
              Natural Resources and Community Development filed with the Secre-
              tary of State, entitled "Boundary Lines, North Carolina Commercial
              Fishing -- Inland Fishing Waters," Revised to March 1, 1965.
                   Hyde County contains vast areas of estuarine waters, as was
              documented on pages 88-90 of the 1976 Plan. Estuarine waters
              include the waters of the Pamlico Sound, Pungo River, and Alliga-
              tor River, which are adjacent to the land area of the County. The
              most complex area of estuarine waters on the mainland    is the
              southwest quadrant of the County, due to the numerous    small
              tributaries which flow into either the Pungo River or    the Pamlico
              Sound, and includes Swan Quarter Bay and Rose Bay.
                   The significance of the estuarine system is that    it is one of
              the most productive natural environments of North Carolina. It
              not only supports valuable commercial and sports fisheries, but is
              also utilized for commercial navigation, recreation, and aesthetic
              purposes. Species dependent upon estuaries include menhaden
              shrimp, flounder, oysters, and crabs. These species make up over
              90 percent of the total value of North Carolina's commercial
              catch. These species must spend all or some part of their life
              cycle in the estuary. The preservation and protection of these
              areas are vitally important, as was noted in the discussion of
              "Land Compatibility Problems," on page 16 of this section. Prime
              fishing and spawning areas for shellfish and finfish were identi-
              fied in the County on Map 4, page 56, of the 1976 Plan. The ex-
              tent of the estuarine system in Hyde County is vast, extending
              from the mouth of the Long Shoal River at the Dare County line in
              the northeast and extending around the-land mass to the waters    of
              the Pungo River in the northwestern portion of the County. In
              addition to that area, the waters of the Alligator River from
              Cherry Point Landing to the Albemarle Sound are part of the
              estuarine system'. The Pamlico Sound, for example, is approximate-
              ly 48,000 acres, measured from Wysocking Bay to Rose Bay and
              extending an average width of two miles.

                   3.   Public  Trust Areas

                   Public trust areas are all waters of the Atlantic ocean and
              the lands thereunder from the mean high water mark to the seaward
              limit of state jurisdiction; all natural bodies of water subject
              to measurable lunar tides and lands thereunder to the mean high
              water mark; all navigable natural bodies of water and lands there-
              under to the mean high water level or mean water level as the case
              may be, except privately-owned artificially created bodies of
              water containing significant public fishing resources or other
              public resources which are accessible to the public by navigation
              from bodies of water in which the public has rights of navigation;

                                                20

               and all waters in artificially created bodies of water in which
               the public'has acquired rights by prescription, custom, usaget
               dedication, or any other means. In determining whether the public
               has acquired rights in artificially created bodies of water, the
               following factors shall be considered:

                    (a)  the use of the body of water by the public;
                    (b)  the length of time the public has used the area;
                    (c)  the value of public resources in the body of water;
                    (d)  whether the public resources in the body of water are
                         mobile to the extent that they can move into natural
                         bodies of water;
                    (e)  whether the creation of the artificial body of water
                         required permission from the State; and
                    (f)  the value of the body of water to the public for naviga-
                         tion from one public area to another public area. The
                         public has rights in these areas, including navigation
                         and recreation. In addition, these areas support
                         valuable commercial and sports fisheries, have aesthetic
                         value, and are important resources for economic
                         development. '                                                 1,
                    All of the waters described as Estuarine Waters (pages 19-20)
               in this section, are public trust areas on Hyde County's mainland.

                    4.   Estuarine Shorelines:

                    Estuarine shorelines are those non-ocean shorelines which are
               especially vulnerable to erosion, flooding, or other adverse
               effects of wind and water and are intimately connected to the
               estuary. This area extends from the mean high water level or
               normal water level along the estuaries, sounds, bays, and brackish
               waters, for a distance of 75 feet landward.

                    As an AEC, Estuarine Shorelines, although characterized as
               dry land, are considered a component of the estuarine system

               waters.
               because of the close association with the adjacent estuarine

                    The majority of Hyde County's boundary, from the northeastern
               tip, southward, and around and up to the northwestern portion of
               the County, is the Pamlico Sound. The land area along the Sound
               and the shores of the many creeks and bays connecting to it, all
               make up the estuarine shorelines in Hyde County. This area is
               subject to erosion and occasional flooding, which could not only
               affect the quality of the adjacent estuarine life, but also
               threaten the security of personal property from developments
               located within this area.

                                               21

                    Currently, all development and development-related activities
               within the designated AECs in Hyde County are regulated by the
               CAMA permit process.

                    6.   Current Plans, Policies, and Regulations

                    No additional plans or regulations have been developed or
               adopted by Hyde County since the preparation of the 1981 Land Use
               Plan Update. Listed below are some local plans and regulations:

               Flood Prevention Ordinances

                    The County is currently in the emergency phase of the
               National Flood Insurance Program.

               Building Codes

                    The County, as a prerequisite to become qualified for the
               emergency phase of the National Flood Insurance Program, has
               adopted the State of North Carolina Building Code.

               Septic Tank Regulations

                    The County has adopted and, through the Sanitarian, enforces
               the State of North Carolina Septic Tank Regulations.

               Hyde County Land Use Plan, 1976.

                    The Plan provides a description of present conditions of
               population, economy and land use constraints to development. It
               discusses fragile and hazard areas, areas of environmental con-
               cern, areas with resource potential, and community facilities. It
               estimates future needs and sets out policies and objectives
               related to implementing those needs.

               Hyde County Land Use Plan Update, 1981.

                    This was the first 5-year update of the initial CAMA Plan
               (1976) and contains a re-assessment of existing conditions and
               projections of population, land use, and economic conditions.
               Updated policy statements on various development issues and imple-
               mentation strategies are also in the Plan Update.

                    Several other policies and plans have been updated since the
               1981 Plan Update and are discussed below.

                         a.   Community Facilities

                              1.   Water Distribution

                    Water is the major utility provided by Hyde County. As noted
               in the 1981 Land Use Plan Update, the County water system was

                                               22

              based on the combining of three former independently developed
              water associations' systems at Swan Quarter, Engelhard, and Matta-
              muskeet. In 1977, however, the-County developed a well field,
              treatment facility, and 100,000 gallon elevated water tower at
              Fairfield. The Fairfield facility was connected to both the
              Engelhard and Swan Quarter systems to provide water for most of
              the County. The major population area not served by the existing
              water system is along U.S. 264, northwest of the Intracoastal
              Waterway Bridge.

                   The wells at Fairfield still provide the major source of raw
              water for the County's system, with the capacity to produce over
              500,000 gallons per day (gpd) of moderately hard water, containing
              some manganese and iron. Otherwise, the water is of an excellent
              quality, as noted in a recent overview study of the system by the
              County's consulting engineers. However, due to limitations on
              pumping and treatment facilities, only 250,000 gpd is currently
              being pumped. The County is currently seeking funds to upgrade
              the pumping capacity to 450,000 gpd. This rehabilitation of the
              Fairfield facility, which is scheduled for completion in 1987,
              would reduce the current pumping time of 24 hours to approximately
              16 hours for a more efficient system. Because of the threat of
              saltwater intrusion, the Engelhard facility has been closed for
              several years. A consulting engineers' report noted that due to
              the prohibitive costs of desalinization, further development of
              the Engelhard water source was discouraged. One other facility,
              at Swan Quarter, has a 75,000 gpd capacity. The report recommend-
              ed that the Fairfield system be relied upon as the major resource
              of raw water in the County. After the Fairfield facility has been
              upgraded, additional tap-ons will be granted on a first-come,
              first-serve basis.

                             2.   Sewer

                   As reported in the 1981 Update, a 201 Waste Water Facility
              Plan was completed for Hyde County in 1978. However, the imple-
              mentation of the plan, i.e., the development of a County-wide
              system, would have been cost-ineffective. The population density
              was then, and still is, insufficient to support "reasonable" user
              fees. Until this becomes a reality, on-site septic systems are
              the primary waste water disposal alternative in Hyde County.

                        b.   Transportation

                             1.   Ferry Service

                    There are three ferries which offer residents and tourists

              and Cedar Island and Hatteras: Ocracoke-Swan Quarter ferry, a
              in Hyde County easy access to and from Ocracoke and.the mainland,

              toll, year-round operation; Cedar Island-Ocracoke ferry, also a
              toll, year-round service; and Hatteras Inlet ferry, which offers
              service free-of-charge and is year-round. Table 16 below shows
              the current ferry schedule.

                                               23

                                      TABLE 16: FERRY SCHEDULE

               Ocracoke-Swan Quarter (2 1/2 hours)

               Twice daily     morning and afternoon - year-round

               Cedar Island     Ocracoke (2 1/4 hours)

               April 15 - May 31              - 4 times daily
               June 1 - September 15          -  5 times daily
               September-16 - October 31      -  4 times daily
               November 1 - April 14          -  2 times daily

               Hatteras Inlet (40 minutes)

               April 15 - October 31          -  22 times daily
               November 1 - April 14          -  Hevery hour on the hour" from
                                                 5:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., and at
                                                 7:00 p.m., 9:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m.
                                                 (leave Hatteras)
                                              -  "every hour on the hour" from
                                                 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m., and at
                                                 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.
                                                 (leave Ocracoke)

                     As stated   earlier, there was a decrease in ferry traffic from
               the fiscal year 178-179 figure reported in the 1981 plan update
               and the 184-185 figure. Notice Table 17, below:

                              TABLE 17: HYDE COUNTY FERRY OPERATIONS
                                 FISCAL YEARS 1978-1979 and 1981-1985

                              1978-79       1981-82      1982-83      1983-84     '1984-85

               Vehicles       270,313       267,881      270,359      281,348     293,459
               Passengers     917,641       729,643      728,054      748,410     772,872

               *Includes totals for     Hatteras Inlet, Cedar    Island, Ocracoke, and
                Swan Quarter-Ocracoke ferries.

               Source: 1981 Plan Update and NCOOT Ferry Division
                      Although the Ocracoke-Swan Quarter ferry has two daily runs
               year-round, the Cedar Island and Hatteras ferries have adjusted
               schedules to handle more passengers during tourist and fishing
               seasons, and fewer passengers during off-peak seasons. As dis-
               cussed in this section, Part 2d, Tourism, page 10, the number of
               passengers (despite an increase in the numbeA of vehicles) has
               been greatly reduced in the past six to seven years, which may
               cause concern as to the reduction in ferry operations.

                                                     24

                          2.   Roads and Bridges

                    The North Carolina Department of Transportation's Secondary
               Road Improvement Program has provided for improvements for many
               roads in the County. However, most of these improvements have
               been relatively minor ones, such as spot stabilization with stone,
               and minor widening and paving.

                    One of the more significant transportation features in the
               County since 1981 is the construction of the Walter B. Jones
               Bridge (over Wilkerson Creek) over the Intracoastal Waterway in
               the northwest section of the County. The bridge was constructed
               by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and was completed by late
               1981. This high-rise span replaced an old, narrow bridge across
               the waterway and greatly facilitates flows in the County.

                     Currently, surveying is being conducted prior to the widen-
               ing (to 22 feet) and resurfacing of U.S. 264E from SR 1129 north
               of Swan Quarter to the bridge north of Engelhard. Actual con-
               struction of these improvements should be completed in fiscal year
               1987. Also, there is a bridge replacement proposed for fiscal
               year 1989 at the canal north of Engelhard. There are also some
               long-range plans by the federal government for the replacement of
               a tendon bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway across N. C. 94
               north of Fairfield.

                              3.   Airports

                    In late 1980, the first paved air landing strip on the main-
               land was completed near Engelhard. A small terminal building was
               constructed near this site in 1983. Although there are no hangars
               available, there are approximately 15-20 tie-downs available for
               small aircraft. Currently, planning discussions are being made to
               install a non-directional beacon to aid airport traffic. Addi-
               tional improvements will be made as the need and funding bbc.ome
               available. According to corporate representatives, private air
               traffic has increased substantially in the past four years. The
               airport is used by hunters; corporate farms; banks; law enforce-
               ment officials; foresters; local, state, and federal government;
               emergency personnel; crop dusters; and for helicopters. Private
               air traffic will likely continue to increase throughout the
               .10-year planning period. There is also an airport at Ocracoke,
               which is discussed in Part II: Ocracoke.

                        C.    Other Policies

                    The County has not developed a4y additional policies other
               than those listed in the 1981 Land Use Plan, for utilities
               extension, open space, or recreation. The 1976 Land Use

                                               25

              Plan and the 1981 Update are the only prior land development docu-
              ments in the County.

                       d.   Regulations and Enforcement Provisions
                   The major land use control regulations on the Hyde County
              mainland are the CAMA major and minor development permits. The
              County Building Inspector is also the CAMA minor permit officer.

                   Septic tank regulations and mobile home placement design
              standards are enforced by the County Health Department through the
              local Sanitarian. The County did adopt, in 1979, a Building Per-
              mit ordinance, and established a permit program, enforced by a
              building permit officer.
                   Hyde County also has a County-wide Agricultural Canal Permit
              Program which allows local farmers to apply for canal maintenance
              permits locally, rather than directly to the U.S. Corps of Engi-
              neers. This program is-designed to speed up the application
              approval time from both Federal and State agencies for maintenance
              of existing drainage canals. The drainage canal maintenance pro-
              gram allegedly has not worked as efficiently as planned. Many
              farmers claim that permit and regulatory officials do not always
              follow the policies in the land use plan, but utilize other tech-
              nicalities to deny needed permits.
                   There are no other local regulatory controls concerning land
              use on the County mainland. Ocracoke Village, however, does have
              additional development controls in the form of the "Development
              Ordinance for the Village of Ocracoke," adopted in April,. 1986.
              The provisions of this ordinance will be discussed more in Part II
              of this plan.

                                              26

               C.   CONSTRAINTS: LAND SUITABILITY

                    1.   Physical Limitations

                    Physical limitations to development, which include man-made
               and natural hazards, soils suitability, and water supply sources,
               are basically the same in Hyde County as was noted in the 1976
               CAMA Plan. Two notable additions to the consideration of man-made
               hazards are the new, paved airstrip near Engelhard and airspace
               restrictions imposed by military training operations over the
               County. The natural hazards, as noted in the 1976 Plan, are most-
               ly on Ocracoke Island (see Part II). The soils map and conditions
               ratings, along with the discussion of soils limitations in the
               1976 Plan, are essentially the same in Hyde County today, since no
               updated soils survey has been completed. These soils limit both
               septic tank installation and structural foundations in some areas.

                         a.  Natural Hazard Area

                              1.   Flood Hazard Area

                    When the 1981 Land Use Plan Update was developed, a detailed
               Flood Insurance Study showing elevations and flood hazard areas
               had not been prepared for Hyde County. However, the Federal
               Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) initiated a detailed study in
               1982, with the preliminary results being published in April, 1985.
               The study, which consists of a report and a series of maps of all
               of the County, shows the areas which are subject to inundation by
               the 100-year flood (Zone "A"s) along with elevations, as disting-
               uished from areas subject to minimal flooding dangers (Zone "C").
               Not surprisingly, the detailed study shows that nearly all of Hyde
               County is subject to the 100-year flood; however, there is a sig-
               nificant amount of area included in the "Zone C" classification,
               i.e., in the 500-year flood area and subject to minimal flooding.
               This area is located in the northwestern portion of the County,
               north of the Intracoastal Waterway between Alligator Lake and the
               Pungo Wildlife Refuge Area. Another small pocket of relatively
               "high ground" is found in the northeast, south of the Waterway
               (see Map 4, attached). The rest of the County is located within
               the 100-year, or "high hazard" flood area. The existing land uses
               within the high hazard flood area consist mostly of residential,
               agricultural, and forestry uses.

                             2.   Estuarine Erosion Area

                    As discussed under identification of Areas of Environmental
               Concern (AECs), Hyde County has a substantial area of estuarine
               waters and estuarine shorelines. Erosion of the estuarine shore-
               line can pose possible hazards for certain waterfront develop-
               ments, particularly residential. Estuarine erosion areas were
               determined by the Soil Conservation Service for 15 points or

                                              27

              "reaches" along the Pamlico Sound and Pungo River. Average annual
              erosion rates were identified in the 1976 plan by "reach" areas
              and are shown on the following page, along with a map of the reach
              areas (Map 5 ).

                   The overall average erosion rate is about 3.0 feet per year
              for Hyde County's estuarine shorelines. This rate of loss could
              be greatly intensified in the event of major storms. However, as
              the existing land use map (Map 1, attached) shows, residential
              development is not extensive in this area.

                        b.   Areas with Soils Limitations

                   A detailed soils survey and soils report is not available for
              Hyde County. The best available data is the "General Soil Map"
              for Hyde County, which was included in the 1976 Plan and also
              shown in Map 6 , page 31. According to the general map, nearly
              all of the soil types in Hyde County (including Ocracoke) are
              characterized as poorly drained, "wet" type soils, with limita-
              tions for most "developed" purposes. (See accompanying Chart I,
              page 32.) Approximately 50% of the County consists of very wet
              soils. However, an updated, detailed soils survey needs to be
              prepared.,

                        C.   Sources and Estimated Quantity of Water Supply

                             1.   Groundwater

                   The major source of water supply for the County's central
              water system is groundwater. There are two aquifers supplying
              water to Hyde County. The Castle Hayne aquifer, consisting of
              predominantly porous shell, limestone, and calcarous sand, is a
              highly productive source of water supply for the northwestern
              portion of the County. In that section of the County, individual
              wells may produce from 50 to 500 gallons.per minute. The Castle
              Hayne aquifer lies approximately 250 feet below the surface,
              although many wells are only 40 feet deep and can obtain water
              from the aquifer.
                   The principal source of groundwater supply for the County is
              the Yorktown Formation. This aquifer is above the Castle Hayne
              and is composed of interbedded marls, massive clays, sands, and
              shells. Wells drilled into the aquifer range from 125 feet in the
              west to 250 feet in the eastern portions of the County. Yields
              from the Yorktown Formation have been reported  to be 50 gallons
              per minute from a two-inch diameter well. The   recharge of the
              Yorktown Formation is directly at the point of  outcrop and
              indirectly by the seepage of water through the  overlying surficial
              sands. Overlaying the Yorktown Formation is a   non-artesian or
              water table aquifer. This aquifer is the most   widely used source
              for domestic wells. This aquifer is recharged   directly by precip-
              itation and surface storage. It is this non-artesian aquifer
              which is more susceptible to contamination from septic tanks or

                                               28

                                          1:71
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      rJ

                                                                                                                                                                    lp

                                                                                                                                                        41@

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                HYDE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              NORTH

                                                                                                                                                                                          "ESTUARINE E                                     ROSION AREAS"

                        REACH                                                          REACH NO. 10
                        Av. widtl@ lost to erosion             75.0 feet               Av. wiath lost to erosion       75.0  feet
                        Av. height of bank                     1.1 feet                Av. height of bank                    .5 feet
                        Length of shoreline eroding            16.3 miles              Length of shoreline eroding 18.8      miles
                        Len,th of shoreline accrelin,          Imiles                  Length of shoreline accreting         0miles
                        Total length of shoreline              16.3 miles              Total length of shoreline       18.8  miles

                        REACH NO. 2                                                    REACH NO. 11
                        Av. width lost to erosion              75.0 feet               Av. width lost to erosion       7S.0  feet
                        Av. height of bank                     2.1 feet                Av. height of bank                    .5 feet
                        Length of shoreline eroding            7.4 miles               Length of shoreline eroding     19.2  miles
                        Length of shoreline accreting          0miles                  Length of shoreline accreting         0miles
                        Total length of shOTEline              7.4 miles               Total length of shoreline       19.2  miles
                        REACH Nn. 3                                                    REACH NO. 12
                        Av. wiEt-hlost to erosion              75.0 feet               Av. wi-Z7,45 Most to erosion    75.0  feet
                        Av. height of bank                     1.8 feet                Av. height of bank                    .5 feet
                        Length of shoreline eroding            14.6 miles              Length of shoreline eroding     14.9  miles
                        Length of shoreline accreting          0miles                  Length of shoreline accreting         0miles
                        Total length of shoreline              14.6 miles              Total length of shoreline       14.9  miles

                        REACH NO. 4                                                    REACH NO. 13
                        Av. width iost to erosion              75.0 feet               Av. width lost to erosion       75.0  feet
                        Av. height of bank                     1.8 feet                Av. height of bank                    .5 feet
                        Length of shoreline eroding            12.3 miles              Length of shoreline eroding     20.5  miles
                        Length of shoreline accreting          0 miles                 Length of shoreline accreting         0miles
                        Total length of shoreline              12.3 miles              Total length of shoreline       20.5  miles
                        REACH NO. 5                                                    REACH IND. 14
                        Av. wid      st to erosion             7S.0 feet               Av. width lost to erosion       75.0  feet
                        Av. height of bank                     .7 feet                 Av. height of bank                    .5 feet
                        Length of shoreline eroding            13.8 miles              Length of shoreline eroding     15.3  miles
                        Length of shoreline accreting          0miles                  Length of shoreline accreting         0miles
                        Total length of shoreline              13.8 miles              Total length of shoreline       15.3  miles
                        REACH NO. 6                                                    REAM NO. 15
                        Av. widtH lost to erosion              75.0 feet               Av. width lost to erosion       75.0  feet
                        Av. height of bank                     .5 feet                 Av. height of bank                    .5 feet
                        Length of shoreline eroding            18.5 miles              Length of shoreline eroding     11.1  miles
                        Length of shoreline accreting          0miles                  Length of shoreline accreting         0miles
                        Total length of shoreline              18.5 miles              Total length of shoreline       11.1  miles

                        REACH NO. 7
                        Av. wid     st to erosion              75.0 feet
                        Av. height of bank                     .5 feet
                        Length of shoreline eroding            23.8 miles
                        Length of shoreline accreting          0rules
                        Total length of shoreline              23.8 miles

                        PEACH NO. 8
                                                               75.0 feet
                        Av. wiFtFlost to erosion
                        Av. height of bank                     .5 feet
                        Length of shoreline eroding            Z1.8 miles
                        Length of shoreline accreting          0rrdles
                        Total length of shoreline              21.8 miles

                        REACH NO. 9
                        Av. widtn Tost to erosion              75.0 feet
                        Av. height of bank
                                                               .5 feet
                        Length of shoreline eroding            6.7 miles
                        Length of shoreline accreting          0miles
                        Total length of shoreline              6.7 rules

                                                                    30

                                                                                                                                                                                                      ; . I . 1           4           ,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          L E G C N 0
                                                           0                                       5
                                            6
                                                                                                                                                                              6
                                                                                          ALLIGATOR
                                                                                           LAKE
                                                .2                                                                                                                                                   F-2
                                                                                                                                                                                                            -ill -@Xlql I-  A 11 1-     ...... ...
                                                                                                                                                                                     4@
                                                    3

                                                                                                                                                            6
                                                                                    6                                                                                                                       C PERS-NEtHAN ass-a-1:
                                                                                                                                                                                                       4
                                                                                                                                  3                                                                         v", 11 11
                                                                                                                                                                                                            tt"

                                                                                                               LAKE            ATTAMUSKEE?                                                                           LOAVEN-1-SD-   Tc It-
                                                                                                                                                                                                            P@,     E.
                                                                                                       "_ kli"N-4
                                                                                                6
                                                                                                         2                                           5-1

                                                                                                                                          6
                                                                                          4

                                                                                                                                   4                                                                         GE@IERAL SOIL MAP
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    HYDE COUNTY
                                                                                                                                                                                                                NORTH CAROLINA

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        10-13 4-R-334CI
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     RFV. 8-73 4-A-)2241

                                                                                                                          mAP 6

                                                                                                  mm
                                                                                                CHART I
                                                                              HYDE COURM SOIL 1NMRPFVrAT10N FOR
                                                                              SELECTED DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES
         SOIL                          % OF                % OF                  DWELLINGS WITH                       LIGHT                   Rm)s AND                   SUITABILITY FOR
        -30CIATIONS                   COUNTY        ASSOCIATION                   SEPTIC TANKS                     INDUSITJES                   S T I =,E S                 AGrICULr1URE

        att-Bladen                        7
        Ayatt                                                 55              Sev. Wt. Fl.                    Sev. Wt. Fl.                 Sev. Wt. Fl.                           Good
        Bladen                                                30              Sev. Wt. Fl.                    Sev. Wt. Fl                  Sev. Wt. Fl.                           Good

        3ksville-
        Pasquotank                        11
        Weeksville                                            65              kbd. to Sev.      Wt.           Mod. to Sev.       Wt.       ktd. to Sev.       Wt.                 Good
                                                              2
        Pasquotank                                            0               Mod. to Sev -     Wt.           Mcd. to Sev.       14t.      1,10d. to Sev -    Wt

        de-Bayboro                        12
        Hyde                                                  40              Sev. Wt. Fl.      Perm.         Sev. Wt. Fl.                 5ev. Wt. Fl.                           GoOd
        Bayboro                                               40              Sev. Wt. Fl.      Perm.         Sev. Wt. Fl.                 Se-,,,,. Wt. Fl.                       Good

        pers-New Han.                      8
        Capers                                                65              Sev. lit. Fl.                   Sev. Fl. Cor.                Sev. Fl.                               poor
        New Han.                                              25              Sev. LFIC'.                     Sev. Fl                      1,bd. T@-"X4 lare.                     Poor

        re-Pungo-Dorovan                  20
        Dare                                                  35              Sev. Fl.                        Sev. Fl. Car.                                                       P,-,or
        Pungo                                                 35              Sev. Fl.                        Sev. Fl. Cor.                              TSC.                     Poor
        Dorovan                                               is              Sev. Fl.                        Sev. Fl. Cor.                              TSC.                     Pcor

        ,nzer-Belhaven
        Wasoa                             30
        Ponzer                                                40              Sev. Wt.      Fl                Sev. Fl. Wt.                 Sev. Fl. TSC.                          Good
        Belhaven                                              30              Sev. Wt.      Fl.               Sev. Fl. Wt.                 Sev. Fl. TSC.                          Poor
        Wasoa                                                 15              Sev. Wt.      Fl.               Sev. Fl. Wt.                 Sev. Fl. TSC.                          Good

            SOURCE: United States Departuent of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
                         Raleigh, North Carolina, 1974.

                Notes for Soil Interpreting:

                Moderate (MOD): Soils have properties moderately favorable for
                                   the rated use. Limitations can be overcome or
                                   modified with planning, design, or special
                                   maintenance.

                Severe (SEV):      Soils have one or more properties unfavorable
                                   for the rated use. Limitations are difficult
                                   and costly to modify or overcome, requiring
                                   major soil reclamation, special design or intense
                                   maintennce.

                Abbreviations for Limiting Factors:

                   Fl.             Flood Hazard
                   Wt.             Water Table
                   Cor.            Corrosion Potential
                   TSC             Traffic Supporting Capacity

                The suitability of soils for agricultural production was based
                upon the production of corn, soybeans, and other small grain crops
                only.

                                                   33

              other sources of groundwater pollution. As noted previously, most
              of Hyde County is served by the County water system, which draws
              from deep wells below the non-artesian layer. However, of concern
              to Hyde County is the occasional intrusion of saltwater into the
              domestic supply. In recent years, salt intrusion forced the
              closing of the well at Engelhard.

                             2.   Surface Water
                   Surface water in Hyde County, though nearly all brackish, is
              abundant. The quality generally is good and the waters are not
              subject to acute long-term pollution. There has been concern in
              recent years over the impact of freshwater intrusion into the
              saline-concentrated estuarine waters, mainly from surface runoff.

                        d.   Slopes in Excess of 12%
                   Topography in Hyde County is very low, and there are no steep
              Slopes in excess of 12% within the County's jurisdiction.

                   2.   Well Fields
                   The wells which supply the County's raw water are all deep
              wells, which are not significantly affected by land development
              around them. Thus, the well fields pose no constraint to land
              development.

                   3.   Fragile Areas
                   These are areas which could easily be damaged or destroyed by
              inappropriate or poorly planned development. There are several
              fragile areas in Hyde County, including those areas previously
              identified and discussed as Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs).
              These included coastal marshlands, estuarine waters, public trust
              areas, and estuarine shorelines (see pages 18 through 23, this
              section). However, there are other fragile areas in the County
              which are not classified as Areas of Environmental Concern, but
              nevertheless, due to either natural or cultural significance, are
              environmentally sensitive. All of these areas will be identified
              and discussed below as either "Natural Resource fragile areas," or
              "Cultural Resource fragile areas."

                        a.   Natural Resource Fragile Areas
                   Natural resource fragile areas are generally recognized to be
              of educational, scientific, or cultural value because of the
              natural features of the particular site. Features in these areas
              serve to distinguish them from the vast majority of the landscape.
              These areas include: complex natural areas, areas that sustain
              remnant species, unique geologic formations, pocosins, wooded
              swamps, prime wildlife habitats, or registered natural landmarks.

                                               34

                    The specific environments of the endangered species or spe-
               cies of special concern in Hyde County, which include Cooper's
               hawk, the bald eagle, the golden eagle, peregrine falcon, American
               alligator, Outer Banks kingsnake, loggerhead turtle, Carolina
               salt marsh snake, osprey, and the black bear, have not been
               studied enough in detail to provide land use policy implications.
               Plant species listed as significantly rare are the southern
               twayblade, the tiny-fruited seedbox, and the hardstem bulrush.
                    Complex natural areas are defined as "lands that support
               native plant and animal communities and provide habitat conditions
               or characteristics that have remained essentially unchanged by
               human activity." These areas are to be determined to be rare
               within the County or to be of particular scientific or educational
               value.

                    There are a few such areas which have been identified within
               Hyde County, containinq cypress, pocosin vegetation, and some
               endangered animal species. Among them are the Mattamuskeet
               National Wildlife Refuge, Scranton Hardwood Forest, Swan Quarter
               National Wildlife Refuge, and Cypress Park.
                    There are no registered natural landmarks or unique geologic
               formations in Hyde County.
                        b.   Cultural Resource Fragile Areas
                    Fragile areas may be particularly important to a locale
               either in an aesthetic or cultural sense. Fragile coastal cultur-
               al resource areas are generally recognized to be of educational,
               associative, scientific, aesthetic, or cultural value because of
               their special importance to our understanding of past human set-
               tlement of and interaction with the coastal zone. Their impor-
               tance serves to distinguish the designated areas as siqnificant
               among the historic architectural or archaelogical remains in the
               coastal zone, and therein establish their value.
                    In the early 1980s, a comprehensive inventory of Hyde County
               identified hundreds of structures of architectural and/or histori-
               cal significance, according to the State Department of Cultural
               Resources. As a result of those surveys, two sizeable historic
               districts were nominated to the National Register of Historic
               Places, i.e., Lake Landing and Fairfield districts.
                    Although there has been no systematic archeological investi-
               gation of Hyde County, the State Division of Archives and History
               has recorded 12 such sites in the County, including one pre-
               historic site on Ocracoke. None of these sites have been investi-
               gated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
               However, there are many areas which have historic and architec-
               tural value beyond local significance, discovered by the previous-
               ly mentioned surveys. In addition to the five historic places in
               Hyde County that had been placed on the National Register of
               Historic Places by 1981, one additional property, the George V.
               Credle house and cemetery, has been added. These National
               Register properties are identified by location, below.

                                              35

                    1.   Inkwell (Octagon House)--Amity Vicinity
                    2.   Clarke House (Wynne's Folly)--Englehard Vicinity
                    3.   Hyde County Courthouse--Swan Quarter
                    4.   Ocracoke Light Station--Ocracoke
                    5.   Mattamuskeet Lodge-,-Lake Mattamuskeet area
                    6.   George V. Credle House and Cemetery--Rose Bay Vicinity
                    In addition to these six properties, twenty-four additional
               ones have been placed on a "study list" for possible inclusion on
               the National Register. These twenty-four properties include:
                    1.   Amity Rural Historic District, Amity Vicinity
                    2.   Hyde County Plantation District, US 264
                    3.   Middletown Commercial District, Lake Landing Township
                    4.   Ocracoke Village Historic District, Ocracoke
                    5.   Bell-Jennette House, Lake Landing Township
                    6.   William Sylvester Carter House, Fairfield Township
                    7.   Samuel Lincoln Fisher House, Currituck Township
                    8.   Henry Gibbs House, Lake Landing Township
                    9.   John and Thomas Mann Houses, Fairfield Township
                   10.   O'Neal Midgett House, Lake Landing Township
                   11.   Ocracoke Lighthouse Keepers Quarters, Ocracoke
                   12.   Rose Bay Missionary Baptist Church, Swan Quarter
                         Township
                   13.   Ros.e Bay School, Swan Quarter Township
                   14.   St. John's Episcopal Church, Currituck Township
                   15.   St. John's Episcopal Church, Sladesville
                   16.   Elisha Sewell House, Lake Landing Township
                   17.   Soole Methodist Church, Swan Quarter Township
                   18.   Marcus Swindell House, Lake Landing Township
                   19.   Watson House, Lake Landing Township
                   20.   G. I. Watson House, Lake Landing Township
                   21.   1. B. Watson House, Lake Landing Township
                   22.   Preacher Watson House, Lake Landing Township
                   23.   Joseph Young House, Lake Landing Township
                   24.   Young-Roper-Jarvis.House, Lake Landing Township
                    All of Ocracoke Village, which is presented as Part II of
               this Plan, can be considered a cultural resource beyond local
               significance (see Part II, Ocracoke). Also, the above-mentioned
               comprehensive survey titled "Comprehensive Historical Inventory of
               Hyde County," will be used to help identify other potentially
               fragile historic properties.
                    In addition to architecturally significant historic proper-
               ties, Hyde County has 35 known sites of archaeological signifi-
               cance, according to the Archaeology Branch of the State Division
               of Archives and History. Although not yet proven conclusively,
               within the Lake Landing Historic Architectural District (which is
               a nationally designated historic district on the National Register
               of Historic Places), is one site thought to be the location of the
               lost Indian village of Pomeiooc. This 16th century village was
               referenced to and depicted in vivid water colors by John White,

                                                36

               one of the early English settlers, in one of the colonies spon-
               sored by Sir Walter Raleigh. John White, unlike the settlers of
               the "Lost Colony," returned to England, where the paintings were
               preserved. The Village of Pomeiooc was long thought to be in the
               vicinity of Lake Mattamuskett, but no evidence was found.

                    It should be pointed out, however, that all information on
               the location, nature, and content of archaeological sites in North
               Carolina is protected under terms of N.C.G.S. 70, Article 2.
               Release of detailed information, because of risk of harm to the
               site, is very tightly controlled. Actual site locations are con-
               fidential and should not be made part of any public document,
               although maps may be examined in Raleigh.

                    4.   Areas with Resource Potential

                    A primary area with resource potential in Hyde County con-
               cerns productive agricultural lands, which include 70,600 acres in
               harvested cropland for 1984 (N.C. Agricultural Statistics, 1985).
               Other areas of resource potential include the four wildlife refuge
               areas and one "bird refuge" on the mainland, and the Cape Hatteras
               National Seashore Recreation Area on Ocracoke, which are
               publicly-owned forests, parks, or fish and gameland areas.
                  . As reported in detail in the 1981 Plan Update, Hyde County,
               along with several other coastal counties along the Pamlico Basin,
               are known to have substantial deposits of peat. According to a
               document titled 1980 Annual Report on Peat Resources in North
               Carolina, by Lee T. Otte and Roy L. Ingram, November 1980, there
               are two significant peat deposits located in Hyde County. The
               first is known as the Pamlimarle Peninsula, which also lies in.
               parts of Washington, Tyrrell, and Dare Counties. It is estimated
               that approximately 120 square miles of this deposit, which con-
               tains about 70 million tons of moisture-free peat, lies in Hyde
               County. A second, much smaller deposit is located in the Gull
               Rock Wildlife Area, currently under state control, covering a
               six-square-mile area. These two deposits encompass an estimated
               80,640 acres of land, or 126 square miles. Productive water
               bodies, particularly those designated as primary nursery areas,
               are also significant natural resource areas in the County.
                   Other natural resource areas of significance in Hyde County
               from an economic standpoint are Lake Mattamuskeet and the Swan
               Quarter National Wildlife Refuge. These two areas offer some of
               the most fertile water fowl hunting areas in all of North Carolina
               and the many hunters and fishermen attracted to the County do have
               a positive impact upon the local economy. According to the North
               Carolina Division of Environmental Management, the Swan Quarter
               National Wildlife Refuge is designated as a "Class I," or
               11pristine" air quality area, making it an area to be protected
               from sources of controllable air pollution from air emissions.
               All of-the County's wildlife refuge areas and Lake Mattamuskeet
               are important resources which should be protected from unnecessary
               encroachment or degradation.

                                              37

              D.   CONSTRAINTS: CAPACITY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES
                   The capacity of Hyde County's community facilities, with the
              exception of water, has not changed significantly s ince 1981. In
              addition to the water systems, there have been some minor changes
              in the County's community services, as discussed below.

                   1.   Water System
                   Hyde County's water system consists of two facilities, one at
              Fairfield with a capacity of 250,000 gallons per day (gpd), and
              one at Swan Quarter with a 75,000 gpd capacity. The Fairfield
              facility has the same capacity as it did in 1981; however, the
              capacity of the Swan Quarter facility has been reduced from about
              90,000 gpd in 1981 to 75,000 gpd in 1985. Therefore, the total
              County capacity is about 325,000 gpd, a reduction of 15,000 gpd
              since 1981. In 1985, however, the Swan Quarter water facilities
              did experience serious chloride problems and there is a need to
              expand the water supply.
                   Peak demand for water, according to the County Utilities
              Director, is about 280,000 gpd, which is about 45,000 gpd less
              than the current capacity. So, although the County's water capa-
              city has been reduced, water utilization peaks at only 86 percent
              of that capacity. Water demand peaks during the summer when
              cucumbers are being processed, migrant laborers are present, and
              the shrimp boats are in. off-peak demand is about 200,000 gpd,
              which is significantly higher than the 80-90,000 gpd range report-
              ed in the 1981 Plan Update.
                   As the County grows during the next 10 years, the provision
              of adequate amounts of water may pose a serious constraint to
              development.. Water quality also is of some concern. Also, it
              should be noted that the County intends to upgrade the pumping
              capacity of the Fairfield facility to 400,000 gallons per day by
              mid-1987. The County is proposing, also, to develop a long-term
              solution to its water problem by developing a new well site in the
              western end of the County. This source, however, was contingent
              upon the passing of a bond referendum in late 1986. The
              referendum was passed, and the new system is projected to be in
              operation by 1989 and will serve the entire County.

                   2.   Se wage Disposal

                   The County still does not have a centralized collection and
              disposal system. Septic tanks are the sole means of waste water
              disposal for nearly the entire County. However, the Mid-East
              public housing project and the Lake Mattamuskeet Wildlife Refuge
              both have small, private "package" treatment plants which
              discharge effluent. Also, a package treatment plant is proposed
              to be developed at the White Plains Marina hunting club

                                               38

                development. The County high school is served by a septic tank,
                sand filter, discharge system which, according to regional
                Division of Environmental Management offices, is currently          out of
                compliance with its effluent limits and needs to be upgraded.
                (See Item a-2 page 23, this section.)

                      3.    Solid Waste Disposal

                      Solid waste disposal is still a problem for Hyde County's
                mainland. Because of the high water table and low topography,
                state regulations prohibit the establishment of a landfill on the
                mainland. The County does have a garbage and trash collection
                system with public dumpsters. However, all of the waste must be
                trucked to landfills in nearby Beaufort and Dare Counties. The
                Beaufort County landfill is projected to be usable until mid-1988,
                and the County has already taken steps to obtain permits to
                develop a new landfill. The current Dare County landfill was
                opened in 1982, and is projected to have a useful lifespan of 20
                years. As long as Hyde County is unable to obtain permits to
                establish its own landfill, this expensive practice will have           to
                continue. This factor, however, should not be considered as a
                serious constraint to development during the next 10 years.

                      4.   Schools

                      Although the school facilities in Hyde County have not
                changed since the    1981 Plan Update, overall enrollment has
                declined. The 1981 school enrollment figure was 1,163 students
                as shown in Table 17, below. All but 105 of these students were'
                on the mainland. Figures for school year 1984-85 show total
                enrollment to be 1,004, which is a decrease of 159 students, or
                about 13 oercent. Enrollment on Ocracoke has been steadily
                declining since school year 1981-82. Although there is, in
                theory, excess capacity of about 570 students, there are no
                "unused" facilities in the schools. This "excess" allows Hyde
                County to update the standards in some facilities, such as librar-
                ies.

                          TABLE 18: HYDE COUNTY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT FIGURES

                                  1980-81     1981-82    1982-83     1983-84     .1984-85

                Hyde County        1,163       1,111      1,066       1,045        1,004
                Ocracoke              105        113         112        105           94

                      5.   Transportation

                      There are three primary roads     in Hyde County: U.S. 264,
                N.C. 94, and N.C. 45. In relation       to the capacities of these
                roads, overall traffic volumes have not changed significantly
                since the 1980 figures reported in the 1981 Plan Update. No
                counts are available for N.C. 45.

                                                     39

                      TABLE 19: PRIMARY ROAD TRAFFIC COUNTS: 1981 & 1985

                                                   *VOLUMES
               LOCATION                          1980       .1985         CHANGE

               N.C. 94 North of U.S. 264          700        700               0
               U.S. 264 East of N.C. 94           900      1,400          +500
               U.S. 264 West of N.C. 94         1,500      1,000          -500

               Source:    N.C. Department of    Transportation, Planning  and Research
                          Branch, Raleigh, N.C.
                          Vehicles per day

                     On N.C. 94, north of U.S. 264, traffic volume remains con-
               stant. On U.S. 264, west of N.C. 94, traffic volume has declined.
                olume has increased on 264 East, which is perhaps reflective of
               ferry-generated traffic.
               V

                     The capacities of both of these roads range from 5,700 to
               8,200 vehicles per day, posing.no constraint to future development
               or vehicular congestion. On the other hand, however, the
               conditions of some secondary routes in the County are less than
               desirable and the roads need to be repaired. This is especially
               true in the Sladesville area.

                     6.   Medical Services

                     There is currently one full-time physician in Hyde County,
               and one physician's assistant from nearby Belhaven (in Beaufort
               County), although no physician has yet been hired for the Rural
               Medical Center. The Engelhard area is served by one physician,
               who also has a self-contained pharmacy. Also, there is a
               full-time dentist in Swan Quarter.

                     7.   Emergency and Protective Services.

                     Hyde County has its own Emergency Medical Service Team, com-
               plete with ambulance, about 15 certified Emergency medical
               Technicians, and 24-hour dispatch service through the Sheriff's
               Department.

                     Four fire stations in the County are rated by the North
               Carolina Department of Insurance. One of these fire stations is
               located at Scranton, and one is on Ocracoke Island. Fire stations
               are staffed with approximately 40 volunteer firemen.

                     The Sheriff's Department provides protective services for
               Hyde County and is staffed with approximately eight officers who
               serve both the mainland and Ocracoke Island.

                     Also, there are two highway patrolmen assigned to Hyde
               County, two game wardens, and three Division of Marine Fisheries
               Enforcement Officers.

                                                   40

               E.   ESTIMATED DEMAND

                    Population

                    According to projections in Tables 1 and 5, Hyde County can
               anticipate a population of 6,306 persons by 1990. This projec-
               tion, provided by the North Carolina Office of State Budget and
               Management, would be an increase of 293 persons-over the 1985
               population projection for the County. This growth rate (4.64
               percent) does not imply that rapid growth is likely to occur in
               the County within the next ten years.

                    Most of the new mainland residents will likely continue the
               growth trends in the Currituck and Swan Quarter Townships. The
               293 new persons, at an average household size of 2.7 persons per
               household (interpolated from the 1980 U.S. Census), would create
               109 new households. These new households would place added
               demands upon the County in terms of land and community facilities.

                    2.   Future Land.Need

                    The 1980 population of Hyde County, minus Ocracoke Village,
               was 5,215 (see Tables 1 and 3, pages 3 and 5, respectively). The
               "Urban and Built-up" acreage in Hyde County (not including the 775
               acres in Ocracoke) was 1,985 acres in 1980 (see Table 15, page 15,
               this section). The population density in the "Urban and Built-up"
               acres on the mainland was 2.62 persons per acre. If the popula-.
               tion does increase on the mainland by 314 persons in 1990, then an
               additional 120 acres of Urban and Built-up land will be needed.
               Part of this additional acreage will be in the form of residential
               lots, but additional commercial developments--with proper parking
               facilities, etc., can also be expected. If all of the projected
               116 families build homes or place mobile homes on one-half acre
               lots, then 58 additional acres would be needed for residential use
               by 1990. It is unlikely, however, that additional permanent
               residential development will deviate from previous patterns. The
               scattered, single-family detached dwellings, which are spread
               across the County's rural landscape, will probably still be the
               dominant permanent residential type. The availability of land
               will not be a problem in Hyde County, since in 1984, there were
               187,936 acres of forestland in the County.

                    However, the introduction of a major, planned seasonal
               residential community in the County, i.e., the White Plains Marina
               hunting club, would have a significant impact on the County's
               population density at certain times. At full development, the
               proposed 144 two-bedroom units could contain up to 576 people,
               nearly 10% of the County's 1985 population.

                                               41

                   3.   Community Facilities Need

                   As noted in the discussion of "Constraints" (Part D, pages 38
              through 40, this section), all of the basic services which the
              County currently provides, except one, are projected to be ade-
              quate throughout the 10-year planning period. The County is
              presently seeking funds to upgrade the Fairfield water facility's
              pumping capacity up to 450,000 gallons per day. This would make
              the Fairfield well the major source of raw water in the County.
              Hopefully, the system will be upgraded by mid-1986. The current
              daily per capita consumption rate ranges from 33 to 47 gpd. With
              an upgraded capacity in Fairfield, combined with 75,000 gpd from
              Swan Quarter well, Hyde County would have a total capacity of
              450,000. This capacity could support a population of up to 9,042
              persons at current consumption rates.

                   Continued reliance upon septic tanks, however, may cause
              problems in areas with unsuitable soils during the period. Some
              type of centralized sewage collection and disposal systems may
              need to be developed--even if only for the population clusters in
              the Currituck and Swan Quarter Townships.

                   Solid waste disposal, as the population increases, will con-
              tinue to be a problem. Because of the County's inability to ob-
              tain permits for landfill sites, the current practice of taking
              refuse to a landfill may continue to be the most practical method
              of disposal during the planning period.

                   Other facilities and services, such as schools, roads,
              protective, and emergency services, are projected to be minimally
              adequate on the mainland throughout the planning period.

                                              42

               F.   SUMMARY: SECTION I

                    This section has focused on analyzing the existing conditions
               on Hyde County's mainland, as they may affect the formulation of
               land use policy. Various issues which do have policy implications
               have been presented in this section. -In the following section,
               however, specific Policy Statements, as they relate to the issues,
               will be presented.

                                              43

      I
      I
      I -
      I
      I
      'I
      I
      I.
      I
      I
      I

      I
      I
      I

                                                                      PART I
      I                                                           SECTION II
                                                           POLICY STATEMaqTS
      I
      I
      I

               SECTION II: POLICY STATEMENTS

                    The formulation of specific policies regarding growth and
               management objectives is perhaps the most important part of this
               updated Land Use Plan. Those policies must, in some cases, strike
               a delicate balance between objectives of the Coastal Resources
               Commission and the desires and objectives of the citizens of Hyde
               County. Most of the trends identified in the 1981 Plan Update are
               still continuing, so in many instances, policies set forth in the
               1981 Plan Update will not require modification. As the analysis
               of existing conditions showed, these ongoing trends include: a
               moderately growing population, a growth in agricultural and tour-
               ist economy, and the continuing potential for the mining of peat.
               Also, the continual growth and development of Ocracoke Village
               could threaten the historic quaintness and charm of this communi-
               ty.

                    The Coastal Resources Commission, recognizing the diversities
               which exist among the Coastal counties and communities, required
               the County to specify particular development policies under four
               rather broad topics in 1981. For the 1986 Update, however, the
               CRC has added a fifth issue, i.e., "Storm Hazard Mitigation." In
               most cases, policies developed under these topics will cover most
               of the local development issues, but in some cases, they do not.
               In the latter case, the locality has the flexibility to address
               its own locally defined issues. The five required broad topics
               are:

                        Resource Protection
                        Resource Production and Management
                        Economic and Community Development
                        Continuing Public Participation
                        Storm Hazard Mitigation

                    After an analysis of the existing conditions and trends and
               input from the County's citizens, the foregoing policies were
               developed to provide an overall framework for guiding growth and
               development in Hyde County throughout the 10-year planning period .

               A. RESOURCE PROTECTION

               1. Areas of Environmental Concern: Development Policies. Hyde
               CounEy recognizes the primary concern of the Coastal Resources
               Commission, in terms of protecting resources, as managing Areas of
               Environmental Concern (AEC's). The County also shares this con-
               cern for the protection and sound management of these environment-
               ally sensitive lands and waters. The AEC's which occur in Hyde
               County were identified in Section I of this Plan on pages.18
               through 22. All of these areas are within the Estuarine S_ystem.
               (The oce n hazards AEC's apply only to the ocean side of Ocracoke
               Island, which is under federal control as part of the Cape
               Hatteras National Seashore, and therefore, not under the County's
               jurisdictional control). In terms of developing policies, the
               Estuarine System AEC's, which include Coastal Wetlands, Estuarine

                                               44

              Waters, Estuarine Shorelines, and Public Trust Areas, will be
              treated as one uniform grouping since they are so closely inter-
              related. Another reason for grouping these AEC's together is the
              fact that the effective use of maps to detail exact on-ground
              location of a particular area, pose serious limitations.

                   Hyde County's overall policy and management objective for the
              estuarine system is "to give the highest priority to the protec-
              tion and coordinated management of these areas, so as to safeguard
              and perpetuate their biological, social, economic, and aesthetic
              Yalues and to ensure that development occurring within these AEC's
              is compatible with natural characteristics so as to minimize the
              likelihood of significant loss of private property and public
              resources." (15 NCAC 7H. 0203) In accordance with this overall
              objective, Hyde County will permit those land uses which conform
              to the general use standards of the North Carolina Administrative
              Code (15 NCAC 7H) for development within the Estuarine System.
              Generally, only those uses which are water dependent will be per-
              mitted. Specifically, each of the AEC's within the Estuarine
              System is discussed below, according to definitions derived from
              15 NCAC 7H. It should be noted, however, that occasionally
              portions of the Administrative Code change, which may affect
              definitions and use standards.

                   a. Coastal Wetlands

                   In line with the CAMA definitions, Hyde County prefers to use
              the term "marshlands" instead of wetlands. "Marshlands" is more
              descriptive of the areas included as an Area of Environmental Con-
              cern, which are regularly flooded marsh areas often containing
              @pecific marsh plant species. The first priority of uses of land
              in these areas should be the allowance of uses which promote con-
              servation of the existing marshlands. Second in priority will be
              uses which require water access. All acceptable uses such as
              utility easements, fishing piers, and docks, will be required to
              adhere to the use standards under the North Carolina Administra-
              tive Code (15 NCAC 7H). Geographic descriptions of marshlands are
              contained on page 18, Section I, of this document.

                   b. Estuarine Waters and Estuarine Shorelines

                   The importance of the estuarine waters and adjacent estuarine
              shorelines in Hyde County was discussed in Section I of this docu-
              ment on pages 18 - 22. Hyde County is very much aware that pro-
              tection of the estuWr-ine waters and adjacent estuarine shorelines
              -- both vital components of the estuarine system -- is of para-
              mount importance to fishing, both commercially and for recreation.

                   Hyde County recognizes that actions within the estuarine
              shoreline, which is defined as the area extending 75 feet landward
              of the mean high waterline of the estuarine waters, could have a
              substantial effect upon the quality of these waters. This area is
              subject to erosion and occasional flooding, which could not only
              affect,the quality of the adjacent estuarine life, but also

                                              45

               threaten the security of personal property from developments
               located therein.

                    In order to promote the quality of the estuarine waters as
               well as minimize the likelihood of significant property loss due
               to erosion or flooding, Hyde County will permit only those uses
               which are compatible with both the dynamic nature of the estuarine
               shorelines and the values of the estuarine system. Residential,
               recreational, and commercial uses may be permitted within the
               estuarine shoreline, provided that:

                    1.  a substantial chance of pollution occurring from the
                        development does not exist;
                    2.  natural barriers to erosion are preserved and not sub-
                        stantially weakened or eliminated;
                    3.  the construction of impervious surfaces and areas not
                        allowing natural drainage is limited only to that neces-
                        sary for development;
                    4.  standards of the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution
                        Control Act 1973 are met;
                    5.  development does not have a significant adverse impact.on
                        estuarine resources;
                    6.  development does not significantly interfere with exist-
                        ing public rights or access to, or use of, navigable
                        waters or public resources.

                    c.  Public Trust Areas

                    Hyde County recognizes that the public has certain estab-
               lished rights to certai.n land and water areas. (For definitions
               and geographic locations of public trust areas, see pages 20-21,
               Section 1). These public areas also support valuable commercial
               and recreational fisheries, waterfowl hunting, and also contain
               significant aesthetic Value. Tourism has increased over the years
               and is becoming more and more important to the County. Public
               trust areas are an important attraction to tourists as well as the
               local citizens. Hyde County will promote the conservation and
               management of public trust areas. Appropriate uses include those
               which protect public rights for navigation and recreation. Proj-
               ects which would directly or indirectly block or impair existing
               navigation channels, increase shoreline erosion, deposit spoils
               below mean high tide, cause adverse water circulation patterns,
               violate water quality standards, or cause degradation of shellfish
               waters, shall generally not be allowed. Allowable uses shall be
               those which do not cause detriment to the physical or biological
               functions of public trust areas. Such uses as navigational chan-
               nels, drainage ditches, bulkheads to prevent erosion, piers,
               docks, or marinas, shall be permitted.

                    Hyde County does not currently enforce local land use con-
               trols such as zoning or subdivision regulations for the mainland
               portion of the County. The major controls over development-in
               Hyde County are.the CAMA development permits, septic tank place-
               ment regulations, and the County's building permit program.' The

                                                46

              County, in carrying out its policies on managing development with-
              in the AEC's, will continue to support uses which are permitted
              under the State Administrative Code. However,-it is the belief of
              Hyde County that variances to the restrictions of uses within the
              AEC's should be permissible on the basis of a case by case review
              if an applicant for a proposed development can clearly demonstrate
              that no major or irreversible damage would result. to help deter-
              mine the "clear demonstration" of no major or irreversible damage,
              the County Board of Commissioners will appoint a Development
              Review Board. This Board, working with the County Manager, the
              local CAMA Implementation and Enforcement officer, and the Build-
              ing Inspector, shall review each proposal for development within
              an AEC or natural or cultural resource area. The Board shall
              report its findings and recommendations to the County Board of
              Commissioners. The commissioners shall notify the appropriate
              State and/or Federal review and permit agencies of the County's
              position.

              2. Development in Areas with Constraints

                   The constraints to development in Hyde County were discussed
              in Section I (pages 38-40) and relate to both physical constraints
              and limitations of community facilities. The physical constraints
              include man-made hazards such as the airports, flood prone areas,
              soils limitations, and natural and cultural resource fragile
              areas.

                   The high hazard flood areas, i.e., areas susceptible to the
              100-year flood, include the majority of Hyde County's land area.
              As the attached Map .1 indicates, nearly all of Hyde County is
              considered to be in the "Zone A" category, according to prelimi-
              nary Flood Insurance Rate maps prepared by the Federal Emergency
              Management Agency. However, there is a substantial area of Zone
              "C," i.e., minimally flooded area, in the northwestern part of the
              County. The areas with the highest risk appear to be the immedi-
              ate estuarine shoreline areas and interior lowland swamp areas.
              Again, since most of the County is flood prone, it is not realis-
              tic that all development should be prohibited from these areas.

                   Estuarine erosion areas, as a physical constraint to develop-
              ment, are closely related to the high hazard flood areas. Soils
              limitations for development are also nearly a County-wide phenome-
              non. -Most of the soil types have limited permeability or too
              rapid permeability, making septic tank placement a problem. Also,
              the excessive spreads of muck or silt-type soils and peat-type
              soils, cannot support septic tanks nor bear the construction of
              heavy structures.

                   The natural resource fragile areas are closely linked with
              the previously identified AEC's and the cultural resource fragile
              @reas were discussed on page 35. Existing community facilities,
              i.e., solid waste collection, etc., do not pose a serious con-
              straint to development. Water, however, may pose a constraint.

                                              47

                    a. Policy Alternatives

                    Possible policy alternatives regarding managing growth and
               development in areas with identified constraints include:

                    1.  Develop local regulations to include strict design stan-
                        dards, and/or appoint a local Development Review Board.

                    2.  Develop and adopt additional regulations such as a Zoning
                        ordinance and pursue participation in the regular phase
                        of the National Flood Insurance Program (including adop-
                        tion of a Flood Damage Prevention ordinance). These
                        devices will help regulate or prohibit all development in
                        areas with identified physical constraints.

                    3.  Permit development in areas with constraints, utilizing
                        current state, federal and local regulatory processes,
                        i.e., CAMA, flood insurance, and Corps of Engineers 404
                        permits, and where adequate protective measures have been
                        taken.

                    b. Policy Choices

                    Hyde County adopts the following policies regarding develop.-
               ment in areas with constraints.

                    1.  A Development Review Board will be appointed by the Board
                        of Commissioners to review development proposals in
                        sensitive areas. (See page 47.)

                    2.  Development will be permitted in some areas subject to
                        erosion, provided proposals comply with provisions out-
                        lined for development within the estuarine shorelines.

                    3.  Hyde County realizes the inevitability of some develop-
                        ment occurring in high hazard flood areas, because of the
                        availability of soils suitable for septic tank placement.
                        Therefore, the County will continue to participate in the
                        National Flood Insurance Program and promote enforcement
                        through the County Building Inspection Program. Proposed
                        developments which are not otherwise damaging to AEC's
                        may be permitted, provided protective measures which
                        comply with flood insurance requirements are imposed.

                    4.  Development in areas where soil types have limited bear-
                        ing capacity will not be encouraged.

                    5.  In areas with possible septic tank limitations, Hyde
                        County will remain committed to decisions rendered by the
                        Health Department's Sanitarian.

                    6.  The County will not encourage residential or commercial
                        development within airport approach zones.

                                               48

                   C.  Implementation Schedule

                   1.  The County will support the State CAMA permit process
                       where applicable.
                   2.  The County will continue support of the federal Flood
                       Insurance Program.

                   3.  The County will continue to support enforcement and per-
                       mit authority of the County Sanitarian concerning the
                       placement of septic tanks.

              3. Hurricane and Flood Evacuation Needs and Plans

                   An entire section within the Policy Statement discussions is
              included separately for hurricane and flood evacuation, as well as
              storm mitigation of post-storm redevelopment policies, beginning
              on page 64.

              4. Other Resource Protection Policy Areas
                   There"are some additional resource protection issues which
              are required to be addressed by the CAMA planning guidelines, some
              of which have lesser definition in Hyde County than in some other
              coastal areas. These areas, along with relevant policy discussion
              and statements, are included below:

                   a. Protectio n  of Potable Water Supply

                   As discussed in Section 1, page 38, Hyde County's water
              distribution system currently is based on groundwater drawn
              through wells located at Fairfield and Swan Quarter as the main
              supply source. It was also noted that the Swan Quarter facilities
              have experienced problems because of chloride intrusion and that
              the water supply and distribution system needs to be expanded.
              Because of the past problems of chloride intrusion, the County
              plans to develop wells tapping groundwater in the northwestern
              part of the County, near Ponzer. The County is aware that
              inappropriate land uses near well fields increase the possibility
              of well contamination. Land uses near groundwater sources are
              regulated by the North Carolina Division of Environmental
              Management through N.C.A.C., Subchapter 2L and Subchapter 2C.
              Hyde County recognizes the importance of protecting potable water
              supplies and therefore supports the enforcement of these
              regulations.

                  b. Use of Package Treatment Plants

                  Since there i s no centralized sewer service in the County, it
              may become necessary to develop additional small package treatment
              systems in order to accommodate certain types of development in
              outlying areas. (Several packagetreatment plants already operate
              in Hyde County.) This development may be residential, commercial,
              or industrial. It shall be the policy of Hyde County to continue

                                               49

               to allow such package plants if they can be constructed within the
               overall intent of this plan and meet other federal and state
               environmental regulations.

                   C. Stormwater Runoff Associated with Agriculture, Residential
                       Development, Phosphate or Peat Mining, and Its Impact on
                       Coastal Wetlands, Surface Waters, or other Fragile Areas

                   Stormwater runoff is bas ically the same issue as surface
               drainage in Hyde County. Policies on surface drainage are
               addressed in other areas of this Plan. (See Part B, this section,
               "Resource Production and Management Policies", for policies relat-
               ing to agriculture, [B.11, residential development [B.61   and peat
               mining [B.31, and discussion of related impacts. Phosphate mining
               is currently not an issue in Hyde County.

                   d. Marina and Floating Home Development

                   The development of marinas has significant commercial and
               recreational potential in Hyde County. Therefore, the County
               supports the development of marinas, in compliance with existing
               environmental regulations. The County believes that additional
               studies of the County's needs are required in order to indicate
               possible sizes or locations of marinas. (Also, see Part CA,
               "Redevelopment of Developed Areas", Section II). Although so-
               called "floating homes" have not been an issue or problem in Hyde
               County, this issue might become important in the future. If and
               when it does, Hyde County will develop policies which are most
               appropriate at the time.

                   e. Industrial Impacts on Fragile Areas

                   Part C.1, "Types and Locations of Desired Industry", contains
               specific policy statements on industry. (See pages 57-59).
                   f. Development of Sound and Estuarine System Islands

               in Hyde County's jurisdiction, i.e., Hog Island near Swan Quarter
                   There appear to be one of two small estuarine system islands
               Bay, and one near Ocracoke Island. These islands can likely be
               characterized as natural fragile areas. It is the County's policy
               that these areas should be protected from any environmentally
               adverse development.

                   g. Other Hazardous  or Fragile Areas

                   Other areas of the County which might be considered "fragile"
               include non-CAMA "404 wetlands," as determined and regulated by
               the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hyde County recognizes the
               presence of such areas within the County, and as a general policy
               supports the enforcement of 404 regulations by the Corps of
               Engineers.

                                               50

                 Another type of "hazard" which should also be addressed in
             this Land Use Plan Update is the presence of and proposed expan-
             sion of military airspace and the attendant restrictions it places
             on the County. The County has serious concerns about the expan-
             sion of military airspace and does not support such expansions.
             Hyde County has gone on record in voicing its concern to the
             Federal Aviation Administration. (See Appendix 2.)

                 h. Cultural Resources
                 Hyde County is aware of the increasing importance of its cul-
             tural and historical heritage and the need to enhance and protect
             such valuale resources. The "Lost Village of Pomeiooc" and any
             future such discoveries are examples. As a matter of policy, the
             County believes that no development which could threaten, damage,
             or destroy valuable historic, cultural, archaeological, or
             architectural resources should be permitted.

                                              51

               B. RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES

                     Appropriate management of productive resources is very
               important to any locality. However, in Hyde County, the produc-
               tive resources are intricately tied to the predominant economic
               sectors of the County which makes the necessity of balanced man-
               agement policies of paramount importance. The major productive
               resources to be considered relate to agriculture, commercial
               forestry, commercial and recreational fisheries, hunting, and peat
               mining.

               1. Agriculture

                     Agriculture, as discussed under analysis of existing economic
               conditions, has been and remains the major element in the County's
               economic base and is steadily growing. With its substantial
               economic impact upon the County, both in terms of employment and
               taxes, agricultural production is of paramount importance to Hyde
               County. The importance of farming and its supportive activities
               such as proper land clearing and development of adequate drainage
               facilities, cannot be@overestimated in Hyde County. Executive
               order 96, "Conservation of Prime Agricultural and Forest Lands"
               was supposed to have led to the identification of "prime areas,11
               in both agriculture and forestry, by the soil and water conserva-
               tion districts. However, this identification has not occurred in
               Hyde County.

                     a. Policy Alternatives

                     Possible policy alternatives include:

                     1. Developing local regulations to restrict land clearing
                        activities.

                     2. Monitoring land clearing by requiring local "clearance
                        permits."

                        drainage activities.
                     3. Encouraging farmers to develop crops which require fewer

                     4. Continue to support maintenance of existing drainage
                        rights-of-way and encourage all new drainage to empty
                        directly into the Pamlico Sound, or freshwater bodies.

                     b. Policy Choices

                     Because of its continuing importance to the County's economy,
               Hyde  County will not seek to impose severe restrictions on agri-
               cultural production through drainage controls. However, the
               County is aware of some of the negative effects of poor or impro-
               perly managed drainage activities. Therefore, Hyde County adopts
               the following policy positions.

                                                52

                    1.  The County will continue to support the maintenance of
                        existing drainage rights-of-way for farm drainage,
                        including the use of the County-wide Agricultural Drain-
                        age Permit process.
                    2.  Hyde County will continue to support the clearing of land
                        for agricultural uses.
                    3.  The County will encourage, as much as feasible, drainage
                        to empty directly into the Pamlico Sound, or freshwater
                        bodies.
                    4.  Hyde County will continue to support State and Federal
                        programs which promote stabilization of productive
                        agricultural land.

                    C.  Implementation Schedule
                    The County will seek assistance from State and Federal agen-
               cies to help identify most "productive" agricultural lands. Also,
               the County will request assistance from the U. S. Soil Conserva-
               tion Serrvice to help identify feasible ways of redirecting exist-
               ing drainage and guiding new drainage directly into the Pamlico
               Sound, or freshwater bodies.

               2. Commercial Forestry
                    The importance of this sector of the County's-economy is
               recognized by Hyde County. The County also recognizes the rela-
               tionship between commercial forestry and agricultural products.
               For example, some of the current land clearing activities initial-
               ly results in income from timber products. Eventually, much of
               the land is drained in order to develop productive agricultural
               land. As agricultural land increases, forestry income declines.
               This is particularly true when the transfer of land use is from
               commercial forest to cropland. The economic importance of commer-
               cial forestry in Hyde County is likely to continue throughout the
               next 10 years. The County generally supports the maintenance of
               its commercial forestlands in line with its support of productive
               agricultural land.

                    a. Policy Alternatives
                        1.   The County could encourage the maintenance of its
                             most productive commercial forests by discouraging
                             non-commercial land clearing except for agricultural
                             land development.
                         2.  The County could seek to identify its most productive
                             areas and classify the areas as "conservation" on the
                             Land Classification Map for long-term maintenance.

                                                 53

                    b. Policy Choice

                        1. The County   will encourage and support the maintenance
                             of its most productive commercial forests by discour-
                             aging land clearing except for commercial purposes or
                             the development of productive agricultural lands.

                    C. Implementation Schedule

                        1.   Leave the existing process as is.

                        2.   Encourage the Regional Soil and Water Conservation
                             District to identify prime forestlands by FY 87, so
                             that these areas can be mapped.

                        3.   Continue to support State Clearinghouse review of the
                             impact of development projects on prime forestlands.

               3. Mining Resource Areas

                    The County still has  vast, virtually untapped peat reserves,
               as noted in the 1981 Land  Use Plan Update. Proposals at that time
               to develop peat mines did  not materialize. However, the potential
               is very much still there. If peat resources could be mined, the
               economic impact upon the County could be substantial. The ad
               valorem tax base could receive a generous boost; greatly needed
               semi-skilled and unskilled jobs could be created, and, possible
               "spin-off" support industries and commercial facilities could.
               develop. Currently (as of the writing of this report), substan-
               tial discussion has been generated because of the proposed large-
               scale.peat mining operations at White Tail Farms. Of central
               concern is the potential for added runoff of surface water and
               subsequent effects. The State Environmental Management Commission
               has adopted special "runoff" standards -for peat mining, which
               basically requires that all mining operations be cond-ucted so that
               "natural" drainage of the site is maintained. Potential mining
               companies will have to submit a "water management plan" prior to
               receiving a discharge permit.

                    a. Policy Alternatives

                         1.  The County could adopt local ordinances regulating
                             the mining of peat and requiring certain safeguards
                             to be imposed.

                         2.  Not develop any local ordinances at this time, but
                             rely solely on State and Federal regulatory enforce-
                             ments, i.e., National Environment Protection Act of
                             1969, along with the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts
                             enforced by the State Division of Environmental
                             Management, the State mining permit provisions, and
                             the 404 wetlands permit process, enforced by the
                             U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.

                                                54

                   b. Policy Choice

                       1.  The County supports the eventual mining of peat
                           resources in Hyde County consistent with State and
                           Federal environmental regulations in order to miti-
                           gate possible adverse impacts upon environmentally
                           sensitive areas.

                   C.  Implemen tation Schedule

                       1. Continue to rely on State and Federal enforcement
                           provisions and activities.

               4. Commercial and Recreational Fisheries

                   The productive water bodies in and around Hyde County have
               been valuable contributors to the local economy as well as provid-
               ed many opportunities for recreational fishing. With increasing
               annual catches over the last several years, it appears that com-
               mercial fishing has the potential to expand in Hyde County. it
               is, therefore, very important to protect the water quality of
               productive fishing areas. In recent years, concern has been rais-
               ed by commercial fishermen along North Carolina's Coast and the
               State Division of Marine Fisheries, that freshwater runoff
               (particularly from agricultural drainage) has been detrimental to
               estuarine waters by altering the salinity content. Concern also
               @as been raised because of incidences of fecal coliform showing up
               in primary shell-fishing waters and forcinq the "closing".of such
               waters. Hyde County would like to see water quality in all of the
               productive water bodies improved.

                   a. Policy Alternatives

                       1.  Seek to develop impositions, prohibiting the clearing
                           of additional land, and thereby reducing the extent
                           of freshwater runoff.

                       2.  Not impose local restrictions on additional land
                           clearing, but rely on the 404 permit process and
                           enforcement of septic tank placement regulations,
                           particularly in areas with unsuitable soils and high
                           erosion areas.

                       3.  Seek funding assistance to develop artificial reefs
                           in the Pamlico Sound to attract fish, and thereby
                           enhance commercial and recreational opportunities
                           in the County.

                   b. Policy Choices

                       1. The County does not believe that it is necessary to
                           limit either land clearing or unnecessarily restrict
                           agricultural drainage. The 404 permit process and

                                               55

                            other environmental regulations are viewed as being
                            sufficient in limiting the amount of land cleared.
                        2.  The County will support enforcement of septic tank
                            placement regulations by the Health Department and
                            the Soil Conservation Service, to minimize the like-
                            lihood of effluent from septic systems in unsuitable
                            soils contaminating fishing waters.
                        3.  The County will apply for funds through the N. C.
                            Division of Marine Fisheries' Reef Development Pro-
                            gram in FY 87 in order to develop artificial reefs in
                            selected locations along the Pamlico Sound. The
                            reefs should attract fish and enhance commercial and
                            sports fishing in Hyde County.

                    C. Implementation Schedule

                        1. Continue to support enforcement of existing regula-
                            tory provisions as outlined in b. above.

               5. off-Road Vehicles

                    The primary area where off-road vehicles would be of concern
               is on Ocracoke Island in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Area.
               This area, as stated previously, is under the management'and con-
               trol of the U. S. Park Service. Nevertheless, off-road vehicles
               are important in some sections of Hyde County because of the
               necessity for landowners to travel in swampy areas on private
               property. However, since improper use of off-road vehicles in
               these areas could possibly damage natural ragile areas, it is the
               general practice to travel only on existing trails. The use of
               these vehicles is acceptable in such cases.

               6. Residential and Commercial Land.Development
                    Hyde County, as discussed under sections of this report
               analyzing existing population and economic trends, is very sparse-
               ly populated and has one of the lowest County per capita incomes
               in North Carolina. The 1980 population census indicated that the
               trend of population loss for the County was being supplanted by a
               growth trend. Hyde County is not in a "rapid growth" situation
               and does not suffer the potentially related pressures resulting
               from increased residential, commercial, or industrial uses of
               land. Besides the limitations presented in other policy discus-
               sions in this report (particularly those relating to protection of
               sensitive natural and cultural resources), Hyde County views
               itself as being in a position to accommodate growth and develop-
               ment. For instance, the proposed White Plains project, which will
               involve the construction of condominiums in the White Plains
               Marina area, as well as the provision of water and development of
               wastewater treatment, is a recent example. Also, other areas in
               the County have the potential for transitioning to higher density,
               more intense land uses.

                                               56

              Additional development, particularly commercial and industrial
              development, is regarded as desirable because of the important
              local revenue and employment generating impacts. The other policy
              statements regarding resource protection adequately voice the
              County's concerns regarding these resources. However, land deve-
              lopment, whether for residential, commercial, industrial or peat
              mining uses, and in conformance with existing regulatory controls
              will be encouraged in Hyde County.
                   A more detailed discussion of the specific types of develop-
              ment along with relevant policy statements are included in the
              following section, "Economic and Community Development Policies".

              C. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
                   The analysis of overall existing conditions and trends for
              this 1986 Update of the Hyde County Land Use Plan did not show any
              alarming trends which would drastically alter general economic and
              community development policies contained in the 1981 Plan. How-
              ever, some relevant trends which have been identified include:

                       Population growth in the County;
                       Increase in the unemployment rate, indicating a need for
                       expanded job opportunities;
                       Growth and stability of the County's three basic resource
                       extraction economic activities, i.e., farming, fishing,
                       and forestry;
                       Continuing potential for the mining of peat in Hyde
                       County;
                       Continuing decline of the existing conventional housing
                       stock.
                   Hyde County is very much concerned about the future growth in
              economic and community development. As the population gradually
              increases, the economic base will need to expand, more housing
              will be needed and increased, although relatively minor, pressures
              will be placed on community facilities. Sound public investment
              decisions will also have to be made. All of these issues and
              others are important in the formulation of land use policies.
              Particular issue areas and policy statements are discussed below.
              1. Types,and Locations of Desired Industry
                   Hyde County has an intense need for increased job opportun-
              ities for many of its unemployed and underemployed citizens.
              Industrial development could provide these opportunities as well
              as expand the County's tax base.
                   Hyde County would like to see industry developed which could
              take advantage of existing natural resources and/or expand upon
              the current three major industries in the County. Industries such
              as seafood processing, food canneries, paper and wood manufacture,
              and marine-related industries might be considered desirable as
              long as the integrity of environmentally sensitive areas could be

                                               57

               assured of maintenance and stability. Also, other low-pollution,
               light manufacturing and/or assembly industries would be
               desirable.

                    a. Locations and Standards

                    The County would like to see industry locate, if feasible, in
               industrial parks which could be developed in suitable locations in
               the County. However, because of soil and other limitations, indi-
               vidual plant sites may be more feasible. All industrial prospects
               will be required to comply with general development standards
               which are designed to protect environmentally sensitive areas,
               including:

                       1.  Providing an assessment of the impact of the develop-
                           ment of the industry and be required to use the best
                           available technology to avoid pollution of air or
                           water during construction or operation.

                       2.  Be located on land having stable, well-drained soils.
                           The sites should be located in areas adequately pro-
                           tected from flooding and be accessible to existing
                           public utilities and transportation routes.
                    Some industries such as boat or ship maintenance and repair,
               may need to be close to water areas, or have adequate water
               access.

                    b. Policy Alternat ives

                    Possible policy alternatives concerning industrial develop-
               ment in Hyde County include:

                       1.  the development of an active industrial recruiting
                           program within the County;

                       2.  conducting studies to see which industry types may
                           want to locate in the County, and assessing possible
                           environmental impacts; and
                       3.  seeking funding and technical assistance to develop
                           industrial parks within the County.

                    c. Policy Choices

                    As Hyde Coun ty recognizes the need for economic expansion and
               the fact that industrial development can greatly enhance this
               expansion, the County hereby adopts the following position.
                       1. The County will seek to develop an active industrial
                           recruitment program, seeking low-pollution, light
                           manufacturing industries. The County Finance Officer
                           will coordinate this activity.

                                              58

                       2.  Hyde County will seek technical assistance and finan-
                           cial help to develop at least one industrial park, to
                           be located near the airport at Engelhard.

                       3.  The County believes that all industrial prospects
                           should be given a fair, case-by-case assessment in
                           order to carefully compare possible economic benefits
                           with possibly negative environmental effects.
                       4.  The County will provide, as much as is locationally
                           and economically feasible, basic support services
                           such as water and sewer, if possible, to newly
                           locating industries.

                   d. Implementation Schedule
                   The County will establish more active contact with the
              state's industrial development representative for the region.
              The County will actively explore funding assistance to develop an
              industrial park near the airport at Engelhard.

              2. Local Commitment to Service Provisions
                   Currently, the major service to development provided by the
              county is water. The water service area generally includes those
              areas around Swan Quarter, Fairfield, Engelhard, Sladesville,
              Ponzer, and Scranton.
                   Hyde County is committed to providing basic services such as
              water and, where feasible, sewer, to serve increased development
              in the County, particularly prospective industrial development, in
              those areas most suited for development. As development occurs
              and the local tax base expands accordingly, slightly higher levels
              of county-provided services can be provided.

                   a. Policy Alternatives

                       1.  Do not encourage the provision of services for new
                           development in an attempt to keep things as they
                           are.

                       2.  Encourage extension and expansion of needed services
                           as much as feasible, to accommodate new residential,
                           commercial, or industrial development.

                   b.  Policy Choice

                       1. Hyde County will remain committed to providing needed
                           services, as economically feasible, to accommodate
                           new residential, commercial, and industrial develop-
                           ment in the County.

                                               59

                    C.  Implementation Schedule

                        1. The County will work throughout the period to encour-
                            age the provision of services where needed, and as
                            feasible, for new development.

               3. Desired Urban Growth Patterns

                    Although, as noted previously, there are community clusters
               in the County, there is no area on the mainland that resembles an
               "urban", i.e., dense or compact pattern. Even the cluster commu-
               nities are widely separated, spaced out along U. S. 264, and major
               paved secondary routes. This type of development pattern, which
               consists mostly of low-to-moderate income single-family homeown-
               ers, some scattered mobile homes on individual lots, and scattered
               commercial developments, is likely to continue in Hyde County.
               There are no subdivision communities currently in the County. As
               the population on the mainland increases, as it is projected to do
               through 1995, the areas with the water service will likely take in
               this growth. The conditions of the soils and the absence of a
               central sewage facility in the County present serious constraints
               to increased development. Nevertheless, as some residents who
               formerly migrated in search of job opportunities return, and as
               more and more of the younger people decide to remain in the
               County, the demand for adequate sewage disposal will gradually
               increase.

                   Although the County has participated in three separate Commu-
               nity Development Block Grant Programs aimed at rehabilitating many
               substandard dwelling units, there is still ai significant portion
               of the population residing in substandard housing. Since incomes
               are generally low in the County, there will be a need throughout
               the next 10 years for lower income h'ousing. However, as of the
               writing of this report, the cost of housing, particularly
                            steadily increasing. The definition of what cons
               financing, is                                                 ti-
               tutes "lower-income" housing during the planning period may be a
               subject of local, state and national debate. An important
               consideration in the total cost of housing is the location and
               availability of basic services such as water and sewer. Since
               there is no central sewer in the County, the location of water
               services, as a factor in housing location, becomes all the more
               crucial. This is a factor which is recognized by Hyde County.
                   Another trend in the County possibly affecting urban growth
               patterns is the increasing number of mobile homes. Although
               mostly scattered on individual lots, mobile homes have established
               themselves as a viable housing alternative for many residents and
               the County may wish to plan for the eventuality of mobile home
               parks.

                   The proposed project, "Lake Landing Condominiums at White
               Plains Marina," will introduce 144 2-bedroom units. The County
               will encourage such high-density development if community services
               are adequate to support such a development.

                                              60

                   a. Policy Alternatives

                       1.  Hyde County could encourage the continuation of
                           existing rural cluster community patterns.
                       2.  The County could discourage a duplication and contin-
                           uation of the existing development patterns by adopt-
                           ing a Zoning ordinance which could prohibit areas
                           with identified limitations (soils, or presence of
                           AECs, for example) from developing.

                       3.  Adopt and develop a Mobile Home Park ordinance to
                           establish design standards for mobile home parks
                           which may eventually be proposed in the County.

                   b.  Policy Choices

                       1.  The existing rural cluster communities are a long
                           established residential pattern in Hyde County, and
                           will not be discouraged by the County. However, the
                           County will not encourage "new" developments in areas
                           with identified limitations such as soils or proxi-
                           mity to AEC's; specifically, the County will not
                           extend water service to such areas. However,
                           redevelopment , or rehabilitation activities are
                           viewed as being acceptable.

                       2.  The County does not deem it necessary to adopt a
                           Zoning Ordinance at this time, but will consider the
                           development of a draft Mobile Home Park Ordinance to
                           establish design standards for mobile home parks.

                   c. Implementation Schedule

                       1. obtain assistance in developing a draft Mobile Home
                           Park ordinance in FY 87.

              4. Redevelopment of Developed Areas

                   The only area worthy of consideration under this issue in
              Hyde County is the area around Silver Lake on Ocracoke Island.
              Policy discussions for Ocracoke are contained in Part II of this
              update. As noted previously, however, the County has operated
              several projects under the HUD-sponsored Community Development
              Block Grant Program, including housing rehabilitation, drainage
              improvements, and construction of a community building and fire
              station. A substantial number of substandard dwellings, notably
              around the Lake Landing and Fairfield Townships, remain in the
              County. As block grant funds are available, Hyde County will
              continue to apply for such funds in order to help alleviate the
              substandard housing conditions of many of its low and moderate-
              income citizens.

                                              61

                    a.  Policy Alternatives

                        1. Seekingfunding   through the State-administered Small
                            Cities Community Development Block Grant Program to
                            establish a housing improvements program in needed
                            areas.

                    b. Policy Choices

                        1. Hyde County would like to see redevelopment/rehabili-
                            tation activities occur in such communities where
                            there are concentrations of substandard housing
                            conditions.

                    c. Imple entation Schedule

                        1. in FY 87, Hyde County will apply for Community
                            Development Block Grant funding.

               5. Commitment to State and Federal Programs

                    Hyde County is generally receptive to State and Federal
               programs, particularly those which provide improvements to the
               County. The County will continue to fully support such programs.
               The North Carolina Department of Transportation road and bridge
               improvement programs are very important to Hyde County.

                    Examples of other State and Federal programs which are impor-
               tant to and supported by Hyde County include: drainage planning
               and erosion control activities carried out by.the U.S.D.A. Soil
               Conservation Service, which is valuable to farmers; dredging and
               channel maintenance by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; continued
               ferry service to and from Ocracoke; and Federal and State projects
               which provide efficient and safe boat access for sports fishing.

                    All of these programs and others are important to Hyde
               County, and the County is committed to their continued support.

               6. Assistance to Channel Maintenance

                    Proper maintenance of channels                   in Hyde
                                                   is very important
               County, mainly because of the substantial economic impact of com-
               mercial fisheries. Commercial fishing is increasing in the
               County. If silt or other deposits fill in the channels, this
               could impede efficient docking of the commercial vessels. With
               adequate channel maintenance, Hyde County could begin to make more
               utilization of its extensive waterways for water transportation
               purposes. Since there are no railroads in the County, water
               transportation (particularly along the Intracoastal Waterway)
               could be useful for bulk shipments in the County. The County is
               quite aware of this situation. Hyde County provides assistance to
               the Corps and State-officials by either helping to obtain or pro-

                                               62

               viding spoil sites. The County will remain committed to providing
               such assistance.

               7. Energy Facilities Siting
                   In Hyde County, the siting or location of energy facilities
               relates almost solely to peat mining, as noted in the 1981 Plan
               Update. The nature of peat mining is such that there is little
               choice about particular extraction sites. Peat mining, like
               strip-coal mining, must be done where the mineral is located. It
               is always an on-site operation, yet the conversion or processing
               of it can occur somewhere else. The County believes that off-site
               processing should not occur in environmentally sensitive or
               @azardous areas, or in any area where it is known that major or
               irreparable environmental damage will result. The County also
               believes that any land disturbed as a mining site should be
               reclaimed as much as possible.

               8.' Tourism and Waterfront Access
                   As discussed under the economic analysis section, tourism has
               historically had a significant impact upon Hyde County's economy..
               Tourism is a growing sector of Hyde County's economy and the
               County would like to protect and enhance those attractions and
               related facilities which help make tourism effective. The con-
               tinued operation of the ferry services, particularly when the
               number of annual passengers is considered, is obviously crucial to
               a sustained tourist economy on Ocracoke. On the mainland, the
               waterfowl, deer, and other small game hunting, sportsfishing, and
               wildlife observations, do not depend upon the ferry. Neverthe-
               less, these activities also add to the County's economy. on both
               the mainland and on Ocracoke, waterfront access is an important
               aspect for both tourists and citizens as well. On the mainland,
               access appears to be generally adequate, with about 10 private
               boat ramps and two public ramps. The 10 private ramps charge a
               nominal launching fee and are utilized mostly by sports fishermen.
               These are mostly of concrete construction and some have a few
               parking spaces. on Ocracoke, however, there are no public access
               ramps.
                   Since the County receives revenue from the State on the basis
               of total retail sales, the vitality of Ocracoke's economy is
               important to the County as a whole. Any reduction in the ferry
               services could have a negative impact upon the County's economy.
               Also, the provision of public waterfront access facilities is a
               real need in Ocracoke Village.
                   As a matter of policy alternatives, the County could continue
               to support tourism by seeking to develop increased opportunities
               on the mainland. The County could also request that the State not
               reduce ferry services to Ocracoke, which would have negative rami-
               fications for both the Village's and the mainland's economy.
               Tourism in Hyde County, as in other coastal counties, is vital.
               The policy alternatives are limited. Therefore, the County will,

                                               63

               as a matter of policy, continue to support and promote tourism,
               both on the mainland and on Ocracoke. On Ocracoke, the County
               supports the development of public waterfront access facilities  in
               the Village.

               9.   Density of Development

                    Overly dense development is not a problem in Hyde County, nor
               is anticipated to become a problem during the period covered by
               this plan update. With an anticipated population growth of 293
               persons between 1985 and 1995, (an increase of 4.8% over the 1985
               estimate), the rate of growth will not push developed densities to
               unacceptable levels.

               10. Land Use Trends

                   The overall land use trends, as have been discussed in other
               sections of this report, include continuing, although at a slower
               rate, land clearing activities; continued emphasis on agricultural
               uses of land, and increasing, although not dramatically, water-
               front residential development. The projected land use changes are
               not anticipated to be causes for alarm in Hyde County. Continued
               enforcement and coordination, of existing local, state, and
               federal land use regulations, i.e., through CAMA, Corps of
               Engineers, 404 process, sanitary regulations, and building inspec-
               tions program, are adequate to help assure orderly growth and
               development in the County.

               D. CONTINUING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION POLICIES
                   Hyde County recognizes that an important element in develop-
               ing and implementing any local policies or plans regarding the use
               of land in the County, is involvement of the County's citizenry.
               From the initial stages of development of this 1986 update of the
               County's CAMA Land Use Plan, Hyde County has sought to provide
               open opportunities for citizen input. A "Public Participation
               Plan" was developed for the plan updating process, outlining the
               methodology for citizen involvement. (See Appendix 3.) The plan
               stated that public involvement on both the mainland and Ocracoke
               was to be generated primarily through two Land Use Planning
               Advisory Committees appointed by the County Board of Commissioners,
               and through "public information" meetings, advertised in local
               newspapers and open to the general public. The Land Use Planning
               Advisory Committees' meetings also were open to the general
               public. In all, a total of 15 work sessions and/or public meet-
               ings were held, i.e., seven on the mainland and eight on Ocracoke.
               Two meetings each on the mainland and in Ocracoke (a total of
               four), were advertised in local newspapers as "public" information
               meetings soliciting citizens' input. Specific meeting dates were
               as follows: Mainland; November 6, 1985; February 12, March 13,
               April 10, May 1, May 29 (preliminary draft presented to
               Commissioners on June 16), all in 1986; Ocracoke; November 7,
               November 18, 1985; February 13, March 12, April 9, May 28, and
               June 4, 1986. Final work sessions were held November 19, 1986, on
                                               6.4

              the mainland, and November 26, 1986, in Ocracoke to review CRC
              comments to preliminary drafts.

                   In order to continue providing citizens an awareness of the
              land use planning process, all of the regular meetings of the
              Board of Commissioners will be announced in local newspapers.

                   It is the belief of the Hyde County  Board of Commissioners
              that all citizens be afforded adequate opportunities to partici-
              pate in the governmental and planning decisions which affect-them.
              Therefore, citizens' input will continue to be solicited, prima-
              rily through the Board of Commissioners with advertised and
              adequately publicized public meetings held to discuss special land
              use issues, and to keep citizens informed.

                                               65

               E. Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post-Disaster Recovery,    and
                   Evacuation Plans

                    The entire North Carolina Coastal  region, including   Hyde
               County, faces strong threats of damage  each year from hurricanes,
               Northeasters, or other major storms. For nearly 20 years, there
               was a marked "slowdown", or "lull", in hurricane activity along
               the State's coast. Predictions were that a major storm could
               strike the State at any time during the hurricane season, since
               such a storm was "long overdue". And then, in September, 1984,
               the "waiting" ended. Hurricane Diana, with some of the strongest
               sustained winds ever recorded, rammed into the Southeast coast
               near Wilmington. Although damage was extensive, the potential
               destruction was much greater and the damage would have been great-
               ly escalated had the storm hit land at a slightly different loca-
               tion. Again, a little over a year later in late September, 1985,
               coastal North Carolina faced another serious threat from Hurricane
               Gloria. Fortunately, this storm veered off the coast, took a
               northerly turn, and left no more than a good drenching for some
               areas. For two consecutive years, the State and the coastal areas
               were relatively fortunate. But what about next time?

                    Notice the excerpt below from, Before the Storm: Managing
               Development to Reduce-Hurricane-Damages, McElyea, Brower, &
               Godschalk, 1982, concerning development in coastal communities:

                         "At the same time, development along the coast has
                    grown by leaps and bounds. Unless this development is
                    wisely located and built to withstand hurricane forces,
                    North Carolina's coastal communities will face.massive
                    destruction. Local governments, as the primary protect-
                    ors of the public health, safety, and general welfare,
                    have a responsibility to reduce the risk of property
                    damages and loss of life attending coastal development.
                    They also have a responsibility to ensure that recon-
                    struction following a major storm can occur quickly and
                    leave the community safer from disaster in the future.
                    These are the goals of hazard mitigation and reconstruc-
                    tion planning." (p.iii)'

                    The purpose of this section of the 1986 CAMA Land Use Plan
               Update, is to assist Hyde County in managing development in
               potentially hazardous areas through establishing hazard mitigation
               policies and to reduce the risks associated with future hurricanes
               by developing post-disaster reconstruction/recovery policies, and
               reviewing the adequacy of current evacuation plans. The overrid-
               ing concept of this exercise is simply "planning ahead of time."

                         "Hazard mitigation includes any activity which
                    reduces the probability that a disaster will occur or
                    minimizes the damage caused by a disaster. Hazard miti-
                    gation includes not only managing devlopment, but also

                                                66

                   evacuation planning and other measures to reduce losses
                   of life and property. Reconstruction involves the full
                   range of repair activities in the wake of a disaster
                   which seek to return the community to a "normal" level
                   of operations." (McElyea,, Brower, & Godschalk, p. iii).
                   With this introduction, the following pages will present the
              storm hazard mitigation and post-disaster recovery policies, and
              review of the existing evacuation plan along with appropriate
              discussions and maps.

              1. Storm Hazard Mitigation: Discussion
                   Hazard mitigation, or actions taken to reduce the probability
              or impact of a disaster could involve a number of activities or
              policy decisions. The starting point, however, is to identify the
              types of hazards (including the relative severity and magnitude of
              risks), and the extent of development (including residential,
              commercial, etc.) located in storm hazard areas.
                   Hurricanes are extremely powerful, often unpredictable forces
              of nature. The two most severe effects are fatalities and pro-
              perty damage, which are usually the result of four causes: high
              winds, flooding, wave action, and erosion, each of which are
              discussed briefly below.

                   a. High Winds
                   High winds are the major determinants of a hurricane, by
              definition, i.e., a tropical disturbance with sustained winds of
              at least 73 miles per hour. Extreme hurricanes can have winds of
              up to 165 miles per hour, with gusts up to 200 miles per hour.
              These winds circulate around the center or "eye" of the storm.
              Although the friction or impact of the winds hitting land from the
              water causes some dissipation of the full force, there is still a-:
              tremendous amount of energy left to cause damage to buildings,
              overturn mobile homes, fell trees and powerlines, and destroy
              crops. Also, tornadoes can often be spawned by hurricane wind
              patterns. Wind stress is an important consideration in storm
              hazard mitigation planning. Because of a hurricane's size and
              powerl it is likely that all of Hyde County would be subject to
              the same wind velocity in the event of a storm.

                   b. Flooding
                   Flooding, on the other hand, may not affect all areas with
              equal intensity. The excessive amounts of rainfall and the "storm
              surge" which often accompany hurricanes can cause massive coastal
              and riverine flooding causing excessive property damage and deaths
              by drownings. (More deaths are caused by drowning than any other
              cause in hurricanes.) Flooding is particularly a problem in ocean
              coastal areas because of the storm surge and low-lying areas.
              However, flooding can cause extensive damage in inland areas also,

                                               67

               since many coastal areas have low elevations and are located in
               high hazard or "Zone A" flood areas according to the Federal
               Emergency Management Agency Maps. (See "Note" below.)

                    According to a recently published preliminary flood insurance
               study for Hyde County, prepared by the Federal Emergency Manage-
               ment Agency (FEMA), dated April 19, 1985, the "dominant source of
               flooding in Hyde County is storm surge generated in the Atlantic
               Ocean by tropical storms and hurricanes. In addition, this surge
               propagates into Pamlico Sound and further propagates into Pamlico
               River, Lake Matamuskett and a multitude of small watercourses
               where high winds associated with tropical storms can produce high
               waves" (p.4, Flood Insurance Study). Based on recent preliminary
               flood insurance maps prepared for Hyde County, nearly all of the
               County is classified as being in the 100-year "high hazard" flood
               zone, or Zone A. (There is, however, an extensive area of "Zone
               C," i.e., minimally flooded area, in the west part of the County.)
               Because of low elevation, nearly all of the County would be sub-
               ject to flooding during a severe hurricane. (See Map 7,
               "Composite Hazards Map," attached.)

                    As Map Z shows, virtually all of the "development" in Hyde
               County is in the high hazard Zone A areas.

                    Flooding cannot only cause damage to buildings, but saltwater
               flooding can cause serious damage to croplands, which is what took
               place in the Albemarle region in 1954 and 1955 from Hurricanes
               Hazel, Connie, Dianne, and Ione (McElyea, Brower, & Godschalk, pp.
               2-8, 9). Notice Figure 1 on the following page, which shows only
               the northern edge of Hyde County, but still enough to indicate
               saltwater flooding in the northeast area, south of the Alligator
               River. Freshwater flooding appears to have occurred in other
               parts of the County. Consideration of potential flood damage is
               important to Hyde County's efforts to develop storm mitigation
               policies.

               Note: It should be noted here that a special study of overland
               flooding from hurricane surges called "SLOSH" (i.e., Sea-Land
               Overland Surge from Hurricanes) was in process during the
               preparation of this plan udpate. This study, jointly supported by
               the National Weather Service, Federal Emergency Management
               Administration, Corps of Engineers, and the N.C. Division of
               Environmental Management, is to show projected areas of flooding
               from hurricanes in the State's coastal counties. Final maps for
               Hyde County were not available during plan development.

                                                68

                                                                     FIGURE 1

                                                  Flooding in the Albemarle Sound Region from
                                                  Hurricanes Hazel, Connie, Diane, and Ione
                                                  (1954-1955)

                                                                                                SALT,WATER FLOODING
                                                                                                FRES   WATER FLOOOING
                      PASOUOTAI                                         P"                      WAVE  ACTION
                                  I @K
                                                                                                Mart 1116010 DAILAGE 7HROUGHOUT ARCA

                                                                                                STATUT1 MIL95             a 0 a T III

                                                                                                                     .d6-
                  /IP                                                                               C>
                                    t                                                                          Cl)
                                                                                                                        M

                                                                    X                               MA 90

                                                                                      RE!

                              Source: N. C. Council of Civil Defense, 1955.

                                                                        69

                   c. Wave Action

                   Damage from wave action is connected very closely to the
              storm surge, i.e., wind-driven water with high waves moving to
              vulnerable shoreline areas. As the previously cited flood study
              noted, "The wave action associated with storm surge can be much
              more damaging than the higher water level" (p.4). Areas most
              likely to be affected are ocean erodible areas and estuarine
              shoreline areas. There are no ocean erodible areas in Hyde
              County's jurisdiction (since in Ocracoke, the ocean beaches are
              part of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore). However, there are
              extensive estuarine shoreline areas (75 feet inland from the mean
              high water mark of estuarine waters) in the County. However, wave
              action damage would have the most significant impact along the
              Pamlico Sound shoreline. As the existing land use map (Map i.
              attached), and the composite hazards map (Map 7, attached) show,
              fortunately, there are not significant amounts of residential
              development in or near the estuarine shoreline area on the Hyde
              County mainland. And even on Ocracoke, there is very little
              development immediately adjacent to the Sound. Wave action can
              cause erosion as well as push possible flood waters to areas not
              reached by the storm surge itself. The estuarine shoreline along
              Hyde's riverine shoreline, i.e., Pungo River and the Alligator
              River, is sufficiently inland from an open coast so that the wave
              energy is dispersed and diffracted.

                   d. Erosion

                   The final major consideration in storm hazard mitigation is
              severe erosion, caused by high winds, high water, and heavy wave
              action. Again, in Hyde County, the area most susceptible to
              storm-related erosion is the estuarine shoreline AEC along the
              Pamlico Sound. This is essentially the same area potentially
              affected by the action of damaging waves and described in part c,
              above. Shoreline erosion could lead to loss of property through
              portions of waterfront lots being washed into the Sound or even
              actual structural damage to buildings. Although most of the
              shoreline along the Sound is undeveloped marshlands, erosion
              potential is an important factor to consider in developing storm
              hazard mitigation policies.

                   e. Summary: Storm Hazard Mitigation Considerations

                   In summary, all four of the major damaging forces of a hurri-
              cane, i.e., high winds, flooding, wave action, and shoreline ero-
              sion could have a potential impact upon Hyde County in the event
              of a major storm. The degree of susceptibility to losses and/or
              damages was generally alluded to in the previous discussions.
              However, Table 19, below, provides a better projection of the
              percent of the E-ounty's building structures (residential and com-
              mercial, etc.), subject to the potentially devastating effects of
              a major storm:

                                               70

                Table 20: *Percent of Struc   tures Subject to Storm Damage Factorsy
                                             Hyde County

                     Storm Impact           Percent Structures Possibly Affected
                                                          1985 Tax Value (Millions)
                  1. High winds                   100%              195.0
                  2. Flooding                     100%              195.0
                  3. Wave Action                   0%                 0.0
                  4. Shoreline Erosion             0%                  0.0

               Based on preliminary projections    derived from examination of
               Existing Land Use Map. Map prepared by Talbert, Cox &
               Associates. Tax value provided by County Finance Office.

                     The information in the Table above is preliminary and is not
               intended to convey the impression that every single structure
               possibly affected by damaging factors would be affected, only that
               the potential is there. Knowing that the potential is there forms
               the basis for setting forth storm hazard mitigation policies,
               keeping in mind that "mitigate" means actions which may reduce the
               probability of disaster, or minimize the damage caused by a disas-
               ter (McElyea, Brower, & Godschalk, p. iii).

                     f. Policy Statements: Storm Hazard Mitigation

                     In order to minimize the damage potentially caused by the
               effects of a hurricane or other major storm, Hyde County proposes
               the following policies.

                         1.  High Winds

                             Hyde County supports enforcement of the N. C. State
                             Building Code, particularly requirements of construc-
                             tion �-tandards to -meet wind-resistive factors, i.e.,
                             "design wind velocity". The County will also support
                             provisions in the State Building Code requiring tie-
                             downs for mobile homes, which help resist wind
                             damage.

                         2.  Flooding

                             Hyde County is supportive of the hazard mitigation
                             elements of the National Flood Insurance Program.
                             Currently, Hyde County is pursuing participation in
                             the regular phase of the insurance program. Hyde
                             County also supports continued enforcement of the
                             CAMA and 404 Wetlands development permit processes in
                             areas potentially susceptible to flooding.

                                                   71

                       3. Wave Action and Shoreline Erosion
                   Hyde County is supportive of the CAMA development permit
             process for estuarine shoreline areas and the requisite develop-
             ment standards which encourage both shoreline stabilization and
              facilitation of proper drainage.
                   g. Implementation: Storm Hazard Mitigation
                       1.  Hyde County will continue to support the County-wide
                           building inspection program, with the services of a
                           building inspector, enforcing provisions of the N. C.
                           State Building Code for new construction. These
                           provisions will include designing for wind resistance
                           and mobile home tie-downs for newly placed mobile
                           homes.
                       2.  Hyde County will adopt the Flood Damage Prevention
                           Ordinance for the Regular Phase of the National Flood
                           Insurance Procjram, in FY 86-87, as of the effective
                           date of the finalized Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
                          .This ordinance which will require basic floodproofing
                           for all new construction, including all first floor
                           elevations being at or above the base flood eleva-
                           tions, will be en-f-orced--a's-part of the County's
                           building inspection program. The base flood eleva-
                           tions, as shown on the flood insurance maps, are the
                           elevations of the 100-year flood.
                       3.  The County will continue to support enforcement of
                           State and Federal p@ograms which aid in mitigation of
                           hurricane hazards, including CAMA and the U. S. Army
                           Corps of Engineers 404 permit process.
                       4.  The County also plans to locate its new water plant
                           facilities in the Ponzer area, outside of the
                           100-year flood zone area, in an area designated as
                           "Zone C."

                   h. Other Mitigation Policy Areas
                   According to the CAMA Planning Guidelines, policy statements
              should also a dress the following three areas:
                       (1) Means of dealing with structures and uses which do
                           not conform to the hazard mitigation policies.
                       (2) Means of encouraging hotels, restaurants, and similar
                           largo@ commercial structures to locate outside of
                           erosion-prome areas.
                       (3) Policies which deal with the acquisition of parcels
                           located in hazard areas or rendered unbuildable, for
                           the purpose of public access.
                   All existinq structures'which do not conform to the County's
              mitigation policies can only be subject to the existing regula-
              tions. No additional requirements will be imposed. The latter
              two policy areas, above, cannot be effectively addressed by Hyde
              County, since they appear to be more applicable to oceanfront
              areas. The oceanfront area on Ocracoke Island is under the juris-
              diction of the U.S. Park Service.

                                               72

               2. Post-Disaster Reconstruction Plan

                    Hyde County recognizes that in the event of a-major storm, it
               will be very important to have, at a minimum, a general recovery
               and reconstruction plan. Although Hyde County has a formally
               adopted Hurricane Evacuation Plan (June 1977, revised July 1984),
               there are many elements needed to address what to do after the
               storm. This section.of the Land Use Plan Update will address this
               issue.

                    a. Appointment of a "Post Disaster Recovery Team"

                    Pri'or to a major storm having landfall in the vicinity of
               Hyde County, when evacuation orders are issued, the Chairman of
               the County Board of Commissioners, who is the head of the Control
               Group as stated in the Evacuation Plan, shall appoint a "Post-
               Disaster Recovery Team". This team shall consist of all of the
               members of the Evacuation Plan Support Group also identified in
               the Hyde County Evacuation Plan, and others whom the Chairman may
               appoint.   The total team may consist of the following:

                        1.  County Manager
                        2.  County Finance Officer
                        3.  Emergency Preparedness Coordinator (Team Leader)
                        4.  County Sheriff
                        5.  County Building Inspector
                        6.  Director of Social Services
                        7.  County Sanitarian
                        8-  Superintendent of Schools
                        9.  Chief, Swan Quarter Volunteer Fire Department
                        10. Tax Supervisor

                    The Emergency Preparedness Coordinator will serve as the Team
               Leader and will be responsible to the Chairman of the Board of
               Commissioners. The base of operations will be the Emergency Oper-
               ations Center (EOC) identified in the County Evacuation Plan (the
               County Courthouse in Swan Quarter).     The Disaster Recovery Team
               will be responsible for the following:

                        1.  Establishing an overall restoration schedule.

                        2.  Setting restoration priorities.

                        3.  Determining requirements for outside assistance and
                            requesting such assistance when beyond local capabi-
                            lities.

                        4.  Keeping the appropriate County and State officials
                            informed.

                        5.  Keeping the public informed.

                        6.  Assembling and maintaining records of actions taken
                            and expenditures and obligations incurred.

                                                73

                       7.  Recommending to the Chairman of the Board of Commis-
                           sioners to proclaim a local "state of emergency" if
                           warranted.
                       8.  Commencing and coordinating cleanup, debris removal
                           and utility restoration which would include coordina-
                           tion of restoration activities undertaken by private
                           utility companies.
                       9.  Coordinating repair and restoration of essential
                           public facilities and services in accordance with
                           determined priorities.
                       10. Assisting private businesses and individual property
                           owners in obtaining information on the various types
                           of assistance that might be available to them from
                           federal and state agencies.

                   b. immediate Clean-Up and Debris Removal
                   Coordination of this activity will be the responsibility of
              the Disaster Recovery Team.

                   C. Long Term Recovery/Restoration
                   The Disaster Recovery Team will be responsible for overseeing
              the orderly implementation of the reconstruction process after a
              major storm or hurricane in accord with the County's policies.

                       1.  Damage Assessments
                           Damage assessments will be necessary to determine as
                           quickly as possible a realistic estimate of the
                           amount of damage caused by a hurricane or major
                           storm. Information such as the number of structures
                           damaged, the magnitude of damage, and the estimated
                           total dollar loss will need to be developed.

                           As soon as practical after the storm, i.e., clearance
                           of major highways and paved roads in the County, the
                           Disaster Recovery Team Leader shall set up a Damage
                           Assessment Committee (DAC), consisting of the Build-
                           ing Inspector, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, a
                           local realtor or building contractor, and appropriate
                           personnel from the Hyde County tax department. The
                           DAC will immediately begin to make "windshield"
                           surveys of damaged structures to initially assess
                           damages and provide a preliminary dollar value of
                           repairs or replacement. The following general cri-
                           teria shall be utilized:

                           a. Destroyed (repairs would cost more than 80
                           percent of value).

                                                74

                            b. Major (repairs would cost more than 30 percent of
                            the value).

                            c. Minor (repairs would cost less than 30 percent of
                            the value, but the structure is currently uninhabit-
                            able).

                            d. Habitable (some minor damage, with repairs less
                            than 15 percent of the value).

                            Each damage assessment will be documented according
                            to County tax records. Also, County tax maps (inclu-
                            ding aerial photographs) and/or records may be used
                            for identification purposes. The total estimated
                            dollar value of damages will be summarized and
                            reported to the Disaster Recovery Team Leader.

                       2.-  Reconstruction Development Standards

                            Generally, reconstruction shall be held at least to
                            the same standards as before the storm. However,
                            developed structures which were destroyed and which
                            did not conform to the County's storm hazard mitiga-
                            tion policies, i.e., with basic measures to reduce
                            damage by high winds, flooding, wave action or ero-
                            sion, must be redeveloped according to those poli-
                            cies. In the event the loss of property containing
                            shoreline structures is substantial enough to prohi-
                            bit the reissuing of a septic tank permit, the County
                            will support the decision of the Sanitarian. In some
                            instances, this may mean relocation of construction,
                            or no reconstruction at all. To the extent feasiblef
                            when relocation is required, such relocation will be
                            placed in less hazardous areas. Building permits to
                            restore destroyed or damaged structures, which were
                            built in conformance with the State Building Code and
                            County storm hazard mitigation policies, shall be
                            issued automatically, all structures suffering major
                            damage will be repaired according to the State Build
                            ing Code. All structures suffering minor damage,
                            regardless of location, will be allowed to be rebuilt
                            to the original condition prior to the storm.

                       3.   Development Moratoria

                            Hyde County, because of a lack of densely populated
                            areas, does not foresee the need to prohibit any and
                            all development for any specified period of time.
                            Residents shall be allowed to proceed with redevelop-
                            ment and reconstruction as soon as practical and in
                            accord with the various levels of State and federal
                            disaster relief provided to them. Damage to the
                            properties in some areas of the County may indicate  a

                                               75

                           higher susceptibility to storm damage than other
                           areas. If the County determines that some areas are
                           more vulnerable to storm damage than others, then the
                           Board of Commissioners may declare a development
                           moratorium, prohibiting all redevelopment for a
                           specified period of time. This will allow the County
                           time to assess previous damage mitigation policies
                           for their effectiveness and possible modification.

                       4.  Repair/Reconstruction Schedule

                           The following schedule of activities and time frame
                           are proposed with the realistic idea that many
                           factors of a hurricane may render the Schedule
                           infeasible.

                                 Activity                       Time Frame
                   a)  Complete and Report Damage          Two weeks after storm
                       Assessments

                   b)  Begin Repairs to Critical           As soon as possible
                       Utilities and Facilities            after storm

                   c)  Permitting of Reconstruction        Two weeks after damage
                       activities for all damaged          assessments are
                       structures ("minor" to pre-storm    complete
                       original status, "major" to State
                       building code and hazard
                       mitigation standards)

                       5.  Agency Responsible for Implementation

                           The Chairman of the Hyde County Board of Commis-
                           sioners, as chief elected official of the County,
                           will serve as overall Emergency Coordinator. The
                           Board Chairman will delegate the oversight of the
                           reconstruction and recovery effort and implementation
                           of the plan.

                       6.  Repair and Replacement of Public Utilities

                           If water lines or any component of the water system
                           are damaged and it is determined that the facilities
                           can be relocated to a less hazardous location, then
                           they will be relocated during reconstruction.

                                               76

               3. Hurricane Evacuation Plan

                    As stated previously, Hyde County has an official "Hurricane
               Evacuation Plan," covering both the mainland and Ocracoke. The
               following outline summarizes this plan.

                    A.  Early alerting of officials and concerned agencies in the
                        entire County.

                    B.  Overall direction and decision-making by a Control
                        Group.

                    C.  Increased readiness actions taken progressively as     the
                        hurricane approaches and as the threat of injury and
                        damage increases.

                    D.  Evacuation of residents and visitors on beaches and in
                        threatened low-lying areas upon decision of the Control
                        Group.

                    E.  Primary evacuation of Ocracoke will be in coordination
                        with Dare County and evacuees will move through Dare
                        County.

                    F.  Persons leaving Ocracoke on the last run of the Cedar
                        Island and Swan Quarter ferries should continue inland
                        and not require local shelter. These ferries will not be
                        a major factor in evacuation due to time required for a
                        trip.

                    G.  Movement of evacuees to designated and operating public
                        shelters, or out of Hyde County and the threatened area.

                    H.  Mass care for evacuees in predesignated shelters in
                        accordance with agreements.

                    I.  Reentry of evacuees to evacuated areas when authorized   by
                        the Control Group and when the hurricane threat has
                        passed or damage assessments indicate that reentry is
                        feasible.

                    J.  Local governments request State and/or Federal assis-
                        tance, as necessary, before or after a hurricane.

               4.  Re-Entry

                    Factors regarding re-entry are also included in the County
               Hurricane Evacuation Plan. Because of the possibility of fallen
               power lines, or telephone lines, re-entry will be closely coord-
               inated with utility companies, such as VEPCO. Specifically, the
               Hurricane Plan states:

                                                 77

                   A.  Upon cancellation of all hurricane warnings and watches
                       which include Hyde County and when no damage has been
                       experienced, the Control Group will authorize reentry to
                       all evacuated areas.

                   B.  When hurricane damages have resulted, reentry to evacu-
                       ated areas will be based upon damage assessments and any
                       rescue or other relief operations in progress. Reentry
                       will be authorized by the Control Group to specific evac-
                       uated areas and under conditions specified.

                   The Plan was also reviewed by the North Carolina Division of
              Emergency Management, without any substantive comments.

                                              78

      I
      I
      I
      I

      I
      I
      I
      I
      i
      I
      I
      I
      I
      I

                                                                         PART I
      I                                                              SECTION III
                                                     LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
      I
      I

               SECTION III: LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

                    The land classification system provides a uniform way of
               looking at how the planned use of land interacts with environ-
               mentally sensitive areas and with the development of a particular
               locality. It is not a strict regulatory device in the sense of a
               zoning ordinance or zoning map. It represents more of a tool to
               understand relationships between various land use categories and
               how these relationships help shape local policy. Particular
               attention is focused on how intensely land is utilized and the
               lations for the Coastal Area Management Act state:
               level of services required to support that intensity. The regu-

                    "The land classification system provides a framework to be
                    used by local governments to identify the future use of all
                    lands in each county. The designation of land classes allows
                    the local government to illustrate their policy statements as
                    to where to what density they want growth to'occur, and where
                    they want to conserve natural and cultural resources by
                    guiding growth.: (7B.0204) (a)"
                    The five land classifications and land classification maps
               are therefore intended to serve as a visual reflection of the
               policies previously stated in Section II. Ideally, the map which
               depicts these classifications should be as flexible as the poli-
               cies that guide them. (See the attached Land Classification Map,
               Map 8).

                    The five land classifications in Hyde County are identified
               and defined below.

               A.   DEVELOPED

                    The developed class of land use provides for continued inten-
               sive development and redevelopment of existing cities. Areas to
               be classified as "developed" include lands currently developed for
               urban purposes or approaching a density of 500 dwellings per
               square mile that are provided with usual municipal or public
               services including at least public water, sewer, recreational
               facilities, police and fire protection. Areas which exceed the
               minimum density but which do not have public sewer service may
               best be divided into a separate class to indicate that although
               they have a developed character, they will need sewers in the
               future.

                    Within Hyde County, the developed areas complying with the
               above definition are Swan Quarter, Engelhard, Fairfield, and
               Ocracoke Village. Most of the population growth projected by 1995
               will occur in and around these areas. Adequate water supplies are
               currently provided to these areas and will continue to be provided
               throughout the planning period. Septic tanks are the major source
               of waste water disposal in these areas.

                                               79

              B.   TRANSITION
                   Transition land is classified as those lands providing for-
              future intensive urban development within the ensuing ten years on
              lands that are most suitable and that will be scheduled for provi-
              sion of necessary urban utilities and services (whether from
              public or private sources). They may also provide for additional
              growth when additional lands in the developed class are not
              available or when they are severely limited for development.

                   Lands classified "transition" may include:

                   1.  land currently having urban services, and
                   2.  lands necessary to accommodate the urban population and
                       economic growth anticipated within the planning
                       jurisdiction over the next five to ten years.
                   3.  areas which are in, or will be in, a "transition" state
                       of development, i.e., going from a lower intensity to a
                       higher intensity of uses and will eventually require
                       urban services.

                   Lands classified for the latter reason must:

                   a.  be served or be readily served by public water, sewer,
                       and other urban services including public streets, and
                   b.  be generally free of severe physical limitations for
                       urban development.

                   The "transition" class should not include:

                   1.  lands of high potential for agriculture, forestry, or
                       mineral extraction, or land falling within extensive
                       rural areas being managed commercially for these uses,
                       when other lands are available;
                   2.  lands where urban development might result in major or
                       irreversible damage to important environmental, scien-
                       tific, or scenic values, or;
                   3.  land where urban development might result in damage to
                       natural systems or processes of more than local concern;
                       and
                   4.  lands where development will result in undue risk to life
                       or property from natural hazards or existing land uses.
                   The lands in Hyde County that will be classified "transi-
              tional" are those areas adjacent to the identified developed
              clusters of Swan Quarter, Engelhard, Fairfield and Ocracoke
              Village, and in the White Plains Marina area. In the future, land
              areas near the new airport at Engelhard may also be classified as
              transitional, if it is determined that these areas are suitable
              for more intensive development (industrial parks, for example).

                   The relationship between the "developed and transitional"
              classification is important in predominantly rural counties like

                                                80

               Hyde. The first class is meant to define the already developed
               areas and/or those areas where public investment decisions will be
               required to provide the necessary urban services. These become
               important areas to closely monitor. The Coastal Resources Commis-
               sion has further clarified this relationship as described below.

                    The Developed and Transition classes should be the only lands
               under active consideration by the County or municipality for
               intensive urban development requiring urban services. The area
               within these classes is where detailed local land use and public
               investment planning will occur. State and federal expenditures on
               projects associated with urban development (water, sewer, urban
               street systems, etc.) will be guided to these areas. Large
               amounts of vacant land suitable for urban development within the
               Developed class should be taken into account when calculating the
               amount of additional lands needed to accommodate projected
               growth.

               C.   COMMUNITY

                    The "community" classification provides for clustered land
               uses to meet housing, shopping, employment, and public service
               needs within the rural areas of the County. It is usually charac-
               @erized by a small grouping of mixed land uses which are suitable
               and appropriate for small clusters of rural development not
               requiring municipal sewer service.

                    This is an important classification in Hyde County, since
               nearly all the rest of the County's population not residing in the
               areas classified previously as either "developed" or "transi-
               tional," live in such clusters. There are no incorporated munici-
               palities in Hyde County, but many small communities are along the
               primary roads in the County. Areas classified as "Community"
               include: Ponzer, Scranton, Sladesville, Rose Bay, Lake Comfort,
               New Holland, Nebraska, Gull Rock, Middletown, and the area along
               S. R. 1304, northwest of Fairfield.'

               D.   RURAL

                    The purpose of the rural class is to provide for agriculture,
               forestry, mineral extraction, and various other low intensity uses
               on large sites, including low density dispersed residential uses
               where urban services are not and will not be required. Any
               development in this class should be compatible with resource pro-
               duction and should not significantly impair or permanently alter
               natural resources. Areas meeting the intent of this classifica-
               tion are appropriate for or presently used for agriculture,
               forestry, mineral extraction, and similar allied uses. Very low
               density dispersed, single-family residential uses are also appro-
               priate within rural areas where lot sizes are large and where
               densities do not require the provision of urban-type services.
               Private septic tanks and wells are the primary on-site services
               available to support residential development, but fire, rescue

                                              81

              squad, and sheriff protection may also be available. Population
              densities may be very low, possibly less than one person per
              acre.
                   The majority of land within Hyde County falls within the
              "Rural" classification. This classification is very important in
              Chowan County because of the economic importance of agriculture
              and forestry activities.

              E.   CONSERVATION
                   The "conservation" class provides for effective long-term
              management of significant limited or irreplaceable areas. This
              management may be needed because of its natural, cultural, recrea-
              tional, productive or scenic values. This class should be limited
              to lands that contain: major wetlands, essentially undeveloped
              shorelands that are unique, fragile, or hazardous for development,
              wildlife management areas or areas that have a high probability
              for providing necessary habitat conditions; publicly owned water
              supply watersheds and aquifers. However, there may be high ground
              areas within the conservation class that may be suitable for
              development. Each application for development shall be reviewed
              on a case by case basis.
                   In Hyde County, the environmentally sensitive areas identi-
              fied as Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs), i.e., Coastal
              Marshlands (which includes a rather extensive area along the
              immediate shorelines of the Long Shoal River and the Pamlico Sound
              in the northeast and east, around to the Pungo River and some of
              its tributaries in the western part of the County's mainland),
              Estuarine Waters, Estuarine Shorelines, and Public Trust Areas,
              are classified as "conservation." Also included in this classifi-
              cation are the State and Federally owned and managed wildlife
              refuge areas, gamelands, and the Cape Hatteras National Seashore
              Recreation Area.

                                               82

              SECTION IV: RELATIONSHIP OF POLICIES AND LAND CLASSIFICATIONS

                   The Coastal Resources Commission requires each land use plan
              to relate the policies section to the land classification map and
              to provide some indication as to which land uses are appropriate
              in each class.

              A.   DEVELOPED AND TRANSITION CLASSES

                   As mentioned in the discussion of existing conditions, most
              of the County's growth will occur in and around the developed
              communities of Swan Quarter, Engelhard, Fairfield, and Ocracoke
              Village where basic services such as water and community support
              services are available. The developed and transition classes were
              specifically designed to acommodate these more intensively
              developed areas and land uses, including residential, commercial,
              industrial parks and open space, community facilities and trans-
              portation. 'Hazardous or offensive uses such as land application
              systems, power plants, airports and bulk chemical storage facili-
              ties will be located away from these classes.

              B.   COMMUNITY CLASS

                   Intensive development will not be encouraged in this class
              due to the lack of urban services and/or physical limitations.
              The general range of acceptable uses are limited to residences,
              isolated general and convenience stores and churches, and other
              public facilities. These areas are usually found'at crossroads
              within the "rural" classification. Some of these areas are not
              currently served by the County and because of the low-density
              development, do not require centralized sewage collection and
              disposal.

              C.   RURAL CLASS

                   The Rural Class is the broadest of the land classes and is
              designated to provide for agriculture, forest management, mineral
              extraction and other low intensity uses. Residences may be
              located within the Rural Class where urban services are not
              required and where natural resources will not be permanently
              impaired. Some large developments may be encouraged in the Rural
              Class when there is an absence of otherwise suitable land within
              the Development and Transition Classes and/or when there is a
              possible threat to the urban populace. Such large developments
              include airports, power plants, and hazardous materials storage.
              The County also reserves the privilege of allowing specific types
              of industrial development in the rural areas if in the opinion of
              the government there will be no harmful effects from such a
              location.

                                              83

              D.   CONSERVATION CLASS

                   The Conservation Class is designated to provide for effective
              long-term management of significant limited or irreplaceable areas
              which include coastal marshlands., undeveloped shorelines that are
              unique, fragile, or hazardous for development, wildlife habitat
              areas, publicly owned gamelands and parks and undeveloped forest
              lands and cultural and historical sites. Development in the
              estuarine system should be restricted to such uses as piers, bulk-
              heads, marinas, and other water-dependent uses. Policy Statements
              @nder Resource Protection, and Resource Production and Management
              in Section II, Part I, of this plan address the County's inten-
              tions under this class.

                                               84

     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     i
     I
     I             PART H OCRACOKE
     I                    SECTION I
     I
               ANALYSIS OF EXISTING  CONDITIONS
     I               AND ESTIMATED DEMAND
     i,
     I
     I-
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I

                                              PREFACE

                                       HYDE COUNTY (OCRACOKE)
                                    LAND USE PLAN UPDATE, 1986
                   Analysis of 1981 Policy Statements/Implementation Actions

                     The CAMA Land Use Plan for coastal communities is essentially
               a policy document aimed at guiding localities toward sound growth
               management. Because circumstances, conditions, and issues change
               over time, the Coastal Resources Commission, under State law,
               requires the local land use plans to be updated every five years
               in order to "take a second look" at old policies for their
               relevance as well as examine newly emerging trends and concerns.
               The Commission is also requiring in all 1986 updates an assessment
               of the previous policy statements and implementation steps taken
               to effectuate them. This summary analysis of the 1981 policies
               being presented here as a "Preface" to the 1986 Plan Update of      is
               Hyde County's Plan for Ocracoke.

           Policy Area

            A.
                 Resource Protection                           Status/Relevancy
                 Policy/Implementation                         Actions

                 1. If water demands exceed the sys-          1. Seasonal water
                 tem's current capacity, the Ocracoke         demands, combined with
                 Sanitary District should seek to             chloride intrusion,
                 increase its pumping capacity and            has led to a demand
                 obtain another reverse osmosis desal-        for a fourth reverse
                 inizing machine.                             osmosis machine, as
                                                              well as rehabilitation
                                                              of the other units.
                                                              This should be com-
                                                              pleted by late 1986.

                 2. Alternative means of solid waste          2. This alternative
                 disposal, such as the development of         has not been explored
                 high-pressure incinerators on the            since the 1981 Plan
                 island, need to be explored.                 Update.

                                                              B. Resource Produc-
            B.   Resource Production and Management           tion' and Management

                 1. Seek to protect and maintain pri-         1. Implemented.
                 mary nursery areas (Ocracoke's               However, pollution of
                 Estuarine Waters) from the negative          Silver Lake is still a
                 effects of development, particularly         matter of serious
                 effluent pollutions, by strict               concern.
                 enforcement of the septic tank place-
                 ment regulations, and the County
                 Building Permit Program.

                                                             C. Economic and
           C.    Economic and Community Development          Community Development
                 1. As development continues in              1. Implemented  *
                 response to the Village's appeal as a       However, the prelimi-
                 tourist attraction, continued expan-        nary zoning ordinance
                 sion of incompatible land uses will         was defeated by a refer-
                 prove to be quite limited and undesi-       endum in 1982. Never-
                 rable. Therefore, the development and       theless, the County and
                 enforcement of local land use controls      the villagers saw the
                 will be studied for feasible applica-       need for land use con-
                 tion in Ocracoke. The County Commis-        trols and in April 1986,
                 sioners, through the County Manager's       the first "Development
                 Office, will, in Fiscal Year 1982,          Ordinance" for Ocracoke
                 seek funding from the N.C. Office of        was adopted by the Hyde
                 Coastal Management to conduct a pre-        County Board of Commis-
                 liminary zoning study for Ocracoke          sioners. The ordinance
                 Village.                                    regulates density of all
                                                             new development, con-
                                                             tains parking require-
                                                             ments, and calls for the
                                                             establishment of a Plan-
                                                             ning Board.

                 2. In Fiscal Year 1984-1985, funding        2. Discussions have
                 assistance will be sought to help           been held between the
                 develop a central waste water               Sanitary District and
                 collection and disposal system on    the    state officials.
                 island, with the aim of reducing the        However, preliminary
                 burden on user charges.                     indications are that,
                                                             user charges would be
                                                             "excessive" if such a
                                                             system were developed.

                 3. Hyde County recognizes this              3. This issue is still
                 importance and would like to see those      an ongoing concern.
                 attractions and services which help
                 make tourism effective, enhanced and
                 protected. This concern is
                 particularly true regarding the
                 continued operation of a viable and
                 dependable ferry service. It is the
                 County's policy, therefore, to
                 continue to support and promote
                 tourism as a vital economic activity
                 on Ocracoke.

           D.   Continuing Public Participation           Status/Relevancy
                1. The County Commissioners will          Actions
                continue its practice of                  1. Implemented. Also,
                conducting at least two of its            several "public infor-
                regular monthly meetings during           mation forums, organized
                the year in Ocracoke Village.             by the County Commis-
                                                          sioners from Ocracoke,
                                                          which involves inviting
                                                          officials or representa-
                                                          tives from various state
                                                          and federal agencies to
                                                          an open meeting with the
                                                          citizens of Ocracoke.

                                    HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
                                    LAND USE PLAN:    1986 UPDATE

                                          TABLE OF CONTENTS

              PART II:    Ocracoke,                                              PAGE

               SECTION I: Analysis of Existing Conditions
                 A.   N-tablishment of Information Base                            1
                 B.   Present Conditions                                           2
                      1.  Population                                               2
                      2.  Seasonal Population                                      3
                      3.  Economy                                                  5
                      4.  Housing                                                  7
                      5.  Existing Land Use Analysis                               7
                          a.   Current Conditions: General Patterns                7
                          b.   Compatibility Problems                              8
                          c.   Major Problems from Unplanned Development           8
                          d.   Areas Likely to Experience Major Land
                               Use Changes                                         9
                          e.   Areas of Environmental Concern                      10
                      6.  Current Plans, Policies and Regulations                  11
                 C.   Contraints: Land Suitability                                 15
                      1. Physical Limitations                                      15
                      2.  Fragile Areas                                            16
                      3.  Areas with Resource Potential                            16
                 D.   Constraints: Capacity of Community Facilities                17
                      1. Existing Water Service Areas                              17
                      2.  Sewer Service Area                                       17
                      3.  Schools                                                  18
                      4.  Transportation                                           18
                 E.   Estimated Demand
                      1. Population and Economy                                    19
                      2. Future Land Need                                          21
                      3.  Community Facilities Need                                21

               SECTION II: POLICY STATEMENTS                                       22
                 A.   Resource Protection                                          22
                      1.  Natural Resource Areas                                   22
                      2.  Cultural Resource Areas                                  22
                      3.  Constraints to Development: Physical
                          Limitations                                              23
                      4.  Constraints   to Development: Capacity of
                          Community Facilities                                     23
                      5.  Hurricane and Flood Evacuation Needs and Plan            25
                 B.   Resource Production and Management                           25
                      1. Commercial and Recreational Fisheries                     25
                      2. Off-Road Vehicles                                         26
                 C.   Economic and Community Development                           26
                      1. Local Commitment to Service Provisions                    27
                      2. Desired Urban Growth Patterns                             28
                      3. Redevelopment of Developed Areas                          29
                      4. Commitment to State and Federal Programs                  30

                 D. Continuing Public Participation Policies                30
                 E. Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post-Disaster Recovery,
                     and Evacuation Plans                                   31

               SECTION III: Land Classification System                      32
                 A. Developed                                               32
                 B. Transition                                              32
                 C. Conservation                                            33

               SECTION IV: Relationship of Policies and Land
               Classifications                                              34
                 A. Developed and Transition Classes                        34
                 B. Conservation Class                                      34

                                  HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

                                  LAND USE PLAN: 1986 UPDATE
                                       PART II: OCRACOKE

                                    List of Tables and Maps

             TABLE NUMBERS                                                   PAGE

              1.   Ocracoke Population                                         2
              2.   Ocracoke Island Ferry Passengers                            3
              3.   Water Demand for Ocracoke: 1980    and 1985                 4
              4.   Commercial Establishments in Ocracoke                       6
              5.   Ocracoke School Enrollment, 1980-81 thorugh 1984-85         18
              6.   Average Annual Daily Traffic: Ferry Service to
                    Ocracoke, Calendar Years 1981 and 1984                     19

             MAPS

              9. Existing Land Use Map                                 (attached)
             10. Land Classification Map                               (attached)

        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
                                                                      . PART II
        I                                                             SECTION I
                                                   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
        I                                                               -
        I
        I

               A. Establishment of Information Base

                    Although it is a political subdivision of Hyde County,
               Ocracoke Village is located approximately 23 miles across the
               Pamlico Sound near the southern end of an 18-mile long barrier
               island. All of the island, except for the 775 acres which com-
               prise the Village, is part of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore
               Recreation Area and forms a part of North Carolina's Outer Banks.
               The Village is located on the southwestern side of the island,
               extending out into the Pamlico Sound, and situated around Silver
               Lake. Silver Lake is one of the finest natural harbors for small
               vessels along the Atlantic Coast.

                    Ocracoke village remained relatively removed from the rest of
               the world until the 1950's, with the advent of State-supported
               ferries. At first hundreds, then thousands, of tourists began
               visiting the Village each year because of its unique historic and
               aesthetic appeal. The growth in tourism, spurred primarily
               because of the quiet, fishing village appeal, threatenedthe
               retention of that appeal. The consideration of land use manage-
               ment policies by Hyde County has been recognized as essential.

                    In developing the analysis of conditions on Ocracoke, various
               data sources were tapped. A number of primary sources were useful
               including: personal interviews with some of the Village's citi-
               zens; public meetings for additional local input; local land use
               surveys; and interviews with local and State government officials.
               Discussions with representatives of the Division of Coastal
               Management, the N. C. Division of Marine Fisheries, and the
               Shellfish Sanitation Unit of the State Department of Human
               Resources were quite helpful in identifying land use constraints
               Major secondary sources included: the Hyde County Land Use Plan;
               CAMA, 1981; and Ocracoke Village, Land Use - Development
               Potential, East Carolina University, Regional Development
               Institute, 1972.

                    Major conclusions of the data analysis are:

                        The population, both permanent and seasonal, will con-
                        tinue to increase moderately, along with more vacation
                        cottages and second homes, in spite of constraints;

                        Unsuitable soils for septic tanks, and the lack of
                        central sewage facilities pose serious development    con-
                        straints;

                        The long-time absence of land use controls fostered the
                        growth of incompatible land uses; and

                        Local citizens are concerned about balancing the economic
                        base (tourism) with retention of the Village's character.

                                                1

               B. Ocracoke Present Conditions

                    1. Population

                    Although it is under the political jurisdiction of Hyde
               County, Ocracoke Village represents a unique entity as far as land
               use development and policy planning is concerned. Ocracoke
               Island's population is concentrated in the Village of Ocracoke.
               The Village is not incorporated so annual estimates are not made;
               therefore, population figures for 1985 discussed herein are esti-
               mated from the best available data.

                    The 1980 Census of Population final report showed Ocracoke's
               population to be 658 for 1980, an increase of 117 new permanent
               residents, or 21.6 percent over the 1970 U.S. Census figure,
               making the Village the fastest growing area in the County. By
                  parison, the County's overall rate of population growth during
               the 1970-80 period was only 5.4 percent. Ocracoke's rate of
               com

               growth was four times faster than the County's total. The growth
               rate, approximately 2% per year, was projected in the 1981 plan to
               continue. However, based on a population survey conducted by.the
               Ocracoke School in January-February 1986, the year-round popula-
               tion actually decreased slightly between 1980-1986. The 1986
               count of Village residents by the school projected a total of 651
               persons--seven fewer than shown in the 1980 Census. This figure,
               651, will be considered the "base" population for this 1986 Plan
               Update for Ocracoke. In spite of the minor population decline
               from 1980-86, it is unlikely that Ocracoke's population will con-
               tinue to decline throughout the next 10 years. For planning pur-
               poses, a moderate growth rate of 1% per year will be assumed.

                    At the assumed very moderate growth rate of 1% per year,
               projections for 1990 and 1995 can be made as follows:

                                  Table 1: Ocracoke Population

                                Year                 Population

                                1970                    541
                                1980                    658
                                1986                    651
                               *1990                    677
                               *1995                    705

                 estimated

                    Source: U.S. Census, 1970, 1980; Projections by Talbert, Cox
                               and Associates
                              1986 figure furnished by data collected by the'
                               Ocracoke School

                                                  2

                     The 1995 permanent population in the Village could reach
                705 persons. This rather moderate population increase, however,
                along with continued development of second homes and commercial
                establishments, could have major impacts on Ocracoke. This is
                true, both from the standpoint of affecting its historically
                quiet, Village character and exerting new demands on the provision
                of basic services, mainly water and sewer.

                     2. Seasonal Population

                     The seasonal population   flows have always been significant in
                Ocracoke. The number of people visiting Ocracoke by means of the
                ferry fluctuated from 1981 through 1985. Notice Table 2, below,
                which shows July-June data for the reporting years.
                           Table 2: Ocracoke Island Ferry Passengers
                                                                              % Change
                       Ferry            1981-82   1982-83  1983-84   1984-85  1981-85
                Hatteras Inlet          542,536   535,806  561,648   582,827    +7.4
                Cedar Island-Ocracoke   155,094   155,191  152,382   155,875    +0.5
                Swan Quarter-Ocracoke     32,013@   37,057   34,380    34,170   +6.7
                Total Passengers        729,643   728,054  748,410   772,872    +6.0
                     Although the passenger levels fluctuated, all three services
                showed moderate net increases from 1981 to 1985, with the Hatteras
                Inlet ferry showing the strongest net gain (7.4%). Peak usage
                occurs from May through August, which is usually the height of the
                tourist season. Although it has the lowest number of passengers
                annually, along with the two other ferries, i.e., Cedar Islan-d and
                Hatteras Inlet, the Swan Quarter ferry brings thousands of tran-
                sient visitors and summer dwellers to Ocracoke each year. Since
                the island is geographically isolated, the ferry services are very
                important to Ocracoke.

                     In 1985, when the approximate 308 cottages and second homes
                as well as the 240 motel rooms were filled, it is estimated that
                nearly 3,500 persons were inhabiting the island at any given time.
                Transient "day-visitors" and campers using the 137 U. S. Park
                Service campsites account for hundreds more. Such an influx of
                people obviously has a substantial impact upon the Village. One
                of the most important impacts is the demand for water. During the
                summer months of 1985, the monthly demand for water tripled from
                1.4 million gallons in January, to 4.2 million gallons in August
                (peak demand). Compared to a peak demand of 3.62 million gallons
                in August of 1980, demand for water has increased by 14% (or
                580,000 gallons for a "peak" month) in the past five years. The
                U. S. Park Service campsites, which are supplied by the Village
                system, also have bathrooms and showers, adding to the water.
                demand.

                                                  3

                   This increase in demand has caused some problems with the
              Village water system's ability to supply all of the water needs at
              peak periods. In 1985, a moratorium was declared, not allowing
              any additional water   'hook-ups until a proposed expansion of the
              system was complete. In June, 1977, the Ocracoke Sanitary
              District Water Association began operating the first centralized
              water system on the island. The system consists of     'two 600 feet
              deep wells, which tap a Castle Hayne aquifer. Because of salt
              intrusion along with other materials, the water must be desali-
              nized and only about 45 percent of the total water pumped is
              yielded as usable. Desalinization is accomplished through the
              Reverse Osmosis (R.O.) process, which currently involves three
              R.O. machines. These machines produce up to 150,000 gallons of
              usable water per day (gpd). The seasonal peak demand in August of
              1985, averaged about 136,000 gpd, or about 90 percent of capacity.
              However I the closer the output goes to capacity, water quality
              declines. Proposed improvements, including a fourth R.O.
              machine, will increase the water capacity to a range of from
              200,000 to 210,000 gpd, after desalinization. Note that in
              January 1985, usage for permanent residents was only 44,387 gpd,
              or about 27 percent of current capacity. Note Table 3, below.

                     Table 3: Water Demand for Ocracoke: 1980 and 1985

                        Total         PEAK          %        OFF-PEAK        %
                      Capacity-     (August)    Capacity     (January)    Capacity

              1980 162,000 gpd     121,500 gpd     75%       42,250 gpd      '26%
              1985 150,000 qpd     136,000 gpd     90%       44,387 gpd      30%

              Source: Ocracoke   Sanitary District Water Association

              As shown in the table above, the off-peak percentage of capacity
              has remained roughly the same for 1985 as    for 1980. However, the
              peak percentage of capacity has increased    by almost 10% in the
              past five years. Addition of a fourth reverse osmosis machine,
              plus rehabilitating the existing three machines, would meet this
              demand. If this peak demand continues to increase, then more
              water capacity will be required in 1990.

              At a seasonal peak population of 3,500, daily per capita water use
              was about 39 gpd. This figure is somewhat less than the average
              consumption rate for the permanent population, i.e., approximately
              651 persons and 68 gpd.

                   There is no central sewage collection and disposal system on
              Ocracoke Island. Wastewater is disposed of through individual
              on-site systems, i.e., septic tanks. The use of septic tanks has
              serious limitations on Ocracoke because of the general soil condi-
              tions. The limited capacity of the soils to absorb effluent is
              also taxed he avily during the seasonal population peaks.
                                  I.                       I
                                                 4

                    3. Economy

                    Another major impact of the seasonal population is the effect
               upon the island's economy. Ocracoke's economy is mostly a sea-
               sonal one. There are no manufacturing industries and no agricul-
               tural activities on the island. The economic base is dependent
               largely upon the tourist income. Commercial fishing plays a
               smaller role in the economy, serving mostly as a supplementary
               source of income. But, by and large, it is revenue generated by
               the motels, gift and specialty shops, rental cottages, and restau-
               rants that is the backbone of Ocracoke's economy. Ocracoke con-
               tributes perhaps more than a fair share in the total annual retail
               sales for Hyde County, although no total figures are available for
               the Village, as it is unincorporated and figures are not recorded
               for unincorporated towns. Table 23, page 6, shows a list of the
               businesses located on Ocracoke. It is significant to note that
               growth in the number of businesses has increased rather dramatic-
               ally in the past four years, with 3 new eating establishments, 3
               new hotels and motels, and 8 new specialty shops. The new hotels
               have added 88 additional rooms? and the restaurants have added 135
               additional seats.

                                              5

                         Table 4: Commercial Establishments in Ocracoke

              Eating Establishments               Hotels and Motels

              The Back Porch Restaurant           The Anchorage Inn
                and Bake Shop                     The Berkley Center Country Inn
              Captain Ben's Restaurant            Blackbeard's Lodge
              Island Inn Dining Room              Bluff Shoal Motel
              Pelican Restaurant                  The Boyette House
              Pony Island Restaurant              Edwards Motel
              Maria's Restaurant                  Harborside Motel
              Trolley Stop One                    Island Inn
              Howard's Pub                        Lakeside Cottage Court
                                                  Pony Island Motel
              Stores                              Sand Dollar Motel
                                                  Silver Lake Motel
              The Community Store                 The Yaupon Tree
              Lakeside Tackle and  Beach
                Rentals                           Tourist Homes
              Ocracoke Hardware, Inc.
              Ocracoke Variety Store              Beach House B&B
              Tradewinds                          Harborview House
              Beachcomber Convenience Store       Ocracoke Guest House
              South Point Fish and Crab           Oscar's House
                                                  Crews Inn
              Specialty Shops
                                                  Other Businesses
              Rag Picker
              The Gathering Place                 East Carolina Bank
              Harborside Gift Shop                N. C. State Highway Office
              Jo Ko Art Gallery                     (Ferry)
               at the Gathering Place             N. C. State Highway Office
              Ocracoke Artists'   Co-op              (Reservations)
              Ocracoke Shell Shop and  Museum     Ocracoke Water Association
              The Merchant Mariner                Ocracoke Crab Company
              The Old Post Office Shop            Tideland Electric Membership
              Pamlico Gift Shop
              Village Craftsmen
              Our Creations

                   Source: "Directory of Ocracoke Island," Ocracoke Civic Club

                                                6

                   4. Housing

                   The 1980 Census Advance Reports showed that the number of
              housing units increased from 305 in 1970 to 471 in 1980. Although
              there is no building permit data for 1981, records have been kept
              since 1982. From 1982 through April, 1986, residential permits
              were issued for 91 new dwelling units, including 14 mobile home
              units. Even excluding 1981 units, along with the 471 units
              reported in the 1980 Census, there currently are 562 dwellings in
              Ocracoke. This growth reflects the increasing attractiveness of
              Ocracoke as a summer home and cottage location. If the average
              household size for Ocracoke, according to the 1980 Census, is
              still 1.78 persons, then its 651 citizens occupy only 366. i.e.,
              65% of the total 562 units. The rest, i.e., 197 units, would be
              either rental cottages or second homes.

                   On the surface, it appears that the total supply of suitable
              dwelling units is adequate on the island. However, as more of the
              island's young people remain in the Village after completing high
              school to work in the tourist industry, there will gradually be a
              need for more affordable housing. The pressures for second home
              and tourist development have caused land prices to increase rapid-
              ly in recent years. The prices are such that young, native
              Villagers who remain to work in tourism or fishing cannot afford
              to purchase lots for homesites on land which their grandparents
              may have sold. While there is currently not an acute housing
              shortage, as land values increase, many native Villagers may be
              priced out of their own housing market. In addition, of the other
              townships in Hyde County, Ocracoke has the highest median value of
              its housing units, $43,200, with Swan Quarter next in line having
              a median value of $24,90.0. Consistent with that trend, Ocracokers
              also pay higher rent than renters of the other townships. Source:
              1980 Census of Housing, General Housing Characteristics.

                   5. Existing Land Use Analysis

                       a. Current Conditions

                   Ocracoke Island is about 18 miles long and two to three miles
              wide in some areas, and contains a total of 5,535 acres. Of the
              total acreage, the Village of Ocracoke takes up only 775 acres
              (1.21 square miles), which is only 14.0 percent of the total. The
              remaining 4,760 acres is all under government ownership and con-
              trol as part of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Recreation
              Area. Since the County cannot exercise any control over the fed-
              erally owned land, only the 775 acres composing Ocracoke Village
              can be considered in relation to the formulation of land use poli-
              cy by Hyde County.

                   Since the 1981 plan update, the overall land development
              patterns have remained the same. The most significant changes

                                              7

              have been in the number of second homes, motels, and cottages
              developed. The land use patterns in the Village of Ocracoke lack
              definite uniformity. Residential areas are adjacent to commercial
              areas in an inconsistent pattern. This is largely due to the fact
              that Hyde County had never adopted any locational land use control
              devices such as zoning or subdivision ordinances. Such unregu-
              lated development, if continued, could have led to significant and
              perhaps detrimental problems related to land use incompatibility,
              because these problems generally necessitate public investment
              before they can be corrected.
                  In 1981, a zoning referendum was put before the Village resi-
              dents, but was opposed 424 to 238 (voters included absentee prop-
              erty owners). Although there were many reasons offered for the
              defeat of the referendum, the basic feeling was that the referen-
              dum was either too complicated and not explained clearly, or that
              residents thought that they would not be allowed to preserve their
              lifestyle, e.g., not being allowed to maintain boats, etc., in
              their yards. It can be assumed that although Ocracokers recognize
              the need for an organized pattern of development, this pattern
              must also be "in tune" with the character and atmosphere of the
              Village. However, after many months of discussion, consultation,
              and public hearings, in April, 1986, the Hyde County Board of
              Commissioners adopted a set of development controls and regula-
              tions to apply only to Ocracoke, titled the "Ocracoke Village
              Development Ordinance." The purpose of this ordinance is to "pro-
              mote the public health, safety and general welfare by regulating
              the density of population; the size of yards and other open
              spaces; the height, size and location of buildings and other
              structures; to provide for an adequate transportation system; and
              to provide for adequate drainage, water supply, and sewage dispos-
              al." Enactment and enforcement of this ordinance will have a
              significant impact upon the future orderly development of the
              Village, especially within the constraints of existing community
              facilities.

                      b. Land Compatibility Problems
                  The most significant land compatibility problem on Ocracoke,
              as stated above, is the inconsistent land use patterns. Up until
              the recent adoption of the "Development Ordinance" and absence of
              local land use controls, commercial and residential developments
              occurred, in a sense, "in spite of each other", with little regard
              for the incompatibility.
                   Silver Lake, perhaps the most scenic attraction at Ocracoke,
              is considered by many island residents to be over-developed. The
              shores of the lake are currently dotted with various residential,
              commercial and governmental developments. Concern has been raised
              over possible problems of public access to the lake if intensive
              private development continues. The natural aesthetic beauty of
              the lake is thus threatened by unregulated development.

                                              8

                   Since septic tanks are the sole means for wastewater disposal
              in Ocracoke, intensive development along the lakefront will lead
              to the seepage of effluent into its waters. Such pollution would
              seriously threaten the life of the lake itself. With the specter
              of pollution, lack of public access, and destruction of its natu-
              ral beauty hanging over Silver Lake, regulation of adjacent devel-
              opment is a matter for serious concern. Density of development is
              one of the major issues addressed in the new "Development Ordi-
              nance.11

                       c. Problems from Unplanned Development

                   Ocracoke Village remained in relative isolation from the rest
              of the world until the late 1950's. In 1957, when State-supported
              ferries first began operating, an almost immediate demand for
              tourist-related activities resulted. The limited services in
              Ocracoke were not able to handle the seasonal influx of people who
              were now "discovering" the island. Through the years, however,
              motels, restaurants, rental cottages, and vacation homes were
              developed, but at a faster pace than community facilities. The
              Village water system was not inititated until 1977 and there is
              still no central sewage system. The 1985 tourist season saw ser-
              ious water supply problems develop, but, as noted, steps have been
              taken to address these problems. The low topography of the island
              combined with soils generally unsuited for septic tank installa-
              tion, has led to the pumping in of sand as fill to build up devel-
              opable land. In the early 19601s. developers pumped sand onto the
              marshes on.the Sound side of the island to make room for new resi-
              dential development. The residential structures which currently
              exist in these "made-land" areas stand in locations which were
              once virtually submerged by storm surges, which provided a natural
              storm buffer for the Villagets. These residents, like the ones in
              the Oyster Creek area, are particularly susceptible to storm
              damage (see Map 9, attached). The destruction of the Sound side
              marsh areas by dredge and fill, and the subsequent construction of
              houses are major problems caused by unplanned development.

                   The long-time lack of development regulations eliminated
              controls over design standards 'for streets or the provision of
              utilities. Thus, most of the new residential development, though
              consisting of large and expensive homes, is poorly designed with
              inadequate road and bridge access in some cases. Responsibility
              for maintenance of these new access roads is uncertain.

                       d. Areas Likely to Experience Change in Predominant Land
                           5se

                   Future land development in Ocracoke, as noted earlier, will
              begin to be controlled by land use regulations. The overall
              developable acreage is not extensive, but the recent development
              trends are likely to continue, although the patterns will be

                                              9

              affected by the Development Ordinance. This means that the newer
              residential areas on the back side of the island, such as the ones
              in the Oyster Creek area, the Jackson Dunes, and Trent Woods area,
              will likely continue the current residential development trend
              (See Map 9, attached). Existing commercial uses are also likely
              to remain and expand along NC Highway 12 southward in the direc-
              tion of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore area. There are no
              @reas expected to experience major changes in predominant land use
              in Ocracoke.

                       e. Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's)

                   In the 1981 Plan Update, specific proposed Areas of Environ-
              mental Concern were delineated for Ocracoke Tsland. The desig-
              nated Areas of Environmental Concern (according to 15 NCAC 7-H) in
              Ocracoke need to be pointed out separately from the mainland,
              though they are the same, and have not changed in location or size
              of area since the 1981 Update. Below are the AEC's for Ocracoke:

                           1. Coastal Wetlands, which are defined as any salt
              marsh or other marsh subject to regular or occasional flooding by
              tides, including wind tides (whether or not the tidewaters reach
              the marshland areas through natural or artificial watercourses),
              provided this shall not include hurricane or tropical storm tides.
              Coastal Marshlands also contain certain marsh plant species.
              Ocracoke Island contains about 1,600 acres of regularly flooded
              salt marsh area. This area is located on the Pamlico Sound side
              of the island and most of it is under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
              National Park Service as part of the Cape Hat.teras National
              Seashore.

                           2. Estuarine Waters are defined as "all the water of
              the Atlantic Ocean within the boundary of North Carolina and all
              the water of the bays, sounds, rivers, and tributaries thereto
              seaward to the dividing line between coastal fishing waters and
              inland fishing waters (N.C.G.S. 113A-113(b)(2)). The estuarine
              waters are very important for a number of reasons, mainly because
              they serve as the birthplace and nursery areas for many species of
              finfish and shellfish. Estuarine waters support the valuable
              commercial and sports fisheries of the coastal area which are
              comprised of estuarine dependent species such as menhaden, floun-
              der, shrimp, crabs, and oysters. These species must spend all or
              some part of their life cycle within the estuarine waters in order
              to mature and reproduce. Estuarine waters in Ocracoke include
              Silver Lake, the Pamlico Sound, and Northern Pond. Both Hatteras
              Inlet and Ocracoke Inlet are also part of the estuarine system.

                           3. Public Trust Areas, which are partially defined
              as all waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the lands thereunder from
              the mean high water mark to the seaward limit of state jurisdic-
              tion; all natural bodies of water subject to measurable lunar

                                              10

               tides and lands thereunder to the mean high mark; all navigable
               natural bodies of water and lands thereunder to the mean high
               water level or mean water level, as the case may be. In other
               words, public trust areas are waters and lands thereunder, the use
               of which, benefits and belongs to the public. Public trust areas
               are used for both commercial and recreational purposes. In
               Ocracoke, Hatteras Inlet, Ocracoke Inlet, the Atlantic Ocean adja-
               cent to the beaches, Pamlico Sound, and Silver Lake, are all major
               public trust AEC's. These areas support recreational uses such as
               swimming, boating, water skiing and sportsfishing and some commer-
               cial fishing. Most of the Public Trust Areas are under the juris-
               diction of the U.S. Park Service.

                            4. Estuarine Shorelines are defined as non-ocean
               shorelines which are especially vulnerable to erosion, flooding,
               or other adverse effects of wind and water and are intimately
               connected to the estuary. This area extends from the mean high
               water level or normal water level along the estuaries, sounds,
               bays, and brackish waters for a distance of 75 feet inland. These
               areas are significant because development within the shorelines
               can influence the quality of estuarine life and is subject to the
               damaging process of shorefront erosion and flooding. The shore-
               lines of the estuarine waters mentioned on Page 10, Item e. 2,
               and 75 feet landward*are the estuarine shorelines in Ocracoke.

                    Areas of Environmental Concern within the Ocean Hazard Areas
               Category are those areas considered to be natural hazard areas
               along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline where, because of their special
               vulnerability to erosion or adverse effects of sand, wind and
               water, uncontrolled or incompatible development could unreasonably
               endanger life or property. Ocean hazard areas include beaches,
               frontal dunes, inlet lands, and other areas in which geologic,
               vegetative and soil conditions indicate a substantial possibility
               of excessive erosion or flood damage.

                    All of the Ocean Hazard'Area AEC's are included within the
               Cape Hatteras National Seashore under the control of the U.S. Park
               Service. Since land development will not affect these areas,
               these AEC's will not be discussed in this plan.

                    6. Current Plans, Policies, Regulations

                        a. Transportation

                    No transportation or thoroughfare plans have been developed
               for Ocracoke. The Village could benefit from such a plan. As
               noted previously, the State-supported Swan Quarter to Ocracoke
               ferry began operation in 1977 providing the first such direct link
               from the Hyde County mainland to the island. Just over 34,000
               passengers used the ferry from July, 1984, to June, 1985. The
               ferry, which uses the same docking facilities  as tha t provided for

                                                11

             the already existing Cedar Island ferry, has had an impact upon
             tourism and has made mainland services more accessible to the
             Villagers.
                  As noted in the discussion of "Tourism" in Part I, Section
             I, Page 24, and Part II, Page 3, this section, 772,872 passengers
             used the ferries to and from Ocracoke between July, 1984, and
             June, 1985 -- a significant reduction of 144,769 passengers, or
             16%, since the 1978-79 figure reported in the 1981 update.
             Although this declining trend appears to be significant, it seems
             to have had no adverse effect upon the tourism industry.
                  Road improvements in Ocracoke since the 1981 Plan Update
             include minor repairs to S.R. 1134, 1335, and widening of S.R.
             1341. No major improvements are proposed for the next 5-10 years.
             The upgrading of NC Highway 12 to a 2-lane, all weather road was
             completed in early 1985. Of concern to many Village residents is
             the fact that N.C. 12 contains about a two-mile stretch en route
             to the Hatteras ferry that is located close to the ocean and,
             therefore, subject to occasional flooding. This is a cause of
             frequent repairs. Suggested alternatives for alleviating this
             problem are discussed in Section II, Policy.Statements.
                  Ocracoke Island Airport underwent improvements during the
             summer of 1985. The runway was graded, overlayed, and widened
             from 60 feet to 75 feet. There are presently plans being made to
             install a lighting system, build a terminal structure, i.e.,
             pilot's shack. These improvements will be accomplished as soon as
             funding is available.

                      b. Community F cilities

                          1. Water Distribution Plan: Since the Village water
             system began operating in June, 1977, several areas were subdi-
             vided for development which were not in the initial water service
             area. Some of these areas will receive water from the central
             system as it expands. During 1986, the water system will undergo
             substantial improvements. According to the water superintendent,
             the entire Village area may be accessible to the water service
             area by 1987.

                          2. Wastewater Treatment Plans: Ocracoke was not
             included in a 201 Facilities Plan prepared in 1978 for Hyde
             County. The Ocracoke Sanitary District, which operates the water
             system, has discussed the feasibility of a 201 study. Preliminary
             discussions with State officials, however, indicate that if a
             wastewater collection and disposal system were to be developed,
             the individual user costs would be excessive.

                          3. Solid Waste Disposal: The Ocracoke Sanitary
             District, which operates the water system, has a  contract with

                                              12

               Dare County for solid waste collection and disposal for the
               Village. Dare County maintains a truck in the Village, which
               makes daily pick-ups. When the truck is filled, it is ferried
               across the Hatteras Inlet and disposes of the refuse at the Dare
               County landfill. The current Dare County landfill was opened in
               1982 and is projected to have a useful life of 20 years. This
               system is quite adequate for the present permanent and seasonal
               populations. If both the permanent and seasonal populations
               continue to increase, according to recent moderate growth rates,
               during the 10-year planning period, this service should be
               adequate..

                            4. Police and Fire Protection: Police protection on
               Ocracoke is provided by the Hyde County Sheriff's Department. Two
               deputies are stationed full-time at Ocracoke, and a new jail was
               dedicated in October, 1985, with two cell blocks. Currently,
               crime is not a major problem in Ocracoke Village. Although these
               two deputies appear to provide adequate police service to the
               Village now, studies for more urban areas indicate that in order
               for one officer to be "on the street" 24 hours a day, a force of
               at least five is needed, during seasonal peaks, especially. Even-
               tually, as more urban development occurs at Ocracoke, more police
               officers may be needed. Fire protection in the Village was con-
               sidered adequate until the construction of three-story buildings.
               Although there is a modern-equipped fire house located near the
               center of the Village, there is a need for a ladder and another
               fire truck.

                           5. Medical and Emergency Services: Ocracoke Village
               has a health center which, until 1985, had a physician from the
               National Health Corps. Currently, the center is staffed with a
               part-time physician, who is partially supported by N.C. Rural
               Health Service and partially by.clinic revenues. There is no
               dentist in the Village. Efforts to obtain a dentist have been
               made. Village residents felt that previous emergency rescue
               efforts were inadequate because the old vehicle was not modern
               enough nor adequately equipped to serve the needs of Ocracoke.
               However, in July, 1986, Ocracoke received a new ambulance vehicle.
               Currently, there are five volunteer certified EMTs in Ocracoke.

                           6. Electrical Power: Tideland Electric Membership
               Corporation supplies Ocracoke Island with electric service from
               the North Carolina Power and Light Company (formerly VEPCO).. As
               of January, 1986, Tideland EMC reported the number of active users
               (based on the number of meters) to be 712. However, that figure
               is expected to increase over the next six months, as there are
               approximately 30 new customers who have submitted applications for
               service. In order to adequately service the rising number of
               users, a larger cable is being proposed for installation in 1986.
               There have been occasional problems in the past with blackouts,
               brownouts, etc., on Ocracoke. Some residents have their own
               generators. The problem is more acute in the summer. These prob-
               lems are significant, often having an adverse impact upon the

                                              13

               Village businesses. It is hoped that the new large cable will
               eliminate some of these occurrences so that electric utilities in
               Ocracoke can be adequate for the moderately-growing population.

                        c. Utilities Extension Policy

                   The  Ocracoke Sanitary District Water Association, which oper-
               ates the water system, requires all owners of new development to
               finance the cost of extending and tapping onto the existing water-
               lines. The extensions must meet previously set engineering speci-
               fications and must comply with County Health Department standards.
               After the extension has been completed, ownership of the lines is
               turned over to the Sanitary District.

                        d. Recreation Plans or Policies

                    There are no public recreation plans or policies which have
               been developed which include Ocracoke. The miles of ocean beaches
               maintained as part of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recrea-
               tion Area, as well as the Pamlico Sound, two inlets and Silver
               Lake, provide ample recreation opportunities for residents and
               visitors alike. Camping facilities are also provided by the U.S.
               Park Service on Ocracoke. However, in spite of the extensive
               shorelines around Silver Lake and the "Soundside" of the island,
               there is no public waterfront access facility in the Village.
               Some public access facility is needed, both as a boost to tourism
               and for the total citizenry, as well. Public recreation
               activities in Ocracoke consist mainly of organized athletic
               activities through the school. Public recreation plans need to be
               reassessed, perhaps with intentions of hiring a Recreation
               Director or building a recreational facility for the residents of
               the Village.

                        e. Prior Land Use Plans

                    Ocracoke, although somewhat isolated geographically from the
               mainland, is still a very important part of Hyde County. In 1972,
               the Regional Development Institute of East Carolina University
               prepared a study titled Ocracoke Village: Land Use . . .     Devel-
               opment Potential, April, 1972. This document focused on the pros-
               pects for development and potential problems for the Village,
               including land use implications. The Institute is in the process
               of conducting another similar assessment, from which additional
               implications may be noted.
                        f. Regulations and Enforcement Provisions

                    As noted earlier,- the adoption of the "Development Ordinance
               for the Village of Ocracoke" by the Hyde County Board of Commis-
               sioners in April, 1986, was a historic move which will positively
               affect all future development in Ocracoke. The ordinance, adopted
               by Hyde County under the statutory authority of counties to enact
               zoning controls for all; or a portion of the county, will be

                                               14

               applied to no other part of Hyde County but Ocracoke. The ordi-
               nance will be enforced by the Hyde County Building Inspector, who
               will be responsible for reviewing all proposed development and the
               issuing of development permits. The ordinance contains minimum
               lot size requirements, as well as provisions for building setback,
               height restrictions, lot coverage, and parking. The major thrust
               of the ordinance appears to be density control. Other features of
               the ordinance include the involvement of a Planning Board, Board
               of Adjustmentst and a procedure for granting variances.

                    All of the other regulations and enforcement provisions which
               are applicable to Hyde County also include Ocracoke Village.
               Refer to Part I, Section I, Item 6 (D), page 26, for a full dis-
               cussion and listing of these provisions.

               C. CONSTRAINTS: LAND SUITABILITY

                    There is relatively little undeveloped land remaining within
               the Village of Ocracoke. (See Map 9, attached.) Of the Village's
               775 acres, there are not many more acres of developable land
               remaining. However, there is a pronounced trend of redevelopment
               in older developed areas. It is all the more imperative that
               Villagers and County officials become aware of the existing limi-
               tations to development. Physical limitations are important to
               recognize both from the standpoint of guiding land use decisions
               and in protecting the health,.safety, and welfare of the general
               public. Below is a list of the physical limitations to develop-
               ment in Ocracoke:

                    1. Physical Limitations

                    Most of the physical limitations to development were noted in
               the 1976 Plan and the 1981 Plan Update. These included one man-
               made hazard, i.e., a small airport with a paved landing strip, and
               the natural hazard areas which coincide with the designated Areas
               of Environmental Concern (AEC's). Perhaps the most serious physi-
               cal limitation to development in the Village continues to be the
               condition of the soils. The area is, for the most part, of low
               terrain, poorly drained, and without the addition of sand as fill,
               unsuitable for septic tanks. There are no areas in the Village
               where the slope exceeds 12 percent, adding to drainage problems.
               In the absence of a central sewer system, this is a severe con-
               straint. The two dominant soil types around Silver Lake, Carteret
               Low and Corolla fine sands, are rated as having severe limitations
               for both dwellings and as septic-tank filter fields, according to
               the USDA Soil Conservation Service.

                    The current source of water for the Village does not pose a
               serious physical limitation to development. The deep wells from
               which the water is pumped does contain some salt intrusion, but is
               desalinized through a reverse osmosis process.

                                               15

                  2. Fragile Areas

                  These areas are ones which could easily be damaged or
             destroyed by inappropriate or poorly planned development. Most of
             the fragile areas coincide with the AEC's which were discussed in
             Part II, pages 9-11, of this Section. In addition to the AEC's,
             Silver Lake and the Old Lighthouse might both be considered as
             scenic and prominent high points which need protection from impro-
             per development. The Village of Ocracoke does not contain any of
             the following fragile areas: complex natural areas; areas that
             sustain remnant species; areas containing unique geologic forma-
             tions; registered natural landmarks; wooded swamps, prime wildlife
             habitats., archeologic sites, or maritime forests.
                  There are, however, several other properties of historic
             significance in the Village. The Ocracoke Light Station was
             placed on the National Register of Historic Places in November,
             1977. The Ocracoke Village Historic District and the Ocracoke
             Lighthouse Keepers Quarters have been placed on a study list for
             inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Addition-
             ally, the Hyde County Historic Society, with the aid of a planning
             consultant, has identified three other places in Ocracoke which
             have the potential for placement on the National Register. They
             are: (a) the Lela Howard house; (b) the Blanch Howard house; and
             (c) the Beverly Moss, or Big Ike O'Neal house. Land use policies
             for Ocracoke should take into consideration the protection of
             these culturally significant resources.

                  3. Areas With Resource Potential

                  There are no significant productive or unique agricultural
             lands in Ocracoke. Neither are there any potentially valuable
             mineral sites. However, as noted previously, most of the island
             is part of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, which includes the
             entire land area adjacent to the ocean side of the island. The
             National Seashore area is a prominent tourist attraction for var-
             ious types of non-intensive outdoor recreation activities. The
             Village would benefit from the installation of several public boat
             ramps on the northwest corner of the Park Service parking lot in
             the interest of providing additional recreation activities.
             Currently, there are no public boat ramps on public land, only
             three private ramps on Silver Lake in congested areas. New public
             ramps could also aid private hurricane evacuation efforts. The
             estuarine waters on the Sound side of the island are important
             breeding areas for both finfish and shellfish, and need to be
             protected from unsound development practices. Silver Lake has,
             for several years, been considered a "prohibited shellfish area",
             by the Shellfish Sanitation Unit of the State Division of Health
             Services. Water quality has not significantly improved, so the
             Lake still has this designation.

                                              16

              D. CONSTRAINTS: CAPACITY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES

                   1. Existing Water Service Areas

                   .The Village water system currently has a design capacity of
              144,000 gallons per day (gpd) of potable water after allowance of
              "down" time for needed maintenance. However, as stated earlier,
              the capacity will increase to approximately 200,000 gpd with the
              addition of a fourth R.O. machine and rehabilitation of existing
              equipment is added in late spring of 1986. This work is to be
              completed in late 1986 and should improve the quality and quantity
              of the water.

                   The current water service areas, which was delineated with
              the system's initial operation in June of 1977, does not include
              four newly developing areas. Two developments near the Oyster
              Creek area on the Village's northeast side have begun developing
              since 1977. Also, one developing area on the southeast side of
              Ocracoke is outside of the current water service area. If these
              areas overcome other constraints, including septic tank suitabili-
              ty, then the Sanitary District estimates that there could be
              potentially 270 additional water users; however, only 100 will be
              allowed to have connections as a result of the 1986 improvements.
              There was a shortage of water in the summer of 1985 because of
              over-use. Therefore, a moratorium has been set for new water
              tap-ons until the fourth R.O. machine is installed.

                   If the average year-round per capita consumption were assumed
              to be 57 gallons per day, then at the projected 1986 total capa-
              city (after completion of improvements) of 200,000 gpd, a maximum
              population of 3,508 persons could be sustained. However, consump-
              tion rates do fluctuate. However, the year-round population is
              not experiencing rapid growth. Nevertheless, it would appear that
              if the seasonal population continues to increase, Ocracoke's total
              water capacity will need to expand.

                   2. Sewer Service Area

                   Septic tanks are the only means for wastewater disposal on
              Ocracoke at this time. The installation of septic tanks is regu-
              lated by the Hyde County Health Department through the County
              Sanitarian. According to the County Sanitarian, as of the writing
              of this report, there are no areas in the Village which are suita-
              ble for septic tank installation without the addition of sand to
              build up the area sufficiently above the water table. However,
              the Sanitarian also noted that sand of sufficient quality is not
              available in the Village. Thus, new development, except for areas
              which have been built up previously, is at a virtual standstill
              unless developers are willing to go through the expense of pur-
              chasing and ferrying in suitable fill. Septic tank permits,

                                             17

              according to the County Sanitarian, cannot be issued unless the
              requirements for adequate drain fields are met.

                   3. Schools

                   There is one school in Ocracoke. Ocracoke School contains
              grades K through 12, and had a 1984-85 enrollment of 94 students,
              declining by 15% from the 110 students as reported in the 1981
              Plan Update. The design capacity of the basic school facility is
              approximately 100 students. Notice Table 5, below.

                             Table 5: Ocracoke School Enrollment
                                    1980-81 through 1984-85

                                    1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85

                     of Students      105      113      112      105       94
              Although the Village's population is expected to increase, it is
              not likely that the number of school-age children will increase in
              proportion to the overall population growth. Many new residents,
              for example, will be retirees who will have no school-age child-
              ren. Nevertheless, if school-age children increase throughout the
              planning period at one-half their current ratio to the population,
              then the total pupils would be 134. This increase of 24 addition-
              al students would be substantial enough in Ocracoke to require an
              expansion of facilities and the employment of one or more teach-
              ers.

                   4. Transportation
                   Transportation to  and from 0cracoke is conducted almost tot-
              ally by the three State-operated ferries. The main road on the
              island is NC 12, which begins at the ferry docking facilities at
              Silver Lake, and ends on the northern end of the island at the
              Hatteras Inlet ferry station. NC 12, within the Village, has
              recently undergone improvements to a 2-lane, all weather road,
              which was completed in early 1985 under the State's Transportation
              Improvements Program. All vehicular traffic, regardless of which
              ferry travelled on, must travel on NC 12. As noted previously,
              outside of the Village, en route to the Hatteras Inlet ferry, a
              two-mile stretch of the highway is very close to the ocean and
              subject to occasional flooding. This vulnerability sometimes
              inhibits travel on this road. See Section II, Policy Statements,
              for a discussion of alternatives for improving the potential prob-
              lems with the vulnerability of NC 12. Traffic counts, in terms of
              volume, are not available for NC 12 from the State Department of
              Transportation. Daily average traffic counts for the three ser-
              vices, however, are available, as indicated in Table 6, below:

                                               18

                   Table 6: Average Annual Daily Traffic: Ferry Service to
                                Ocracoke, Calendar Years 1981 and 1984

                                                          Vehicles per Day
                              Ferry                          1981     1984

                    Hatteras to Ocracoke                      550      600
                    Cedar Island to Ocracoke                  200      150
                    Swan Quarter to Ocracoke                  40-       50

                                                              790      800

               N.C. DOT Planning and Research Division
                 Subject to change on demand

                    It is difficult to assess the capacity of the ferries since
               the capacity of individual ferries varies and the schedules are
               subject to change. One of the regular Ocracoke ferries, the
               "Pamlico" has been enlarged since the 1981 Plan. However, if the
               ferry services are reduced, particularly the one from Hatteras to
               Ocracoke, then such a reduction could become a constraint to
               development. The impact would be felt most notably in the
               economy, which is tourist-based. Projections for traffic
               increases, like population projections, are subject to various
               factors. Vacation traffic is highly subject to overall economic
               conditions, particularly the cost of fuels. If it is assumed that
               economic conditions will improve or remain fairly stable, then
               traffic increases will be likely. The current ferry service and
               N.C.. 12 should have the capacity to handle projected increases.

               E.   ESTIMATED DEMAND

                    1.   Population and Economy

                    The impact of population increases and the need for develop-
               able land and community services in Ocracoke.must be examined from
               two perspectives. First, the impact of increases in the number of
               year-round, permanent residents must be considered. Second in
               consideration but at least of equal importance, is the growth in
               the seasonal population. The analysis of conditions on the island
               and in the Village, which has been discussed throughout this Sec-
               tion, has pointed out some rather serious constraints to future
               development. Unless the constraints are somehow overcome, mainly
               the lack of sanitary and environmentally sound wastewater disposal
               facilities, then projections for future development and increased
               demand will be automatically limited. The unofficial but realis-
               tic "moratorium" on substantial new development, because of the
               indigenous soils and the unavailability of suitable fill locally
               for septic tank placement, could continue indefinitely. Despite
               the presence of prohibitive constraints, the alluring charm of the

                                                 19

              quiet, rustic sea Village will continue to attract thousands of
              tourists each year to Ocracoke. Thus, in making projections for
              increased demand, four significant assumptions must be made:

                   (1)  The dissolution of the waste water disposal problems,
                   (2)  Continued generally favorable economic conditions,
                   (3)  Stable ferry service operations, and,
                   (4)  Highway accessibility on the northern end being main-
                        tained and protected from ocean overwash.

                   With these assumptions in mind as c autions, below are projec-
              tions for increases in both the seasonal and permanent populations
              and an examination of the impacts of both on the Village.

                       a.   Permanent Population: Projections to 1995

                   As was noted in Part II, Page 2, of this Section, between
              1970 and 1980 Ocracoke's permanent population grew at a rate of
              21.6 percent from 541 to 658. However, an actual count by the
              Ocracoke School showed a total of 651 in early 1986--a slight
              decline since 1981. Nevertheless, a very moderate growth rate of
              1% per year was assumed for the planning period. At this assumed
              rate of growth, the year-round population will increase by 54
              persons in 1995 to 705. Such an increase could require the forma-
              tion of nearly 40 new households, adding to the demand for ade-
              quate and affordable housing. The improved and expanded water
              system has adequate capacity to serve this projected growth, how-
              ever. Sewage disposal, on the other hand, could become a matter
              for more serious consideration. Solid waste disposal would also
              present obstacles, since it is currently being ferried over to
              Dare County. Alternatives need to be explored since the expense
              of this practice will gradually increase.

                   The overall economy will expand somewhat, as the demand for
              goods and services will lead to more businesses remaining open:all
              year-round, thus providing more jobs and an increase in annual
              retail sales.

                       b.   Seasonal Population

                   In 1970, according to a report compiled by the Regional
              Development Institute of East Carolina University, the seasonal
              population at Ocracoke averaged 1,267 persons. In 1980, as dis-
              cussed, the seasonal population averaged around 3,500 persons, a
              10-year increase of 176 percent. It should be noted that in 1970,
              the water system had not been developed, the Swan Quarter-Ocracoke
              Ferry was not operational, and the Hatteras Seashore Campgrounds
              had not been improved. These developments, undoubtedly, helped
              boost the substantial increase in tourism between 1970 and 1980.
              For the next 10 years, however, it is unlikely that the seasonal
              population will again more than double. A more likely increase

                                              20

              would be double the assumed growth rate for the permanent popula-        r
              tion from 1985 to 1995, i.e., about 2 percent per year. At this
              rate, Ocracoke could anticipate a seasonal population of 3,942 by
              1990 and 4,352 by 1995. These increases would have a significant
              effect upon the demand for water. The total water capacity, in
              order to serve the projected 1995 seasonal population at the 1985
              per capita annual average consumption rate of 57 gpd (i.e.,
              including transient day visitors), would need to be 248,064 gpd.
              This would be 48,064 gpd more than the projected maximum capacity
              of 210,000 gallons per day after improvements.

                   2.   Future Land Need

                   Because of the limitations on septic tank placement in
              Ocracoke, it is difficult to assess the amount of land that   is
              actually available for development within the Village. However?
              the estimated 1986 population density for year-round residents
              on the developed portion of the Village (about 465 acres and 651
              persons) is 1.4 persons per acre. The 1985 seasonal peak density
              was about 5.4 persons per acre. At the 1995 year-round population
              estimate of 705 persons, the density would be 1.5 persons per
              acre. A seasonal average by 1995, of 4,352 persons, would cause
              the density to'increase to 9.4 persons per acre. It should be
              noted that roughly 310 acres (about 40%) of the Village is not
              developable. Under normal urbanizing conditions, all of these
              density levels would be'acceptable. However, land availability
              without the provision of basic infrastructure, limits adequate
              support for even low-density development. Higher densities must
              be supported by adequate community facilities or else controlled
              or restricted.

                   3.   Community Facilities Need

                   In summary, if moderate population increases, both seasonal
              and permanent, continue, then Ocracoke will need to-expand its
              service capabilities in the following areas:

                        water supply
                        police protection (the possible addition of one or two
                        more officers for efficient law enforcement)
                        school facilities
                        recreational facilities
                        improved firefighting and rescue capability
                        improved surface water drainage facilities
                  Under generally favorable economic conditions, the attraction
              to Ocracoke is likely to continue. However, three main issues,
              i.e., the encroachment of development upon the Village's historic
              and aesthetic character, previous problems resulting from lack of
              land use controls, and inadequate provision of community facili-
              ties form a basis for consideration of policy development by Hyde
              County. Policy implications have been presented in this Section.
              Actual policy discussion, with alternatives and specific choices,
              will be presented in the following Section.

                                              21

                                                                    I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
                                  @ PART II: OCRACOKE
     I
                                    POLICY STATEMENTS
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I
     I

               PART II: HYDE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN: OCRACOKE

               SECTION II.: POLICY STATEMENTS

                    Ocracoke, as a jurisdictional entity of Hyde County, is gen-
               erally included under the policies stated under Section II,
               Part I, of this plan. However, because of the presence of natural
               and cultural resources on Ocracoke, which are not generally
               located on the mainland, the development of additional policies
               are appropriate. All of the five broad policy development areas,        T
               i.e., Resource Protection, Resource Production and Management,
               Economic and Community Development, Storm Hazard Mitigation and
               Post-Disaster Recovery, and Continuing Public Participation, will
               be addressed in this Section as they apply to Ocracoke.

               A.   Resource.Protection

                    1. Natural Resource Areas

                    In the village of Ocracoke, the major natural resource areas
               which need protection are the identified Areas of Environmental
               Concern (AEC's). The AEC's in Ocracoke which are within the
               County's jurisdiction include: Coastal Wetlands, Estuarine
               Waters, Public Trust Areas, and Estuarine Shorelines. These areas
               were defined and identified geographically on Pages 18 through 21
               in Section I of Part I. All of these areas, which are part of
               Hyde County's Estuarine System, are important natural resources to
               both Ocracoke and the mainland. Therefore, the same development
               alternatives and choices for Areas of Environmental Concern set
               forth for the mainland will apply to Ocracoke. These policies,
               including possible alternatives and implementation strategies,
               were discussed on Pages 45 through 50 of Section II, Part I.

                    2. Cultural Resource Areas

                    In some ways, it is difficult to define all of the culturally
               significant areas in Ocracoke. Because of its unique historic
               character, the entire Village itself could be considered a cult-
               ural resource of more than local significance. Hyde County recog-
               nizes the historic significance of Ocracoke Village and the value
               of protecting the Village as a significant coastal cultural
               resource in general. The Ocracoke Light Station is on the Nation-
               al Register of Historic Places, with the Ocracoke Village Historic
               District and the Ocracoke Lighthouse Keepers Quarters being placed
               on a study list for possible inclusion on the Register. Three
               other properties in the Village have been identified as having the
               potential for National Register nomination. These properties
               include: the Lela Howard House; the Blanch Howard House; and the
               Beverly Moss, or Big Ike O'Neal House.

                    In order to protect these areas from the encroachment of
               potentially damaging development, the policy statement by Hyde
               County on "Cultural Resource Areas" shall also apply to these

                                               22

              specific properties on Ocracoke -and to others which may be iden-
              tified during the planning period. The proposed implementation
              strategy will also apply to the Ocracoke properties.

                   3. Constraints to Development: Physical Limitations

                   The physical limitations to development in Ocracoke, as noted
              on Pages 14 through 16 of Section 1, Part II, include both natural
              hazards and man-made hazards. The primary man-made hazard on
              Ocracoke Island is a small paved airplane landing strip. However,
              this airstrip is located outside of the Village area and is within
              the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area. Natural
              hazard areas which present constraints to development are the
              previously identified Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's).

                   Perhaps the most serious physical limitation to development
              in Ocracoke is the condition of the soils in and around the
              Village. An updated Soil Survey of the Outer Banks,.which was
              published in 1977, showed that there were several soil types in
              Ocracoke which had "severe" limitations for both structural found-
              ations and septic tank placement. This is particularly true
              around Silver Lake, which is dominated by Carteret Low and Corolla
              fine sands. Both of these soils have been identified by the USDA
              Soil Conservation Service as being severely limited, without
              proper modifications for septic tank placement and structural
              foundations.

                   In recognition of these physical constraints to development
              in Ocracoke, the Hyde County Commissioners will apply the same
              policies on constraints which were stated for the mainland to the
              Village. These policies, including alternative considerations and
              implementation strategies, were discussed on Pages 48-50,
              Section II, Part I.

                   4. Constraints t6  Development: Capacity of Community
                       Facilities

                   The major community facility in Ocracoke is the central water
              system. The system's capacity and service area was discussed on
              Page 4, Section I, Part II, of this plan. The current capacity of
              the water system, even with the addition of a fourth R.O.
              -machine, will still be inadequate to serve the needs of the pro-
              jected 1995 permanent and seasonal populations.

                   Because of the soil limitations discussed above, the absence
              of a central sewage collection and disposal system is also a con-
              straint of important consideration. Even with suitable sand as
              fill material, the generally small lots at Ocracoke could lead to
              an overloading of effluent from the ground absorption systems
              (septic tanks). This effluent could eventually reach the Estu-
              arine Waters around the Village.

                                               23

                    As discussed in Section I of Part II, Ocracoke would benefit
               from expanding recreational opportunities by perhaps hiring a
               Recreation Director and/or building a recreational facility for
               youth, and by modernizing medical services and improving emergency
               rescue services with the addition of a new rescue squad vehicle.

                    a.  Policy Alternatives

                    Possible policy alternatives regarding managing growth and
               development in areas with identified constraints in Ocracoke
               include (in addition to those set forth for the mainland):

                    (1) Limit septic tank placement to compliance with State
                        Health regulations as enforced by the County Sanitarian.

                    (2) Explore alternative means of solid waste disposal, such
                        as the development of high-pressure incinerators on the
                        island.                                                         im

                    (3) Expand capacity of community facilities and services,
                        such as water, schools, recreation, police and fire
                        protection, and road capacity, as growth takes place and
                        as needed.

                    (4) Request that the County pursue development of a public
                        water access facility in the Village, with attendant
                        parking.

                    b.  Policy Choices

                    Ocracoke Island adopts the following policies in addition to
               those set forth for the mainland:

                    (1) In areas with septic tank limitations, Ocracoke will
                        rema-in committed to decisions rendered by the Health
                        Department's Sanitarian, even if it involves a moratorium
                        on septic tank placement.

                    (2) Remain committed to exploring alternative means of solid
                        waste disposal.

                    (3) Encourage the expansion of community facilities, espe-
                        cially in the areas of recreation (e.g., hiring a Recrea-
                        tion Director or constructing a community center) and
                        medical services (e.g., filling a dentist position).

                    (4) Residents of the Village would like to have some type   of
                        water access facility developed which is available to   the
                        public, including Villagers and tourists.

                                                24

                   5. Hurricane and Flood Evacuation Needs and Plans

                   Ocracoke will follow the prescribed Storm Hazard Mitigation
              and Post-Disaster Recovery policy statements set forth for Hyde
              County found in Part I, Section II E., Page 64.

                   6. Other Resource Protection Policy Areas

                   a. Marina and Floating Home Development

                   (See policy statements on page 50 dealing with the mainland.)
              Hyde County has strong concern over the possibility or incidence
              of floating home development in Ocracoke and the potential impact
              upon water quality, especially in the absence of facilities to
              support them. Therefore, the County cannot endorse the develop-
              ment of floating homes in Ocracoke. For the same reasons, marinas
              are not considered to be desirable in Ocracoke.

                   b. Maritime  Forests

                   There are no areas designated or recognized as such in
              Ocracoke Village. However, should areas in the Village be deter-.
              mined as maritime forests, the County believes these areas should
              be protected from undue encroachment.

              B.   Resource Production and Management

                   Policy statements on the production and management of
              resources usually are concerned with the extraction of economical-
              ly valuable resources from the lands or waters of coastal communi-
              ties. This policy area was discussed for the County as a whole in
              Item B, Section II, Part I, Pages 51-55. Of the major issues
              discussed (i.e., agricultural production, commercial forestlands,
              commercial and recreational fisheries, and existing and potential
              mineral production areas), only commercial and recreational fish-
              eries is a relevant issue in Ocracoke.

                   1. Commercial  and Recreational Fisheries

                   As presented in the discussion on present economic conditions
              in Ocracoke, commercial fishing as an economic activity has great-
              ly declined in importance in the Village. Tourist-related busi-
              ness is the most important employment segment in Ocracoke. How-
              ever, some commercial fishing activity and considerable amounts of
              sports and recreational fishing are still being conducted in and
              around the island's waters.

                   The Hyde County Commissioners and the residents of Ocracoke
              would like to see productive fishing areas maintained and deve'l-
              oped in order to further support fishing as an industry and as a
              recreational activity. Silver Lake is classified as a "Prohibited
              Shellfish Area" by the N.C. Division of Health Services, Shellfish
              Sanitation Unit. This means that due to the documented presence

                                              25

              of certain pollutants, or the presence of diseases in marine life,
              the extraction of shellfish from the lake for human consumption is
              prohibited.
                                                                                      T
                    Except for those statements dealing with agricultural drain-
              age, the same policies for the support of fishing, which were
              developed for the County as a whole, shall also apply to Ocracoke.

                    a.  Policy Alternatives

                    (1) Support any private, State, or Federal activities aimed
                        at cleaning up polluted areas which are currently closed;
                        and

                    (2) Seek to protect and maintain primary nursery areas
                        (Ocracoke's Estuarine Waters) from the negative effects
                        of development, particularly effluent pollutants.

                    b.  Policy Choices

                    (1) Continue to support the activities of private, State, and
                        Federal agencies dedicated to cleaning up polluted
                        areas.

                    (2) Continue to enforce septic tank placement regulations and
                        the County Building Permit Program.

                    2.  Off-Road Vehicles

                    Off-road vehicles is an issue relevant to the ocean side
              beach areas on Ocracoke Island. This area, as noted previously,
              is under the control of the U.S. Park Service as part of the
              National Seashore Recreation Area. Thus, the issue of off-road
              vehicles is not a relevant one to Ocracoke at this time.

              C.    Economic and Community Development

                    The land development issues involving economic and community
              development in Ocracoke are different from similar issues on Hyde
              County's mainland., Major factors such as the economic base of the
              Village, its land development pattern and density, and overall
              increasing population growth rate, are all responsible for this
              difference.

                    Other changes and trends in Ocracoke also have serious impli-
              cations for economic and community development land use policies.
              They include:

                        The adoption and enforcement of a Development Ordinance
                        for Ocracoke Village, which is designed to regulate
                        development density in Ocracoke and which will affect
                        overall land use patterns;

                                                2.6

                       Slight decrease in permanent population from 658 in 1980
                       to 651 in 1986, but with a projected increase by 1995 to
                       705 persons;

                       Increase in the number of vacation cottages and second
                       homes (from about 208 in 1980 to 308 in 1985), in spite
                       of identified constraints (see Page 7, Section I,.
                       Part II);

                       The growing importance of tourism.

                  These are factors which must be given serious consideration
             in adopting land use policies for Ocracoke Village. Some of the
             issues which communities are required to address, according to the
             Coastal Resources Commission's Land Use Planning Guidelines, are
             not relevant in Ocracoke. These are, "types and locations of
             desired industries" and "energy facility siting." Other issues
             which are relevant to Ocracoke, but were covered under the
             County's general policies in Section II, Part It include "Commit-
             ment to State and Federal Programs" and "Assistance to Channel
             Maintenance."

                  Relevant issues and policy statements are discussed below:

                  1. Local Commitment to Service Provisions

                       Water

                       Currently, the only local service provided is water. The
                       Village Water Association, under the auspice of the
                       Ocracoke Sanitary District, intends to serve developing
                       areas within the current water service area. Areas which
                       are developing outside of the current service area will
                       be served gradually over a period of years during the
                       planning period.

                       Sewer

                       A 201 Waste Water Facilities Study has never been con-
                       ducted for Ocracoke. Although preliminary discussions
                       between the Ocracoke Sanitary District and State offi-
                       cials indicate that if a central sewage collection and
                       disposal system is developed in the Village, user charges
                       would be too expensive for the system to be supported by
                       the current population.

                       Solid Waste Disposal

                       Throughout the planning period, the Sanitary District
                       will continue to contract with Dare County for solid
                       waste disposal. As the need dictates, this contract may
                       be expanded.

                                              27

                        Transportation

                        Ocracoke Island is concerned about an approximate two-
                        mile section of N.C. Highway 12 which is located close to
                        the ocean and is frequently flooded. Suggested alterna-
                        tives to alleviate this problem are: to extend the road
                        west, providing greater distance between the road and the
                        ocean; stabilize the beach area to help prevent flooding;
                        or relocate the ferry site to reduce the amount of traf-
                        fic on that portion of road. Ocracoke Island will ex-
                        plore these alternatives with appropriate State officials
                        in order to arrive at the best method of alleviating this
                        problem.

                   2. Desired Urban Growth Patterns

                   Ocracoke is the most densely populated settled area in Hyde
              County. The compact development pattern in the Village makes no
              distinction between residential, commercial, or institutional
              uses. This incompatibility of land uses resulted from a histor-
              ical lack of development and enforcement of local land use con-
              trols. However, all future development in Ocracoke will be con-
              trolled by a Development Ordinance for the Village, which will
              definitely affect urban growth patterns. As development continues
              in response to the Village's appeal as a tourist attraction, con-
              tinued expansion of incompatible land uses may be mitigated some-
              what. Additional controls, however, may be needed in the future.

                   a.  Policly Alternatives

                   (1) The incorporation of Ocracoke as a Town under N.C.
                       Statutes, giving it local authority to protect and pro-
                       mote the health, safety, and welfare of the Village resi-
                       dents; and

                   (2) Requesting that the County develop and adopt additional
                       needed local controls, as development demands, for the
                       Village.

                   bo  Policy Choices and Implementation Schedule
                   (1) In Fiscal Year 1986-87, Hyde County will enforce provi-
                       sions of the Ocracoke Development Ordinance.
                   The urbanizing uses of land within Ocracoke must also coin-
              cide with limitations of service provisions, and be consistent
              with policies regarding protecting natural and cultural resources
              (see Ocracoke's Policies under "Resource Protection," Page 24,
              this section).

                                              28

                   3. Redevelopmentof Developed Urban Areas
                   The*area around Silver Lake is almost completely developed.
              Silver Lake is perhaps the most scenic attraction in the Village.
              The lake-front development currently consists of a mixture of land
              uses, including residential, commercial and government, and insti-
               utional. (See the Ocracoke Land Use Map, attached to this plan.)
               All of this development is not desirable from an aesthetic view-
              point. The broad, sweeping vista which Silver Lake has the poten-
              tial to offer is somewhat obscured by much of the current water-
              front development.
                   It is the belief of the Hyde County Board of Commissioners
              and the residents of Ocracoke that the natural aesthetics of
              Silver Lake should be maintained and enhanced as much as possible.

                   a.   Policy Alternatives
                   (1)  Only development which does not cause-major or irrevers-
                        ible damage to the natural beauty and aesthetics of
                        Silver Lake should be allowed along the waterfront.

                   (2)  Land uses which are supportive of the desire to maintain
                        open enjoyment of the Lake's attractiveness will be
                        encouraged.

                   b.   Policy Choices

                   (1)  Continue to support only development and land uses which
                        preserve the aesthetics of Silver Lake.

                   C.   Implementation Schedule

                   (1)  The County Commissioners, through the County Manager's
                        office, will seek assistance from the N.C. Department of
                        Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD) to
                        provide information on funds for preparing waterfront
                        design alternatives.
                   (2)  Contacts with the Washington, N.C., office of NRCD will
                        be made in Fiscal Year 1987.

                   (3)  The County Commissioners, through the County Manager's
                        office, will, in Fiscal Year 1987, seek technical assis-
                        tance from the East Carolina University Regional Develop-
                        ment Institute and the Division of Community Assistance,
                        NRCD, Washington Regional Office, to prepare preliminary
                        additional development controls specifically designed for
                        the aesthetics of Silver Lake. These preliminary criter-
                        ia will show the potential impact of development devices
                        around Silver Lake.

                                               29

                   4. Tourism

                   Ocracoke Island continues to be a strong attraction for
              thousands of visitors each year. Thousands of visitors board the
              ferries from Cedar Island, Hatteras, and Swan Quarter to the
              Village of Ocracoke. Figures from the State Ferry Traffic Report
              for Fiscal Year 1984-85 indicated that 772,872 passengers used the
              ferries going to and from Ocracoke. Many of those transient visi-
              tors made substantial expenditures in the County and particularly
              on Ocracoke. The North Carolina Department of Commerce, Division
              of Travel and Tourism, estimated that in 1984, tourism accounted
              for $12,094,000 in expenditures in Hyde County. Although no sep-
              arate figures are available, the majority of these expenses were
              likely generated by Ocracoke. Tourism is steadily growing in
              Ocracoke, and is the backbone of the Village's economy.

                   Hyde County recognizes this importance and would like to see
              those attractions and services which help make tourism effective,
              enhanced, and protected, including adequate public water access _       I
              sites. As extensive as the shoreline around Silver Lake is, there
              are no public access sites in the Village, either for tourists of
              citizens. Public access sites, it is believes, would greatly
              enhance tourism in the Village. The County's concern is also
              particularly true regarding the continued operation of a viable
              and dependable ferry service. It is the County's general policy,
              therefore, to continue to support and promote tourism as a vital
              economic activity on Ocracoke. Specifically, the County will seek
              assistance in the planning and development of adequate waterfront
              access facilities in Ocracoke Village.

              D.   Continuing Public Participation

                   The importance of continued involvement by the citizens of
              Ocracoke village in land use planning and governmental decisions
              is a factor recognized by the Hyde County Commissioners-. One of
              the five County Commissioners is a resident of Ocracoke Village.
              During the preparation of this Plan Update, a total of eight (8)
              meetings were held with the Ocracoke Planning Advisory Committee,
              all of which were open to the public. Two of these meetings were
              advertised in newspapers. (See Appendix 2, and part I, Section
              II, page 64.)

                   It is the policy of the Hyde County Commissioners to help
              keep Ocracoke Village residents informed and involved in planning
              and governmental decisions which affect them. The ongoing public
              and private communications activities will continue, and include
              the following actions through the planning period:

                   1. Publish notices of hearings and meetings of local import-
                       ance in The Coastland Times or other newspapers which
                       circulate generally in Ocracoke;

                                              30

                   2.  Make public announcements on the Ocracoke cable TV;
                   3.  Continue to send notices of meetings, hearings, etc., to
                       leaders of civic clubs in Ocracoke and have them posted
                       on the Community Bulletin Board.
                   4.  Encourage the Village residents to relate particular
                       concerns to the County Commissioners by contacting the
                       Commissioner who lives in the Village; and
                   5.  The County Commissioners will continue its practice of
                       conducting at least two of its regular monthly meetings
                       during the year in Ocracoke Village.
                   6.  Hold informal, Village-wide meetings on various special
                       issues, especially when agency representatives or
                       officials are invited to address the citizens and/or
                       answer questions.

              E.   Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post-Disaster Recovery, and
                   Evacuation Plans
                   As a jurisdictional entity of Hyde County, policies in this
              area for Ocracoke are included in Part I, pages 66 through 78.

                                              31

      I
      I
      I
      I
      I
      I
      I
    . I
      I
      I
      I
      I
      I
      I
      I

                                                                         PART II
      I                                                              SECTION III
                                                      LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
      I
      I
     . I

               SECTION III: LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

                    The five Land Classifications of the Coastal Resources
               Commission were defined in Section IV, Part I, of this plan, which
               focused on the mainland. (See pages 77-82). In Ocracoke Villagel
               three of these classifications will be established. They are
               described below.

               A.   DEVELOPED

                    The developed class of land use provides for continued inten-
               sive development and redevelopment of existing cities. Areas to
               be classified as "developed" include lands currently developed for
               urban purposes or approaching a density of 500 dwellings per
               square mile that are provided with usual municipal or public
               services including at least public water, sewer, recreational
               facilities, police and fire protection. Areas which exceed the
               minimum density but which do not have public sewer service may
               best be divided into a separate class to indicate that although
               they have a developed character, they will need sewers in the
               future.

                    Ocracoke, as discussed previously, does not have a central
               sewage collection and disposal system. However, the 775 acres in
               the Village is a total of only 1.21 square miles. The projected
               number of dwelling units will increase during the planning period.
               Most of the Village already has a "developed" character, in that,
               due to physical constraints of soil conditions, some areas cannot
               be developed further. This classification includes all of the
               currently developed or developing areas in the Village, with the
               exception of the land area owned by the U. S. Coast Guard, the
               State Department of Transportation (Ferry Office and Docking
               Facilities), and the U. S. Park Services; and the border around
               Silver Lake.

               B.   TRANSITION

                    Transition land is classified as those lands providing for
               future intensive urban development within the ensuing ten years on
               lands that are most suitable and that will be scheduled for provi-
               sion of necessary public utilities and services. They may also
               provide for additional growth when additional lands in the
               developed class are not available or when they are severely
               limited for development.

                    Most of the land area adjacent to the portion of the Village
               classified as "developed," will be classed as "Transitional." As
               the Village population grows, both permanent and seasonal, the
               transitional areas will be needed to accommodate the additional
               growth. Present constraints, such as septic tank limitations,
               would be largely overcome if a centralized sewage collection and

                                              32

              disposal system were developed. The Village water system's lines
              are also accessible to these areas. This area includes lands
              North of the Old Cuttin Sage Lake areas, and the lands south of
              the currently developed landsl to the Cape Hatteras National
              Seashore Recreational area.

              C.   CONSERVATION

                   The "conservation" class provides for effective long-term
              management of significant limited or irreplaceable areas. This
              management may be needed because of its natural, cultural, recrea-
              tional, productive or scenic values. This class should be limited
              to lands that contain: major wetlands, essentially undeveloped
              shorelands that are unique, fragile, or hazardous for development,
              necessary wildlife habitat or areas that have a high probability
              for providing necessary habitat conditions; publicly owned water
              supply watersheds and aquifers; and forest lands that are
              undeveloped and will remain undeveloped for commercial purposes.
              By statutory definition, all Areas of Environmental Concern (i.e.,
              AECs) are included in the conservation classification.

                   In Ocracoke, the conservation class, according to the
              definition of the Estuarine Shoreline AEC, i.e., 75 feet inland
              from'the the mean high water mark, shall include the land area
              generally bordering Silver Lake, the State and Federally owned
              land to the North of the Lake. Also, the other Estuarine
              Shorelines in the Village will be classified as conservation, and
              the land area around and adjacent to the Ocracoke Light Station
              and Keepers Quarters.

                                              33

      I
      I
      I
      I
      I
      I
      I
      I
      I
      I
      I
      :I
      I
      I
      I

                                                                          PART II
                                                                      SECTION IV
                                                   RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLICIES
      I                                                 AND LAND CLASSIFICATIONS
      I
      I                                                 -

               SECTION IV: RELATIONSHIP OF POLICIES AND LAND CLASSIFICATIONS           F

                    After the Land Clasification System is developed, the Coastal
               Resources Commission requires each land use plan to relate the
               Policy Section to the land classification map and to provide some
               indication as to which land uses are appropriate in each class.

               A.   DEVELOPED AND TRANSITION CLASSES:

                    The Developed and Transition classes should be the only lands
               under active consideration by a county or municipality for              Jr
               intensive urban development requiring urban services. The area
               within these classes is where detailed local land use and public
               investment planning will occur. State and Federal expenditures on
               projects associate with urban development (water, sewer, urban
               street systems, etc.) will be guided to these areas.

                    As Ocracoke grows moderately throughout the planning period,
               the projected development will take place in these areas.
               Appropriate land uses will be residential, commercial and
               government and institutional. As is fiscally feasible, municipal
               services will be extended or made accessible to these areas as
               growth and development guides.

               B.   CONSERVATION CLASS:

                    The Conservation Class is designated to provide for effective
               long-term management of significant limited'or irreplaceable areas
               which include wetlands, undeveloped shorelines that are unique,
               fragile, or hazardous for development, wildlife habitat areas,
               publicly owned watersheds and acquifers and undeveloped forest
               lands and cultural and historical sites. In the Estuarine System,
               development should be restricted to water-dependent uses such as
               piers, bulkheads, marinas, etc. Policy Statement under Resource
               Protection, and Resource Production and Management issues, for
               both Ocracoke and the Mainland, address Hyde County's intentions
               concerning the use of land within the conservation class.

                                               34

    I
    I
    I
    I

    I
     I
     I
     I
     I                                    APPENDICES
     I
     i
     I
      11
      I
      I
      I
      I
      I

         $=low                                              son&                                                                     maim

                                                            - --------- --

                                   LEGEND:

                                            ESTUARINE WATERS

                                            COASTAL MARSHLANDS

                                            COMPLEX NATURAL AREAS\

                                                                                                                    -A

                                                                                                              T-

                                                                                                 L  A  K  C   M    T. r      U S K  E E  r

              FRAC31 LE                AREAS
                      HYDE        COUNTY

                      North Carolina

                                             APPENDIX   2

                                            COUNTY OF HYDE
                                 SWAN QUARTER, NORTH CAROLINA  27885

      Office Board of Commissioners
      Michael T. Swindell, Curntuck                                            Emily C. Thomas, County Finance Officer
      J.B. Berry, Fairfield                                                    Clifford Swindell, County Manager
      J.B. Cahoon, Lake Landing                                                Douglas A. Gibbs, Ass't County Manager
      Alton M. Ballance, Ocracoke
      Hal G. Swindell, Swan Quarter

                                                January 7, 1986

      Director, FAA, Southern Region
      Attention:  Air Traffic Div., Docket #85-ASO-16
      Federal Aviation Administration
      PO Box 20636
      Atlanta, GA  33320

      Dear Sir:

      We are opposed to the Military controlling any more airspace
      over Eastern North Carolina.  For you information find
      enclosed a copy of our 10-7-85 minutes, including a resolution
      calling for a reduction in the amount of airspace controlled
      by the Military in Eastern North Carolina.  Thank you for
      allowing our county to comment on this important issue.

                                           Sincerely,

                                           HYDE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

      /dg

      cc: Mr. Will    entl, Dir., NC Div. of Aviation

          THE HYDE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HELD ITS REGULAR MEETING
          OCTOBER 7, 1985

          The meeting opened at 9:30 am by a word of prayer by Joseph B.
          Members present were Chairman Joseph B. Cahoon, Hal Swindell, Alton Ballance
          and J.B. Berry.

          Upon motion by Alton Ballance, seconded by Hal Swindell that the minutes
          of the last meeting be approved.

          Commissioner Mike Swindell entered the meeting at 9:40am.

          Upon motion made by Hal Swindell, seconded by Mike Swindell, that upon the
          Tax Administrator's recommendation, the Board of Commissioners adopt the
          schedule of land values and the revision made to the schedule as proposed
          to the commissioners.  A copy of this order will be published in the local
          is on file in the minute docket book located in the Register of       office.
          Representative Howard Chapin met with the Board.  No action was

          Ben Simmons met with the board to explain the purpose of the Hyde County
          Waterfowl Committee, getting the trash dump at Fairfield cleaned up and
          rocked, also installing a fence around the dump was discussed.  Mr. Simmons
          also asked the Commissioners to take the necessary steps to stop
          parking on his property located at the intersection of Highway 94 and SR 1395
          in Fairfield.

          Motion by Mike Swindell, seconded by J.B. Berry that the Board
          executive session at 11:15 am with Jack Mason to discuss personnel
          Motion made by Hal Swindell, seconded by J.B. Berry, taht the
          out of Executive session at 11:50 am.

          The Commissioners met with the Board of Education from 1:00pm to    pm at
          their office discussing fines and forfeitures in the school budget.

          Upon motion made by J.B. Berry, seconded by Alton Ballance, BE IT
          that the County adopt a public participation plan for the land

             located in the Register of Deeds Office.

                                   RESOLUTION

         WHEREAS, the citizens of Hyde County have consistently shown their

         WHEREAS, it is not in the best interest of the military,
         population, the environmental effects to the region, economic development
         of the region, and cost effectiveness.

         NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the following military
         and Military Operation Areas (MOA's) be changed as follows:

         1.  Delete the following special use air space:

             a) R-5301 A, B, C, and R-5302 (Harvey Point)
             b) R-5313 (Stumpy Point)
             c) Stumpy Point MOA
             d) Pamlico A MOA
             e) Pamilco B MOA
             f) VR-73 (low level mil. training route)
             g) VR-1057 (low level mil. training route)
             h) VR-1058 (low level mil. training route)
             i) VR-1758 (low level mil. training route)
             j) VR-85 (low level mil. training route)
             k) Hatteras F MOA (low level mil. training route)

             Install a radar system to provide low altitude air traffice advisory
             service in eastern North Carolina.  Specifically,     the radar
             existing between Cherry Point and Oceana Approach Control.
             area is currently controlled by Washington Center.

          III.  Restructure, (reduce the size) the physical demensions
          Range) and R-5306A (Cherry Point) to provide for
          and         corriders.

          IV.  Restructure R-5306 C and  D to provide a corrider along
          W-122h to 2 HM inland, from ground level to 3000 feet.

          DONE AND ORDERED in open meeting.

                                                    Joseph B. Cahoon
                                                    Hyde County Board

              The foregoing resolution was offered by Mike Swindell,
          Hal Swindell, and was unanimously adopted.

          Upon motion made by Hal Swindell, seconded by Alton Ballance, BE IT

          Sheriff's Department                            Budget Revision
          Health Department                           Inter-departmental Transfer
          Child Health                                    Budget Revision
          Parental Health                                 Budget Revision
          Family Planning                                 Budget Revison
          Health Department                               Budget Revision

          Budjet Revisions are on file in Minute Docket Book located in the Register
          of Deeds Office.

          Upon motion made by Hal Swindell, seconded by Mike Swindell, BE IT
          that the Veterans Monument agreement be postponed until a later date.

          BILLS & CHECKS APPROVED IN THE AMOUNT OF
    '                                                             $250,886.70 General Fu
                                                                     5,651.04
                                                                    30,985.68 Water Syst.

         The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p. m.

         THE HYDE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HELD ITS REGULAR MEETING ON MONDAY,
         OCTOBER 21, 1985.

         Chairman Joseph B. Cahoon called the meeting to order at 9:30 a. m.  Commissio
         Michael T. Swindell offered prayer.  Commissioners Berry, Ballance, and Hal
         C. Swindell were present.

         Upon motion by Michael T. Swindell, seconded by J.B. Berry, BE IT RESOLVED
         that the minutes for the meeting held on October 7, 1985 are approved as they
         are recorded.

         Hobie Truesdall & Quinteo Bell, First Colony Farms, met with the Board and
         explained their porposal on peat mining 15,000 acres of land

         Jack Jones, Social Services Director, met with the Board concerning State
         Transportation Grant.  No action was taken.

                                        RESOLUTION

              WHEREAS, the Hype County Department of Social Services has the authority
         to issue checks for the Hyde County DSS Fund; and

                                     APPENDIX 3

                            HYDE COUNTY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION  PLAN
                          FOR THE 1985-86 CAMA LAND USE PLAN  UPDATE

              I.   Introduction

                   Hyde County, in compliance with requirements of the North
              Carolina Coastal Area Management Act, is preparing an update to
              its Land Use Plan. The purpose of this updated plan is to
              generally re-assess growth and development trends of the County   in
              relation to the capacity of community facilities and development
              constraints. Issues affecting the County's policies on growth and
              development will also be closely reviewed during this plan updat-
              ing process.

                   A significant aspect of the plan updating process is the
              involvement of the County's citizenry. This Public Participation
              Plan will outline the means by which the County will foster and
              encourage such participation throughout the planning process.

              II. Public Participation Plan

                   Public involvement in the 1985-86 Land Use Plan Update will
              .be generated primarily through meetings with two advisory commit-
              tees to be appointed by the Hyde County Board of Commissioners.
              The County Board of Commissioners will appoint an eight-member
              Land Use Plan Advisory Committee for the mainland, and a five-
              member Ocracoke Planning Advisory Committee for Ocracoke Village.
              The advisory committee for the mainland will"be composed of two
              citizens each from each of the mainland's four Townships, giving
              an even geographic representation. All five members of the Ocra-
              coke Planning Advisory Committee will be residents of the island
              community. These two groups will b the primary vehicle for
              citizen participation in updating the County's Land Use Plan.

                   These committees will work very closely with the planning
              consultant in a series of "work session" meetings. Also, general
              "public information" meetings will be held to present and discuss
              issues before the general oublic. All such meetings will be pub-
              licized through advertisements in local newspapers and posting of
              public notices. Presentations will also be made before the Hyde
              County Board of Commissioners. It should be noted that the meet-
              ings with the advisory committees and Board of Commissioners,
              meeting will be open to the public.

              III. Preliminary Meeting Schedule

                   The initial tentative schedule of meetings is as follows:

                   A. Meeting with advisory committees to review preliminary
                       development issues, November 6 (mainland), and November 7
                       (Ocracoke), 1985.

                  B. Public information meeting with citizens, December 2
                       (mainland), and December 3 (Ocracoke), 1985.
                  C. Meeting with the County Board of Commissioners to review
                      preliminary issues, December 2, 1985.
                  Other meetings and work sessions will be scheduled and appro-
             priately publicized throughout the land use plan update process.
             The above schedule is presented as being preliminary.

        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I                                     MAPS
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I
        I

                                                                                                           DO A'T E IOU E

                                                                                        GAYLORD No. 2333                                  IIINTED IN U.S.A.

                                                                                                      3 6668 14107 5426