Final Report - PlanIt East

SUMMARY REPORT
EnvisionEAST-2050
a ULI Reality Check
Jones County Civic Center
October 24, 2012
Table of Contents
1
PlanIt EAST ………………………………..………………………………….1
2
EnvisionEAST-2050……………………………………..………………….6
The Event and the Process
Keynote Speakers
3
4
5
Alternative Land Use Patterns…………….……………………….10
Land Use Patterns Developed by Participants
Location of Proposed Future Growth
Increased Development Proposed
Growth in Areas with Existing Development
Proposed Road, Rail and Transit…..………………………..…….24
Road
Rail
Transit
Land Use Impacts……………………………………………..…………29
Land Required for Future Development
Impact on Agriculture
Impact on Wetlands
Impact on Military Training Routes
Impacts on Small Towns
6
Participant Polling………………………………………………………35
Guiding Principles
Barriers
Solutions
7
Next Steps….. …………………………………………….…..……………42
8
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………44
EnvisionEAST-2050 Participants
Community Supporters
EnvisionEAST-2050 Steering Committee
PlanIt EAST Delegates
EnvisionEAST-2050 Volunteers and Staff
Appendix ………………………………………..…………………………..…….57
Page |1
Section 1
PlanIt EAST
Page |2
PlanIt EAST
EnvisionEAST-2050 was convened by
PlanIt EAST based on the foundation of
work completed by North Carolina’s
Eastern Region since 2007.
PlanIt EAST is a private-public
partnership headed by North Carolina’s
Eastern Region with additional funding
from the Department of Defense (Office
of Economic Adjustment), the State of
North Carolina, our nine member
counties and a host of private donors.
This regional forum fosters
communication, coordination, and
collaboration among public, private and
nonprofit leaders from Carteret, Craven,
Duplin, Jones, Lenoir, Onslow, Pamlico,
Pender and Wayne counties through its
delegates. These representatives include
elected officials, business, community
and military leaders, farmers and
foresters, developers and
environmental/ conservation group
leaders from across the region’s nine
counties.
The 42 PlanIt EAST delegates have been
meeting quarterly for two years to
address growth and community issues
that cross county and municipal
boundaries. Their six Working Groups
focus on Open Space, Renewable Energy,
Affordable Housing, Water Resources,
Sustainable Corridors and Sustaining
Military Mission.
In addition to hosting EnvisionEAST2050, the PlanIt EAST delegates
contributed to the participant guidebook
and regional map, facilitated the
participant orientations, recruited
participants and volunteered for the
event.
For further information on PlanIt EAST
please visit us at www.PlanItEAST.org
Section 8 of this Summary Report
includes a list of PlanIt EAST delegates.
Page |3
Background
Once an undiscovered gem, the PlanIt
EAST region has seen steady population
increase over the last 70 years. In 1940,
less than 250,000 people called this
region home. The openings of Camp
Lejeune and MCAS Cherry Point the next
year were dramatic catalysts of the
region’s population growth. While
Pamlico County has grown slowly, other
coastal counties have experienced higher
growth as the region has become a more
popular coastal destination.
The region surpassed 500,000 residents
in the 1980’s. In the years since I-40 was
completed between Raleigh and
Wilmington, Pender’s rate of growth has
surpassed that of any other county in the
region. With the exception of Wayne
County, home to Seymour Johnson Air
Force Base and only one hour’s drive
from the booming Triangle region, the
inland counties have grown relatively
slowly. Jones County has fewer residents
now than it did in 1930. In the two
decades since the completion of I-40,
Duplin has grown more quickly than the
other inland counties. The region
reached a population of 663,883 in the
2010 census. If PlanIt EAST population
projections are realized, the region will
have a million more people and over
300,000 more civilian jobs by 2050.
Details regarding the 2050 population
projections are provided in the
EnvisionEAST-2050 Guidebook.
Existing residential density in the PlanIt
EAST region includes expanses of very
low density rural areas, low density
suburbs, isolated low density
developments and a few areas of higher
density in the cities and along the coast.
Regional growth-related issues are
complex. For some of the region’s
residents, the expected regional growth
offers opportunity for economic
development and needed community
improvements; others are concerned
that the same growth will threaten their
quality of life and change what they love
about the region.
EnvisionEAST-2050 Population
1,800,000
Projected Growth
1,600,000
2010 Population
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Source:PlanIt EAST
Open space remains a signature feature
of our nine-county region. The strength
of the region’s economy, whether
agriculture (farms and forests), fishing,
construction, or recreation, is linked to
the quality of its open space. With the
expansion of developed land, the region
Page |4
has experienced a significant loss of
agriculture and other open space. .
The region’s 3,809 farms cover a total of
approximately 920,000 acres of the
region. Together these farms generate
an annual market value of products
crops and livestock sold of almost $2.5
billion, approximately 24% of the state’s
total. The PlanIt EAST region lost 10.1%
of its farmland (2,100 acres) recently.
As farmers in Wayne County,
we wanted to participate
because of agriculture. It’s
the #1 industry in the state.
The 76 billion that it brings
here often times is overlooked.
We felt like bringing
agriculture to the table today
was a very important part of
this exercise.
Debbie Worley, Bryant Worley Farms
Most of this loss is to urban
development although some acreage has
been lost for wetland mitigation. One of
the challenges in dealing with this issue
is that often agricultural land is worth
more developed than in farming. Faced
with this choice, farmers are hard
pressed not to sell their land. In North
Carolina almost 60% of the land is still
forested and most of it is privatelyowned. As with agriculture, North
Carolina is losing working forestlands.
From 1974 to 2002 the state lost almost
two million acres to development; others
are fragmented into smaller blocks by
new roads, houses, and businesses. The
prospect of growth in the PlanIt EAST
region raises concern about the loss of
the community character found in the
rich history and heritage of its rural
areas, urban spaces and small towns.
The PlanIt EAST region has
approximately 300,000 housing units
(86% single family and 13% percent
multifamily). Jacksonville, Goldsboro,
New Bern and Havelock, Kinston and
Morehead City are the most urban
places in the region. The larger towns,
Mount Olive, Burgaw, Newport, Trent
Woods, Beaufort, Emerald Isle, River
Bend, Wallace and Warsaw include
historic towns and suburban
subdivisions. The region has thirty-four
small towns with populations under
1,000. Most of the region’s seasonal
housing units are located in Carteret,
Pamlico and Pender Counties. These
three coastal counties have significantly
higher proportions of seasonal housing
relative to the size of their housing stock.
Committed roadway improvements in
the PlanIt EAST region as shown on
North Carolina’s Intrastate System map
include US 70, US 17, and NC 24. By
2010, an increasing number of people in
the PlanIt EAST region were employed
outside their county of residence. Travel
time to work currently ranges from a 20
to a 28-minute commute. Seventy-six
percent of those commuters drove to
work alone. In the PlanIt EAST region
today, existing transit hubs are located in
Goldsboro, Kenansville, Kinston,
Morehead City and New Bern.
The military is North Carolina’s second
largest economic sector, with military
activities contributing about $26 billion
or 7% of the state’s gross product as
Page |5
goods and services each year. North
Carolina is home to the third largest
concentration of military personnel in
the nation. In total, more than 416,000
individuals, or 8% of total state
employment, are either directly
employed by the military or Coast Guard,
or have jobs with organizations and
companies producing products and
providing services that support the
military in the state. Defense
procurement in North Carolina increased
from $3.6 billion in 2010 to $4.1 billion in
2011, with businesses in 87 of North
Carolina’s 100 counties performing
defense-related prime contracts in 2011.
…if nothing changes, the
military will eventually be run
out of North Carolina
MajGen Carl Jensen, USMC
Yet, according to one of North Carolina's
most senior military leaders, "… if
nothing changes, the military will
eventually be run out of North Carolina."
Many regions like ours, throughout the
United States, have suffered this fate
and all were caught off-guard when it
happened. The Comparative
Communities Analysis and the
EnvisionEAST-2050 Participants
Guidebook provide a comprehensive
discussion of this issue.
(See www.planiteast.org)
One of the challenges for participants
during the EnvisionEAST-2050 exercise
will be to consider ways in which the
PlanIt EAST region will assimilate a
million more residents without
sacrificing the utility (and therefore the
existence) of its military installations.
Military-compatible land uses include
agriculture, forestry, and undeveloped/
natural/conservation/hunting and
wildlife lands. Conversion of these lands
to residential and commercial uses can
constrict the use of military training
areas, present obstacles to low-flying
aircraft, interfere with night-time
training through light pollution, degrade
electronic navigation and
communication frequencies used by the
military, etc. The EnvisionEAST-2050
Regional Map depicts the military
installations and Military Training
Routes.
Page |6
Section 2
EnvisionEAST-2050
Page |7
The Event and
the Process
EnvisionEAST-2050 was a unique event
that brought together a diverse group of
political, business and community
leaders to envision the future of their
region.
It’s great to see eastern North
Carolina all together under one
roof discussing things of mutual
interest and concern. The
conversations have been
enlightening and insightful; it’s
daunting and exciting at the same
time.
Mike Alford, NC Board of Transportation
The 333 participants were selected from
hundreds more who applied online.
Participants included leaders from large
corporations, small businesses,
developers, elected officials,
conservationists and civic leaders. At the
EnvisionEAST-2050 event, each of the
participants was assigned to one of 31
tables and charged with visioning where
to locate projected population, jobs and
Page |8
All of us came here today perhaps a little skeptical, certainly a little apprehensive, not knowing exactly
what we were going to do but I was really pleased and quite surprised at how the group, at least at my
table worked together. The exchange of thoughts and ideas was refreshing and I think that we came up
with a lot better ideas than if any one of us had tried to do it by ourselves.
Bill Naumann, Chairman – Coastal Carolina Airport Authority
the transportation infrastructure to
connect them. Each table included a
trained facilitator and a scribe to work
with the participants.
Participant Guidebooks were distributed
at participant orientations held in
Jacksonville, Kinston and Havelock. The
same information was available at PlanIt
EAST.org. The EnvisionEAST-2050
Regional Map showed existing
development, agricultural lands,
wetlands, existing and funded
transportation and Military Training
Routes, was gridded, with each cell
equaling approximately a mile square.
Participants at each table had a set of
colored LEGO bricks used to allocate
projected densities and jobs and four
colors of yarn to identify road, rail,
transit and green corridors. Each LEGO
brick occupies one square on the map
grid. One yellow brick represents 1500
people (540 households) or about one
household per acre. One blue brick
represents 1500 seasonal residents. One
red LEGO brick represents 1900 jobs or
on an average three jobs per acre. In all,
each table had 888 blocks to place.
Black, blue and orange yarn indicated
mobility preferences. Black yarn
represented future regional roadways;
blue yarn stood for new or expanded rail
lines. Orange yarn signified new regional
public transit options.
According to the rules of the exercise,
regional growth projections were not
negotiable. Participants were advised to
think big, keep an open mind, and to be
bold and creative in their approach.
Before positioning LEGO bricks on the
board, participants were invited to list
and prioritize a set of guiding principles
which would guide their location of
growth and transportation resources.
After the morning exercise, the
volunteer facilitators and scribes
recorded the population and
employment LEGO bricks placed on each
of the cells at all 31 tables. Since that
time, the regional maps have been
reviewed in detail.
Page |9
Keynote Speakers
Our speakers delivered candid insights
and inspiration to the EnvisionEAST-2050
participants. Links to videos of their
presentations are presented on
www.PlanItEAST.org.
single thing about the region you live in,
everything that you love unless you plan
for the future.”
that “The only way that we will be able
to realize the visions that you’ve come
up with today is by partnering. Together
we can succeed. Individually, I
guarantee you, we will be eaten alive.”
Major General Jensen, USMC (Ret.)
Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society
Ed McMahon
ULI’s Senior Resident Fellow
Ed McMahon kicked off the day
challenging participants “Growth and
change are coming to eastern North
Carolina and to your nine-county region.
A lot of people, I understand, don’t like
change but the world is changing
whether you like it or not. There are two
kinds of change, planned and unplanned
change and I promise you that
unplanned change will destroy every
Until recently General Jensen was the
Commanding General, Marine Corps
Installations – East and is now Executive
Vice President and Chief Operating
Officer of the Navy-Marine Corps Relief
Society. General Jensen spoke about
the importance of regional cooperation,
building partnerships across entities,
leveraging each other’s expertise, time
and money. He spoke of the Sentinel
Landscape prototype program which
links working lands, conservation and
national defense and advised the group
Patrick Woodie, Vice President
North Carolina Rural Economic
Development Center
Patrick Woodie applauded participants
for “a truly incredible and very
impressive event” and the forethought
of visioning the future. He reminded us
that North Carolina is a “state of small
towns” and closed with a warning that “I
am from Raleigh but I will be the first to
tell you that the cavalry is not coming.
You are the cavalry.”
P a g e | 10
Section 3
Alternative Land Use Patterns
P a g e | 11
Land Use
Patterns
Developed by
Participants
While each of the 31 tables created a
unique vision for the future, some
similarities emerged. The land use
patterns below are examples of four
generalized land-use patterns
developed by EnvisionEAST-2050
participants.




Corridor Focus
Multiple Growth Centers
Dispersed Growth
Compact Urban
Each of these patterns produces its
own range of benefits and challenges.
Many tables placed their LEGO bricks
in ways that represent a hybrid of
these patterns.
P a g e | 12
Corridor Focus
This land use pattern is characterized by
town centers that are smaller in scale
than the regional centers, but more
compact and mixed than traditional
suburban development. This is
sometimes called “String of Pearls”
pattern. Most new growth is focused
along new and existing transportation
corridors (US 70, US 17, I-40, NC 24, etc.)
where pockets of mixed-use housing
over retail are surrounded by a variety of
housing types. Some jobs are located
near housing, but many more jobs are
not. There would need to be a
substantial number of town center and
corridor developments to assume the
bulk of new growth. This urban form is
relatively more compact than the lower
density Dispersed Growth scenario.
Density: mix of low and medium densities,
with some pockets of high density
Uses: some new development mixed-use
Transit: sufficient densities in some
locations to support diverse options
Tables in this category: 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 28
and 30
Example: Table 8
P a g e | 13
Multiple Growth Centers
Rather than concentrating growth in just
the largest cities, this scenario created
distinct regional centers by clustering
growth into well-defined areas. This
higher-density development helps
maintain open spaces at the periphery
for recreation or natural functions. Some
regional centers are characterized by
urban infill and the revitalization of
existing downtown areas; others would
emerge as new urban areas. These
centers typically have groups of 2 to 5
yellow LEGO bricks and plentiful jobs to
create a mix of uses.
Density: broad mix, including substantial
medium and high density areas.
Uses: much new development mixed-use
Transit: sufficient densities in some
locations to support diverse options
Tables in this category: 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 20,
21, 23, 24 and 25
Example: Table 23
P a g e | 14
Dispersed Growth
This land use scenario resembles current
low density land-use patterns. Some
higher-density development in urban
centers occurs in this scenario, but the
bulk of residential construction would
occur as low density single-family
residences. Many jobs are dispersed to
smaller office and industrial parks, with
most employment and retail separated
from residences. The Dispersed Growth
tables also placed a substantial amount
of housing in currently rural areas.
Density: very low and low density, with
small areas of medium and high density
Uses: mostly single use zoning with pockets
of mixed-use
Transit: most new development largely
automobile dependent
Tables in this category: 2, 3, 4, 13, 16, 17,
18, 19, 22, 27 and 29
Example: Table 27
P a g e | 15
Compact Urban
Central cities are characterized by
compact urban infill and gradual
redevelopment at higher densities. In
this scenario, the bulk of the population
was allocated to the largest cities. In
several places as many as 12 yellow
LEGO bricks were stacked up, indicating
a preference for higher density
development that has no current
precedent in our region. Very few new
areas would be developed at less than
medium density. In time, certain key
areas could reach significant densities.
Central cities maximize the use of
existing infrastructure and provide the
greatest transit accessibility. A more
compact urban form, access to plentiful
transit options and a high degree of
mixed-use development produces the
greatest climate change benefits of any
participant scenario.
Density: broad mix, including substantial
medium, high, and very high density areas
Uses: most new development mixed-use,
either vertically or horizontally
Transit: sufficient densities to support
diverse options; greatest transit ridership.
Tables in this category: 14, 26, 31
Example: Table 31 (Young Professionals
Table)
P a g e | 16
.
Location of
Proposed Future
Growth
Wayne
County
18%
2010 Census
Population
Pender
County
8%
Reviewing the 31 participant tables’
approaches to locating future land use,
reveals how a diverse group of
community leaders prefer to see the
PlanIt EAST region develop.
Based on a compilation the 31 tables’
results, Jones, Lenoir and Wayne
Counties are expected to increase their
percentage of the overall regional yearround population. Carteret, Craven,
Onslow and Pender Counties are
expected to decrease their percentage of
the PlanIt EAST’s regional overall
population. Duplin and Pamlico County’s
percentages stay the same.
Craven
County
16%
Pamlico
County
2%
Onslow
County
27%
Overall, distribution of population across
the PlanIt EAST region varies from the
2010 Census distribution.
Carteret
County
10%
Duplin
County
9%
Lenoir
County
9%
Jones
County
1%
Source: 2010 US Census
Wayne
County
21%
2050
Population
as Distributed
on the
EnvisionEAST
Participant
Tables
Pender
County
5%
Carteret
County
8%
Craven
County
15%
Pamlico
County
2%
Onslow
County
25%
Source: EnvisionEAST-2050
Duplin
County
9%
Lenoir
County
13%
Jones
County
2%
P a g e | 17
Proposed
Development
In EnvisionEAST-2050, participants used
LEGO bricks reflecting a base density of
approximately one unit per acre. Even
though this density exceeds the existing
density of many parts of the region, only
four tables used the basic density for a
majority of the cells with residential
development. All of the 31 tables used
densities in excess of the one unit per
acre base density on parts of the
regional map. At two tables (Table 5 and
Table 31), the base density was used on
only five percent of the map’s residential
development cells; the remaining
residential cells included increased
densities. On the next three pages, you
find maps indicating the compilation
results from all 31 tables for population,
employment and seasonal housing.
Population/Housing Units
Map 1 shows the frequency of yellow
LEGO bricks, or household distribution
per grid cell and density concentrations.
Twenty-eight of the 31 participant tables
included square miles with residential
densities of four units per acre or
higher. Usually this density occurred in
multi-square mile clusters of residential
and mixed use growth. Nine tables
included square miles with residential
densities of eight units per acre or
higher.
Maximum densities of ten, eleven and
twelve units per acre were each
recorded on one table each. The highest
residential densities were located in or
near Arapahoe, Belfast, Beulaville,
Bridgeton, Camp Lejeune, Castle Hayne
industrial, Cherry Point, Global
TransPark, Goldsboro, Hampstead,
Jacksonville, Kenansville, Kinston,
LaGrange, Morehead City, Mt Olive,
New Bern, Oriental, Pender Industrial
area, Pender County on Hwy 421,
Brice’s Creek, Sneads Ferry, St Helena
east of US40, Swansboro, Trent Woods,
River Bend and James City. Multiple
square miles of development was
proposed in all of these locations with
the square miles of higher density
usually coupled with square miles of
midrange densities.
In communities where low-density
development is the only available option,
it often spreads haphazardly across the
countryside, consuming farmland at
alarming rates, traffic increases,
commuters drive longer distances, and
subdivisions have no sense of community.
Some communities have allowed nodes
of more dense development near or even
in existing urban areas, but a common
community response to higher-density
residential development has been to
oppose any and all density. Design is a
key element to approval of these
developments, particularly if they are
new to an area or if they include
affordable housing elements.
Jones County’s treatment by the
participants was interesting in light of
population projections by others which
show no growth in the county’s future.
Map 1 shows concentrations of new
development and the analysis shows
Jones County capturing 2% of the 2050
population growth.
Employment
Map 3 shows the frequency of red LEGO
bricks, or employment distribution, per
P a g e | 18
grid cell. The darker colors indicating the
more intense concentrations are focused
in Goldsboro, Kinston, New Bern,
Jacksonville, Global TransPark, Havelock,
Morehead City, Richlands, Kenansville,
Mt Olive, Burgaw and other locations
including along the coast and on the
region’s military installations.
In addition to locating employment on
the Regional Maps, a few tables
described preferred locations for
employment in the guiding principles,
barriers and solutions text developed by
the tables. These locations include the
Global TransPark, Craven 30 (housing,
mixed use, movie production), around
seasonal population, around military
installations, Kinston and close to
housing, along 17.
Second/Seasonal Housing Units
Map 2 shows the frequency of blue
LEGO bricks or second/seasonal
household distribution per grid cell. The
number of seasonal units allocated for
EnvisionEAST-2050 was related to the
2010 Census ratio between permanent
and seasonal units in the PlanIt EAST
region. A few tables indicated that there
should be more seasonal units than they
were provided. Generally, the
participants placed the future units along
the beaches and the Intercoastal
Waterway plus Bogue, Cape Carteret,
Cedar Point and Swansboro). New
seasonal units were also proposed
around Arapahoe, Oriental, Vandemere
and Bayboro and Bridgeton. The scribe’s
notes from one table indicated that there
were questions among participants
regarding seasonal housing units. Some
thought that the category applied to
farmworker housing (this would explain
the rural location of some of these units).
P a g e | 19
MAP 1
MAP 1
Proposed 2050
Residential
Intensity
Residential
Intensity
# of LEGO
square
mile mile
# of bricks
LEGO per
bricks
per square
1
2-5
6-10
11-20
21+
P a g e | 20
MAP 2
Proposed 2050
Seasonal Residential Intensity
# of LEGO bricks per square mile
1
2-5
6-10
11-20
21+
P a g e | 21
1
MAP 3
Proposed 2050
Employment Intensity
1
2-5
6-10
11-20
21+
2-5
6-10
11-20
21+
# of LEGO bricks per square mile
P a g e | 22
Growth in Areas
with Existing
Development
EnvisionEAST-2050 participants
focused a significant amount of growth
in and around the region’s cities and
towns. Opportunities for infill and
redevelopment, particularly in the
region’s cities, involve both residential
and non-residential land uses.
Concentrating growth in urban centers
allows existing infrastructure and new
investments to be used more
efficiently and effectively, and
prioritized for areas that are planning
for and accommodating growth.
Places like Arapahoe, Beulaville,
Bridgeton, Hampstead, Jacksonville,
Kenansville, Kinston, LaGrange,
Morehead City, Mt Olive, New Bern,
Oriental, Sneads Ferry, Swansboro and
Trent Woods, new residential density
was usually placed adjacent to existing
development but a few tables placed
their LEGO bricks on top of the
mapped existing development
indicating an infill or redevelopment
scheme.
P a g e | 23
Jobs/Housing
Balance
Participants at many tables agreed that
the region should achieve a better
jobs/housing balance and all of the
tables placed people and jobs in every
county, a pattern that could reduce
commuting times in the future.
Some of the tables balanced the new
population and employment better
than others. A compilation of results
from all 31 tables for population and
employment is shown in the graphics
to the right.
Carteret County
Craven County
Duplin County
Jones County
Lenoir County
Onslow County
Pamlico County
Pender County
Wayne County
Higher %
Population
Population
Employment
Employment
Employment
Population
Population
Population
Employment
% of New Population - 2050
Wayne
13%
Carteret
9%
Craven
13%
Pender
12%
Duplin
8%
Pamlico
6%
Jones
8%
Onslow
20%
Lenoir
11%
% of New Employment - 2050
Wayne
16%
Carteret
9%
Craven
12%
Pender
10%
Duplin
10%
Pamlico
3%
Onslow
18%
Jones
9%
Lenoir
13%
P a g e | 24
Section 4
Proposed Road, Rail and Transit
P a g e | 25
Proposed Road,
Rail and Transit
Participants asked for a lot more yarn
(representing roads, rail and transit)
than anticipated. They noted a need
to make sensible transportation
investments. The alternative patterns
differed significantly in their
approaches and infrastructure costs.
Multi-Modal
A few of the tables depicted multimodal options in the same corridors.
Generally these were road/rail
combinations, often located in existing
highway corridors. Included were:




Goldsboro to I-40, then continue
south with rail and transit to US 17
east of NC 133.
Goldsboro following US 70 as far as
Morehead
North side of Camp Lejeune (NC 24
and 258) following the west side of
Camp Lejeune to Holly Ridge.
Holly Ridge following US 17 to
Wilmington.
P a g e | 26
Road

Tables included from 26 to 132 miles
of new roadway miles, with the
average being 86 miles. The costs
represented in the graphic to the right
represent the specific development
plan proposed in each example table.


Participants proposed a wide variety of
roadway plans in EnvisionEAST-2050.
Many of the tables commented on the
need for better connections to I-40.
Other improvements to both I-40, 70
were often proposed. Additional
proposals included:
 US 70 west into Maysville
 Better connecting roads to US 70
 New road from Maysville to Cape
Carteret to Emerald Isle
 Hwy 241 Pink Hill to Beulaville
 Hwy 11 bypass of Kinston
 Connecting I-40 and 795
 Improved NC 58
 Rock road through Croatan
 US 17 bypass from near Oak Grove
OLF to US 17 north of Vanceboro
Also US 70 bypass north of Kinston
starting at Dover to LaGrange
 Road in Carteret County to Open
Grounds Farm

Hwy 111 connector to a proposed residential development on the south side of
the Neuse River between Adams Creek and South River.
Expanded between Jacksonville and Burgaw
Road between Goldsboro and I-40 (thru Mt Olive), south 70 bypass from
Goldsboro past Kinston
Improved 258 between Kinston and Richlands
Bridges
New bridges were included in many of the tables. These proposed bridges connect
Minnesot Beach to Cherry Point and connect an island community (Emerald Isle, Pine
Knoll Shores and Topsail Beach) to the mainland. An improved/widened bridge was
also proposed to Emerald Isle.
New Infrastructure - Road
Cost per Example Development Pattern
$1,000,000,000
$900,000,000
$800,000,000
$700,000,000
Average Cost
for all tables
$609,138,000
$600,000,000
$500,000,000
$400,000,000
$300,000,000
$200,000,000
$100,000,000
$0
Corridor
Multi Growth
Dispersed
Compact Urban
P a g e | 27
Rail
Rail was added as an EnvisionEAST2050 participant consideration at the
first Participant Orientation. Including
rail in the development pattern was
very popular among the tables. A few
tables proposed no additional rail in
their development scheme; the other
tables included up to 331 miles of new
rail miles, with the average being 106
miles of rail proposed. The costs shown
in the graphic to the right represent
the specific development plan
proposed in each example table. Rail
was proposed in these locations:
 MCBCL to Raleigh
 Morehead to the Global TransPark
 from 40 corridor to Wilmington
 Jacksonville to Wilmington
adjacent to US 17
 Princeton to Morehead City
following the existing and historic
railroad alignment
 Wallace to Wilmington
 Raleigh to Goldsboro to
Wilmington
 Global TransPark along US 70 to
Beaufort to Morehead City
New Infrastructure - Rail
Cost per Example Development Pattern
$1,400,000,000
$1,200,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$800,000,000
$600,000,000
Average Cost
for all tables
$561,800,000
$400,000,000
$200,000,000
$0
Corridor
Multi Growth
Dispersed
Compact Urban
P a g e | 28
Transit
Transit was proposed on most tables
ranging up to 388 miles, with the
average being 128 miles of transit
proposed. Notes from some tables
indicated a need for transit in certain
locations:
 New Bern to Goldsboro
 Jacksonville to the US 70 corridor
at Havelock
 I-40 corridor to Wilmington
 Camp Lejeune to Cherry Point
 Cherry Point along US 70 to New
Bern and then west of New Bern
 Morehead City to New Bern
 Goldsboro-New Bern-Morehead
City
 New Bern following NC 55 to
Bayboro and then to Oriental
 Cherry Point and Camp Lejeune
 Goldsboro along US 70 to New
Bern to Morehead City
 Beaufort to Morehead City and
along US 24 thru Camp Lejeune
 Camp Lejeune along US 17 to
Wilmington
 Jacksonville/Swansboro/Cedar
Point
 New Bern to Vanceboro
New Infrastructure - Transit
Cost per Example Development Pattern
$5,000,000
$4,500,000
$4,000,000
Average Cost
for all tables
$3,627,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
Corridor
Multi Growth
Dispersed
Compact Urban
P a g e | 29
Section 5
Land Use Impacts
P a g e | 30
Land Required
for Future
Development
After the EnvisionEAST-2050 exercise,
the volunteer facilitators and scribes
recorded the population and job LEGO
bricks placed on each of the cells at all
31 tables1. Land required for future
development as well as impacts on
agriculture, open space, military
training routes were analyzed in detail.
miles), Dispersed Growth (401 square miles) and the Compact Urban pattern (156
square miles). Clearly, the impact depends on exactly where future development is
located, but all of the example patterns have significantly less impact than the
existing pattern provides.
Land Required for Future Development
1400
1200
1000
The land required for development is
illustrated in the graphic to the right. If
development trends continue as they
are today, approximately 1150 square
miles could be impacted by new
growth.
By comparison, the alternative
patterns have significantly less impact:
Corridor Focus (313 square miles),
Multiple Growth Centers (211 square
1
There were “challenges” on the event day with
recording the LEGO brick placement in the time
allotted on the agenda. Many of the volunteers
stayed after the event to finish this task.
800
600
400
200
0
Existing
Corridor
Multi Growth
Dispersed
Compact Urban
P a g e | 31
Impact on
Agriculture
Protecting agriculture and two other regional economic drivers was chosen by participants
as their #1 guiding principle and was listed as a key guiding principle on 14 of the tables.
This concern was demonstrated on their visions for the region. Some of the tables put
green yarn around agricultural areas to be protected. Other tables concentrated on
limiting the impact of development on agriculture by focusing development away from
existing agricultural areas. Many tables noted participant discussion on the 44,000 acre
Open Grounds Farm in Carteret County. One table decided by vote to get rid of the
residential development that was proposed on the site.
The graphic below illustrates the dramatic difference in the acreage converted from farms
and forests to development depending on the 2050 vision for the PlanIt EAST region. If
development trends continue as they are today, approximately 187 square miles would be
impacted. By comparison, the alternative patterns have significantly less impact: Corridor
Focus (45 square miles), Multiple Growth Centers (38 square miles), Dispersed Growth (65
square miles) and the Compact Urban pattern would convert less than 20 square miles.
.
Farms and Forests
Potential Acreage Converted to Development
Sq Mi
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Existing
Corridor
Multi Growth
Dispersed
Compact Urban
P a g e | 32
Impact on
Wetlands
Many of the participant tables put green yarn around wetland areas to be protected
(Hoffman Forest area was the most frequently designated preserve area) and/or
greenways to be developed. These areas are distributed across the region and include:
The potential impact on wetlands is
clear in the graphic to the right which
illustrates the significant difference in
the potential impacts to wetlands if
existing development practices
continue and under any of the
alternative visions for the PlanIt EAST
region. If today’s development trends
continue, approximately 95 square
miles of wetlands could be impacted
by development.








Greenways connecting game lands and wetlands
Greenways along waterways including the Neuse River and Trent River
Connections from the Croatan National Forest to Cedar Island
Greenways between Camp Lejeune, Hoffman Forest and Croatan National Forest
A narrow greenway path from New Bern to the rest of the state
A reservoir for water and green space south of Walnut Creek in Wayne County
A large peninsular east of Havelock, Hoffman Forest, a greenbelt along Neuse River
south of Seymour Johnson to center of region
A large green area connecting Hoffman Forest and Seven Springs
Potential Wetland Impacts
Sq Mi
100
The potential impacts depend on how
future development is designed, but all
example patterns have significantly
less impact than the existing pattern
provides. For example, the Multiple
Growth Center pattern could impact
22 square miles of wetlands, the
Dispersed Growth could impact 33
square miles and the Compact Urban
pattern could impact less than seven
square miles.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Existing
Corridor
Multi Growth
Dispersed
Compact Urban
P a g e | 33
Impact on Military
Training Routes
EnvisionEAST-2050 addressed an
important part of long range training
mission needs, the extent of the
region’s Air Force and Marine Corps
training space including “white space”
(off-base air and land corridors) that
connect military bases and airfields
with remote training ranges.
The Participants’ Guidebook set out
the background to this challenge and
the importance of the military to the
region’s economy. Military Training
Routes (MTR) were depicted on the
Regional Map and the impact of
proposed development analyzed.
Protecting the military and two other
regional economic drivers was chosen
by participants as their #1 guiding
principle and was listed as a key
guiding principle on 20 of the tables.
Even those participants who wanted to
avoid proposing negative impacts on
the MTR found it challenging since the
mapped areas were so expansive and included areas like the city of New Bern which
otherwise should have additional development. Participants at one table, committed to
avoid the Military Training Routes, outlining them with a yellow highlighter to assist in
their focus. Notes from a number of tables noted the participant desire to keep densities
down in MTR areas and notes from two of the tables included participant statements:
The potential impact on the existing MTRs is clear in the graphic below. It shows the
dramatic difference in impact to the region’s MTRs depending on the 2050 vision for the
PlanIt EAST region. If development trends continue as they are today, approximately 532
square miles of existing MTRs would be impacted by new development. The impact
depends on exactly where future development is located, but all of the example patterns
have significantly less impact than the existing pattern provides: Corridor Focus (164
square miles), Multiple Growth Centers (108 square miles), Dispersed Growth (184 square
miles). T and the Compact Urban pattern could impact less than 85 square miles.
Potential Military Training Route Impacts
Sq Mi
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Existing
Corridor
Multi Growth
Dispersed
Compact Urban
P a g e | 34
Impacts on Small
Towns
Except for Goldsboro, other cities and
towns showing more than double their
population on one of the example
Regional Maps have 2010 Census
populations of less than 25,500. Most
of these incorporated areas have 2010
populations of less than 7,500. These
include Alliance, Arapahoe, Atkinson,
Atlantic Beach, Bayboro, Beaufort,
Beulaville, Bogue, Bridgeton, Burgaw,
Calypso, Cape Carteret, Cedar Point,
Cove City, Dover, Emerald Isle, Eureka,
Faison, Fremont, Greenevers, Harrels,
Holly Ridge, Indian Beach, Kenansville,
La Grange, Magnolia, Maysville, Mesic,
Minnesott Beach, Mt. Olive, Newport,
North Topsail Beach, Oriental, Peletier,
Pikeville, Pine Knoll Shores, Pink Hill,
Pollocksville, Richlands, River Bend,
Rose Hill, Seven Springs, St. Helena,
Stonewall, Surf City, Swansboro,
Teachey, Topsail Beach, Trent Woods,
Trenton, Vanceboro, Vandemere,
Wallace, Walnut Creek, Warsaw, and
Watha. Some of these towns have
already been absorbed by sprawling
development, but most are established
communities with a sense of place and unique assets. These small towns can benefit by
the expected area growth but growth could also threaten their quality of life and
community character. Swansboro is notable for the extent of residential development
proposed on the example Regional Maps as compared to existing development. On
three of the example tables, participants placed yellow LEGO bricks representing over
16,500 people, compared to a 2010 population of 2,193.
Rural working landscapes are an integral part of our heritage that
must be preserved for future generations. If we do not save our
agricultural areas, we will destroy the rustic landscape that attracts
and retains people and industry to North Carolina.
NC Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund
P a g e | 35
Section 6
Participant Polling
P a g e | 36
Participant
Polling
EnvisionEAST-2050 participants were
asked to think about what principles
should guide our growth, what barriers
would need to be overcome to realize
a vision, and what solutions could work
for our region. It is important to note
that the participants were not given
set concepts to choose from but were
asked to develop their own.
EnvisionEAST-2050 super facilitators
reviewed multiple entries regarding
the guiding principles, barriers and
solutions from the individual tables
and grouped concepts together to
facilitate participant polling. The top
six of each were polled at the event.
Using handheld polling devices,
participants registered their priorities
in the following categories: Guiding
Principles, Barriers, and Solutions. A
review of the guiding principles,
barriers and solutions proposed by the
EnvisionEAST-2050 participant tables
has been completed.
The table below shows the participants’ priorities for Guiding Principles, Barriers, and
Solutions. Viewed by county, polling results are very different. For example, a
Solution of “Invest in education” was selected by 19% of the participants but chosen
by 0% of the Pamlico County participants, 6% of Carteret County participants, 42% of
Lenoir County participants and 41% of Jones County participants. See the Appendix.
Guiding Principles
Barriers
Solutions
Protect / promote
the region's
economic drivers agriculture, military
and tourism.
56%
Inadequate
38%
infrastructure and /
or funding.
Provide a vision and 23%
leadership.
Maintain and
improve quality of
life
15%
Financial realities.
26%
Improve regional
governace and
regional planning.
Protect and conserve 14%
open spaces,
agricultural lands,
and natural
resources.
Lack of regional
collaboration.
23%
Invest in education. 19%
Promote compact
and sustainable
development.
9%
Too much
regulation.
6%
Invest in
infrastructure.
19%
Improve regional
transportation.
4%
Environmental
constraints.
5%
Educate people to
issues and quality
growth.
17%
Leverage existing
infrastructure.
2%
Military
encroachment.
3%
Provide local control 2%
and less regulation.
21%
P a g e | 37
Guiding Principles
Protect/promote the region's economic
drivers - agriculture, military and
tourism (19 tables) There was a solid
consensus on this guiding principle, with
19 tables listing it, or an aspect of it, as a
necessary principle in addressing
regional growth. These tables specifically
mentioned the economic aspect of the
desired protection. Emphasis and focus
varied:
 Protecting the economic driver agriculture (8 tables)
 Protecting the economic driver military (11 tables)
 Protecting the economic driver tourism (5 tables)
Protect/promote the region's
agriculture, military, tourism, natural
resources, etc. (26 tables) This guiding
principle is broader than the guiding
principle listed above and the consensus
is even more solid. The difference is that
these tables did not relate the protection
to economic development. As above,
emphasis and focus are varied:
 Protecting agriculture (14 tables)
 Protecting the military (20 tables)
 Protecting tourism (3 tables)
 Protecting natural resources (8
tables)
 Protecting open space (5 tables)
 Protecting coastal resources (7
tables)
 Protecting water resources (4 tables)
Leverage existing infrastructure (16
tables) Most of the tables that included
listed this guiding principle generally in
phrases like “Utilize existing
infrastructure where possible” ,
“Minimize infrastructure costs; use
existing infrastructure” , “Guide
development toward existing
infrastructure”, and “Maximize the use
of existing infrastructure”. A few
mentioned water, transportation, rail,
school infrastructure specifically.
Promote compact and sustainable
development (10 tables) Most of these
tables mentioned “Promote sustainable
development” or “Promote cluster
development” but a few listed pursuing
in-fill development and avoiding strip
development as one of their guiding
principles. One table listed “Growth in
and around town and city centers” as its
guiding principle and another listed
“Reuse – build inward”.
Maintain and improve quality of life (10
tables) As with many of the guiding
principles most tables listed quality of
life generally but there were exceptions.
One table listed “Balance quality of life
(golf, hunting and fishing) and economic
development” and another listed as one
of its guiding principles “High quality of
life and protecting existing identity”.
Related to this issue are the guiding
principles: “Protect cultural heritage”,
“Maximize uniqueness value – small
town feel, community feeling”.
Improve regional transportation (16
tables) These tables emphasized mobility
choices - transit, roads, rail and bike as a
value and guiding principle.
P a g e | 38
Barriers
Compared to the guiding principles,
tables differed more about the barriers
to realizing their growth vision for 2050
but common themes emerged including:
Insufficient infrastructure and/or
insufficient infrastructure funding (25
tables) Insufficient water and sewer
infrastructure was the most noted
barrier to accommodating growth.
Tables emphasized the need for water,
sewer, roads, rail, electric and
broadband. Two tables listed needed
expansion to the port of Morehead City
and one table each included health care
and food infrastructure. A few tables
included the current state of education
and schools as barriers. The text
includes “education”, “lack of education
and university in the area”, “educational
attainment”, job training/education”,
and “labor skillset/education”. The
tables also expressed concern that
existing infrastructure is aging and that
rights-of-way are inadequate. In that
same vein, tables identified a concern
with funding for infrastructure
expansion.
Funding (16 tables) Most of these tables
simply mentioned “Funding”, “Money”,
or “Finances”. Others listed “State of the
Economy/economic health”, “Capital
constraints”, and “Budget”.
Environmental constraints and issues
(14 tables) “Wetlands”, “environmental
constraints”, “environmental concerns”
and “natural barriers to development”
were often mentioned as barriers by
these tables. Climate change/sea level
rise was cited by five tables.
Lack of regional collaboration (14
tables) This barrier was characterized by
some tables as “Lack of regional
cooperation/ cohesion/collaboration”.
Other tables referred to “Limited
working across county and agency lines”,
“lack of regional plan and education”,
lack of leadership at regional scale”,
“must have regional transportation
strategy”, “develop more regional
agencies”, “lack of jurisdiction
collaboration – regionalism has not
happened until now – there is fighting
for economic development between
jurisdictions”, “lack of leadership and
vision, collaboration at a larger scale”,
“inter-jurisdictional coordination in
supporting/funding projects is difficult”,
“lack of coordination in zoning between
municipalities and counties”, “lack of
regional planning authority”, and “lack of
regional constraints – political and public
(zoning regulations)”.
The military (13 tables) Tables
mentioned the military as a barrier to
future in a number of different ways
including “military growth/decline”.
Other barrier entries include “future
military training”, military loss,
technology advances – less need for
troops”, “military protectionism – air –
land – space”, “impacts for military that
are outside the region”, “military
cooperation”, “military priorities”, “base
realignment, sequestration”, “BRAC”,
“conflicting uses and flight paths”,
“military security concerns”, “military
base reductions” and “military
encroachment policy”.
Too much regulation (10 tables) Most
of these tables focused on
environmental regulations but some
broadened their description of
regulatory barriers: “environmental
controls”, “environmental restrictions
(endangered species, etc.)”, “regulatory
P a g e | 39
barriers (wetland permits, land use
regulations, etc.), “over-regulation,
environmental red tape”, “increased
regulation”, “environmental regulations
and permitting”, federal and state red
tape – zoning”, “existing land use
plans/zoning/policies/ regulations”,
“environmental regulations/hoops”,
“environmental restrictions from
regulatory requirements”, “regulations
that prohibit growth”, “international,
federal, state, county and agency
regulations” and “limitations posed by
regulations”.
Resistance to change (10 tables) These
barriers include “opposition of existing
residents”, “public consensus”, “current
mindset on more land for individuals the
better”, “cultural changes/cooperation”,
“public pressure and public support
(consensus building). Convincing people
that density is okay. Negative public
image at some locations”, resistance to
growth (residents and politicians, need
to create a story for common
motivation”, “retirees not buying into
future development”, “expectation of
continuance of existing patterns of
development”, “buy-in from community
for development changes”, ” resistance
to zoning/change”, and “bipartisanship
or incumbent maintain status quo”.
Risks (8 tables) The barriers mentioned
include “natural disasters (hurricanes,
tornadoes), drought and flooding”,
“greater storm frequency”, “aquifer
depletion”, and the related barrier
mentioned by four tables “rising coastal
insurance rates” and “insurance
availability due to natural disasters”.
Other barriers Those other barriers cited
by a few tables include the “lack of
marketing” and “lack of development
incentives”, “need to attract industry
and small business”, “improve negative
image of areas where positive
development could occur”, “concerns
about losing agricultural lands”,
“inheritance tax breaking up farmland”,
“challenges with job and housing
balances”, “aging leadership/workforce”,
“cost of development and land
preservation”, “small town issues - lack
of amenities and negative perceptions”,”
industrial facilities such as prisons,
power lines, landfills, biohazard areas”,
“lack of transportation choices – increase
light rail/mobility/greenway access”,
“changing political demographics limit
power of the eastern part of the state”
and “politics”.
P a g e | 40
Solutions
Ultimately, solutions to the region’s
problems with infrastructure,
environmental protection, resource
conservation and collaboration are all
interrelated. What is most urgently
needed, as articulated by participants,
fell into four overarching categories:
regional leadership and planning,
education, investing in infrastructure,
agriculture protection and
environmental protection.
Provide a vision and leadership (8
tables)
Regional leadership will help to align
policy at the level of local jurisdictions.
Recommended solutions to overcome
barriers included:
“Create a consistent vision and
consistent message for the entire region.
Speak with one voice”
“Intergenerational collaboration in
planning”
“Cross-cultural collaboration in planning”
“Public/private partnerships”
“Unity of leadership – political and
stakeholders”
“Single point of contact for certain
regional decisions”
“Elect strong leaders”
“Elect leaders that share regional views”
“Increase regional leadership capacity
(training and lobbying experiences)”
“Leadership recruitment and
development”
“Good leadership”
Improve regional governance and
regional planning (11 tables)
Regional governance was addressed by
11 tables. Participants called for more
cooperation between elected officials,
business, and community leaders to
coordinate overall environmental
solutions with land use and
transportation. More specific solutions
included:
“Solidify and support PlanIt EAST”
“Ongoing regional planning such as
today and Rural Planning Organizations
and Municipal Planning Organizations”
“Regional cooperation/collaboration
between a county, region government,
business, public, private and NGO”
“Work together as a region rather than a
community level”
“Enhance communication between
military and communities”
“Sustain interaction among big 4:
military, agriculture, tourism and
industry”
“Communicate better among key
stakeholders i.e. planning,
commissioners. Have mayor meetings
for creative economic development”
“Regional planning across communities
and counties (infrastructure,
transportation)”
“Plan regionally and obtain state support
for planning”
“Include military bases in planning
process”
“Enhance regional planning efforts”
“Regional Board – Advisory Committee”
“Grow and Support PlanIt EAST”
Invest in education (12 tables)
Public education puts the issues of the
region into true economic perspective,
and allows people to make good choices
about their own lives and the future of
the region. “Education” was listed as a
solution by six tables. More specific
solutions included:
“Fully fund schools”
“Education plan from K-12 for the
region”
“UNC College at Maysville”
P a g e | 41
“Quality schools and community
colleges”
“Coordinate education initiatives with
education at community colleges –
education of economic development”
“S.T.E.M. in every middle school in
eastern North Carolina”
Educate people to issues of quality
growth (10 tables)
“Educate people through the planning
process”
“Educate the general public about the
need for change”
“Education about the extent of
population growth and challenges and
solutions”
“Develop model ordinances and plans”
“Education of greater good”
“Promote higher density development –
make it easier to pursue compact
development, reduce pollution”.
“Education is key!”
“Schools and hospitals”
“Landowner education – understanding
regulations”
“Public relations educate public, educate
leaders”
Invest in infrastructure (12 tables)
“Funding for infrastructure to include
most of built barriers”
“Invest in infrastructure”
“Regionalize infrastructure”
“Create transit to existing educational
facilities”
“Mass-transit, increase tax-base,
desirability”
“Decentralized wastewater, water reuse,
desalinization”
“Seek regional policy solutions for utility
problems”
“Enhance renewable energy industry and
seek compatible use relative to military
operations”
“Protection of aquifer recharge areas/
regional consolidation of water/sewer”
“Offshore wind/biomass power/nondistributed energy/ better design to
stretch existing infrastructure/high
density/new technology”
“Regional cooperation including
broadband”
“Improved internet access across the
region”
“Child and medical care facilities”
“Consolidation of regional resources i.e.
at city/county level create regional
partners with water/sewer for example –
locating along corridors”
Agricultural protection (4 tables)
“Keeping agricultural/open space use”
“Increase farmland preservation
plans/easements, local food movement,
fuel/feed the force, zoning,
transportation/access to market.
Increase effectiveness in farming,
mitigation credits”
“Better regulations and implementation
of agricultural protection”
“Regional farmers market”
“Use-value and other voluntary
landowner economic incentives –
reduction of tax on landowners”
Environmental protection (4 tables)
“Environmental sensitive development in
areas in and adjacent to wetlands”
“Manage barriers from regulations –
amend hunting laws to protect sensitive
land, strengthen public involvement in
the legislative process”
“Highlight natural resources”
“Smart, strategic, design of wildlife
corridors”
P a g e | 42
Section 7
Next Steps
P a g e | 43
Next Steps
EnvisionEAST-2050 was important in the
history of eastern North Carolina. This
was the first time its community leaders
came together to think, debate, dream
and envision of the future of the region
they call home.
Participants came with diverse points of
view and different concerns and
discovered a surprising confluence of
views and concerns. They learned that
neighboring counties or towns in other
parts of the region were very similar to
their own hometown and that what
happens in one county really does effect
what happens in another. They
discussed the anticipated regional
growth, its opportunities and challenges.
They also discussed the benefit of
working together to advance the quality
of life in eastern North Carolina’s
natural, built, economic and social
environments. They made new friends.
The benefits of EnvisionEAST-2050 are
clear but will be lost if we don’t maintain
momentum, continuing to think and act
as a region.
We are starting to determine our
future instead of having others
determine it for us. The main thing
we need to do is to continue this
effort. We need to get the
momentum and keep it rolling.
Harvey Walker, Morehead City
PlanIt EAST continues to address the
challenges of the region. Adopted
regulations and current practices within
the region are being compared to the
EnvisionEAST-2050 Guiding Principles,
Barrier and Solutions.
Smaller-scale regional meetings, some
held in conjunction with the PlanIt EAST
delegate meetings are planned for 2013.
These are designed to build on the
EnvisionEAST-2050 momentum and
allow additional participants to share the
experience of visioning how the region
should grow. These meetings, coupled
with the analysis and findings of
EnvisionEAST-2050, will form the basis
for consensus solutions for eastern
North Carolina and future meetings with
the region’s local governments. Suitable
growth-related tools will be identified.
Be Involved
Join our mailing list
This low-volume email list is the best
way to stay up-to-date on PlanIt EAST
and EnvisionEAST-2050. Include a
request to join our mailing list on the
website "Contact Us" form.
Participate
Come to the regional meetings;
participate in the conversation.
Tell someone about PlanIt EAST and
Join our Social Media
Simply tell other people about what
we're doing and why it is important. The
people you know are probably more
influenced by you than an advertisement
or a news article. Friend PlanIt EAST on
Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Invite us to speak to your group
We can make a speaker available to your
group or organization to talk about PlanIt
EAST and EnvisionEAST-2050.
P a g e | 44
A special thank you to our participants, sponsors, community supporters,
EnvisionEAST-2050 Steering Committee, PlanIt EAST delegates,
volunteers and professional support without whom this event would not
have been possible.
Section 8
Acknowledgements
P a g e | 45
EnvisionEAST-2050 Participants
Mike Alford, Marine Chevrolet Cadillac
Janice Allen, N.C. Coastal Land Trust
Gayle Alvis, TownePlace Suites/Fairfield Inn & Suites
Karen Willis Amspacher, Saltwater Connections
Pete Anderson, NCDA & CS
Kelly Andrews, Pitt County Development Commission
Gary Ange, Abbott Laboratories-Retired
Hattie Angel, Candidate, Onslow County Commissioner
Christina Asbury, Exit Realty
Chris Bailey, Craven County Schools
Gary Baldree, Havelock Chamber of Commerce
Mary H. Bartlett, 3HC, Home Health and Hospice Care, Inc.
Win Batten, Town of Warsaw
Don Baumgardner, Craven County Planning
Pam Baumgardner, The Real Estate Center
John Bell, NC Community Federal Credit Union
Jay Bender, Mayor of Pollocksville
Sabrina Bengel, Alderman - New Bern
Royce Bennett, Jacksonville Board of Realtors
Jack Best, Best Commercial Development
Marc Best, Best Commercial Development
Candy Bohmert, Pamlico Soil & Water Conservation District
John Bonitz, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
Frank Bottorf, Booze Allen Hamilton
Tom Braaten, New Bern Area Chamber of Commerce
Michael Bracy, Jones County Schools
Doug Brady, Carteret County
Scott Brewer, USMC - MCIEAST
Craig Brock, Duplin County
Pam Brown, MCIEASI
Matt Brubaker, Wells Fargo Advisors
Tim Buck, Pamlico County Manager
Madison Bullington, Trask Land Company, Inc.
Charlie Burgess, Town of Beaufort
Chuck Burnell, North Carolina Railroad
Dr. Cecilia Bianchi-Hall, Lenoir Community College
Gary Black, Lenoir Memorial Hospital
John Bonitz, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
Phillip Bowling, Croatan High School
Jay Briley, Vidant Duplin Hospital
Pam Brown, MCIEAST
Ruth Ann Cage, East Carolina University
Wanda Campbell-Clay, NC Cooperative Extension - Duplin
Mike Carroll, NC Cooperative Extension – Craven
Lyndsey Carter, First Bank
Terry Carter, Biofuels Center of NC
Theresa Carter, Onslow County Tourism
Dick Casey, Town of Newport Manager
John D. Chaffee, North Carolina's Eastern Region
Misty Chase, Greene County Government
Ada Chatman, Jones County JobLink Career Center
Michelle Clements, The East Group
Tammy Childers, Eastern Carolina Workforce Dev. Board
Bob Clark, Town of Maysville
Jeff Clark, Jones-Onslow EMC
Allen Clayton, Wells Fargo
Gary L. Clements, Lenoir Community College
Bill Connolly, First Citizens Insurance Services
Trace Cooper, Town of Atlantic Beach
Cleve H. Cox, Pamlico Community College
Stu Cox, USAF - Seymour Johnson AFB
Scott Crocker, W.A. Moore Insurance
Gary Danford, Wells Fargo
Jeff Daughtry, Free Will Baptist Press
J Mac Daughety, Lenoir County Commissioner
P a g e | 46
Sam Davis, Jones Co. Soil & Water Conservation District
Brian Dodds, STEP2 Committee, Pamlico County
Walter Dorsey, Region Q Workforce Development Board
Stephanie Duncan, Havelock Chamber of Commerce
Bob Dupuis, Progress Energy
Jimmie Edmundson, BB&T
Teri Edwards, CCHBA
Don Ellson, PenderWatch
Ed Emory, Duplin County
Amanda Engesether, City of Kinston Planning Department
Dr. Michael B. Evers, USMC - MCIEAST
Ashley Faircloth, NC State Natural Resources Foundation, Inc.
Billy Joe Farmer, Onslow Water and Sewer Authority
Charley Farrior, Town of Wallace
Marc Finlayson, Finlayson Consulting, LLC
Arnold Flowers, Flowers Timber & Land, Inc.
Curtis Fountain, NC Cooperative Extension - Duplin
Jim Freeman, City of Havelock
Al Freimark, Wilmington MPO
Jim Fuhs, North Carolina Military Business Center
Fred Fulcher, Retired
Susan Bishop Gale, Lenoir Community College
Christopher Galik, Duke University - Nicholas Institute
Peggie Garner, NC Cooperative Extension - Onslow
Sharon Garner-Thompson, Star Team Real Estate
Christina Tompkins Garrett, Prudential Hometown, REALTORS
Willie Gillespie, Duplin County Board Of Education
Ruth A. Glaser, Pender Memorial Hospital
Tom Glasgow, NC Coop. Extension
Delilah T. Gomes, Duplin County
Reggie Goodson, City of Jacksonville
Steve Goodson, Jones-Onslow EMC
Cathy Graham, Strickland Insurance Group
Eric Gregson, First Citizens Bank
John Hagle, Town of Beaufort
Ralph B. Hall, Sr., Duplin County
Page Ham, Wayne Community College
Wanda Hargrove, Duplin County Cooperative Extension
Perry Harker, Carteret School Board / Community College
Stephanie Harrell, Lenoir County Public Schools
Ray Harris, Cooperative Extension Svc (Ret)
Tyler Harris, USMC - MCAS Cherry Point
Grace Haubrich, Coldwell Banker Fountain Realty
Dennis Hazel, NC State University Forestry
Ken Heath, Pamlico County Commissioner
Jerry Hedge, Murphy Family Ventures
Melissa Hendrickson, Farmer Mac's Berries
Pat Herlands, Oriental, NC
Lauren Hermley, Town of Beaufort
Becky Hines, SMC Home Finance
Gene Hodges, Craven County Government
Mark Hooper, Carteret County Crossroads
William Horton, Progress Energy
Jeff Hudson, Onslow County Manager
Joy Hudson, Division of Workforce Solutions
Lee Jackson, NC State Natural Resources Foundation
Zeke Jackson, Wayne County Planning Board
Kelly Jarman, Lenoir County Schools
Dan Jenkins, Craven County Tax Office
Jim Jennings, Carteret County Planning Department
MajGen Carl B. Jensen, USMC (Ret.)
Marc Jessup, Coastal Insurance Services
Kevin Johnson, NC Cooperative Extension – Wayne
Randall Johnson, NC Biotech Center, Southeastern Office
Charles Jones, Jones County EDC
Hutch Jones, Beulaville, NC
Ken Jones, Eastern Region EDC
Amanda Justice, Duplin County Tourism
P a g e | 47
Becky Kafer, Craven County Board of Education
Gary Keel, NC Eastern Region Board of Directors
Steve Keen, Wayne County Commissioner
Nancy Keith, NC Green Consultants
Bill Keller, Onslow County Commissioner
Jim Kelley, Kelley / Brownfield Engineering
Alyce Kelly, Hampton Inn, Morehead City
Tammy Kelly, Lenoir County Cooperative Extension
Geno Kennedy, Agriment Services Inc.
Tom Kies, Downtown Morehead City Revitalization Assn.
Adrian King, Pride of Kinston
Richard King, Dunn & Dalton Architects
Ryan King, City of Jacksonville
Bob Koester, RJK Marketing & Planning
Lauren Kolodij, NC Coastal Federation
Kyle Koonce, BB&T
Zack Koonce, Jones County Commissioner
Bob Kornegay, Tri-County Electric
Deborah Kornegay, Duplin County
Grace Lawrence, Mount Olive College
Barbara LaRoque, Lenoir Memorial Hospital
Tharesa Chadwick Lee, City of New Bern / Neuse River CDC
Ralph Leeds, NC Dept. of Commerce - Workforce Solutions
Jackie Leonard, Kinston Public Safety
Mark Lesnau, NC Community Federal Credit Union
Amber Levofsky, DoD - Office of Economic Adjustment
Doug Lewis, Progress Energy
Dr. Ron Lingle, Coastal Carolina Community College
Michelle Lovejoy, NC Soil and Water Conservation Foundation
Chester Lowder, North Carolina Farm Bureau
Alan Lumpkin, Wayne County Government
Davin Madden, Wayne County
Daniel Madding, NCDA&CS
Don Magoon, Wayne Community College
Mark Mansfield, Carteret County Association of Realtors
John F. Marston, Lenoir County Committee of 100, Inc.
Lucy W. Marston, Lenoir County Tourism
George C. Matthis, Jr., Neuse RIVERKEEPER Foundation
Armistead Mauck, Cherry Energy
Ray Mayo, Wayne County Commissioner
Steve Mazingo, Lenoir County Public Schools
Theron McCabe, Craven County Commissioner
Theo McClammy, Onslow Community Outreach
Cindy McCullen, Wayne County Sheriff’s Office
Sandra McCullen, Wayne County Public Schools
Megan McGarvey, CarolinaEast Health System
Hervey McIver, The Nature Conservancy
Ed McKenna, Lewis Realty Association
David McLeod, NCDA &CS
Ed McMahon, Senior Resident Fellow, ULI
Judith McMillen, TheMcMillen Real Estate Group
Douglas McVey, Pender County Health Department
Chris Meadows, Principal Jones County HS
Larry Meadows, Jones County
Jim Millard, Craven Community College
George Miller, NCER, Food & Fuel 4 the Forces
Keith Mills, Edgar Mills & Sons Farms
Dr. Lane B. Mills, Craven County Schools
Charles Mizelle, Cheap Charlies Carpet
Shaunne Moore, Wayne County Veterans Services
Grey Morgan, Wayne County Development Alliance
Lydia J. Morgan, Morgan Printers, Inc.
Ted Morris, East Carolina University
Jenna Morton, Jacksonville Board of Realtors
Susan G Myers, Pink Hill Pharmacy
Bill Naumann, Coastal Carolina Airport Authority
Eric Nelson, USAF - Air Combat Command A3
Sylvia Nesbitt, North Carolina's Eastern Region
P a g e | 48
Tim Newton, Tim Newton Auto Sales Inc.
John Nicholson, Governor’s Office
Amanda Norwood, GreenLeaf Environmental Strategies
Dan Novey, Carteret County Public Schools
Dwayne Oglesby, Fleet Readiness Center East
Bucky Oliver, Front St. Village & the Boathouse
Dan Oliver, Onslow County
Rachelle Hall Oliver, Home Builders Assn. (Craven & Pamlico)
Wendi Oliver, Boathouse, Beaufort
Lorenda Overman, NC Farm Bureau
Russell Overman, Carteret County Manager
Jimmi Parker, Jones County Schools
Sandra Phelps, United Way of Coastal Carolina
Sheila Pierce, Jacksonville Onslow Economic Development
Cheryl Pigott, Bellagurl, Marketing and Advertising
Allen Plaster, Premier Forestry and Env. Consulting, PLLC
Dave Plummer, USMC - MCIEAST Airspace Manager
Scott Pohlman, NC DENR
Allen Pope, NC DOT
Judson Pope, Handy Mart
Mark Pope, Lenoir County Economic Development
Lonnie Pridgen, Craven County Committee of 100
Anthony Prinz, Jacksonville MPO
Kyle Pritchard, East Coast Hospitality
Knox Proctor, Ward and Smith, P.A.
Dave Quick, Wayne County Chamber of Commerce
Michael Raines, Zaytoun-Raines Real Estate, Const. & Dev.
Marlee Ray, WAGES Community Action Agency
Cliff J. Ray, Ray Development & Consulting
Matt Ray, Ray Properties Inc.
Ivy Reid, Jones County Cooperative Extension
Danny Rice, Woodmen of The World
Henry Rice, Pamlico County High School
John Richards, Goldsboro Family YMCA
Jayne Robb, Jones County EDC
Mrs. Helen S. Rogers, Duplin County
Kevin R. Rose, Virginia Tech
Bill Ross, NCSU - Regional Readiness Cooperative
Donna Rouse, Duplin - Soil & Water Conservation Dist.
Eric Rouse, Lenoir County Commissioner
Franklin Rouse, North Carolina Railroad Company
Dr. Lawrence Rouse, James Sprunt Community College
Dan Ryan, Town of Maysville
Bill Sage, Mayor--Town of Oriental
Dee Sage, STEP2
Daniel K. Sale, Sale Auto Mall
Scott Saylor, North Carolina Railroad Company
Dr. Alice Scott, Pink Hill Area Preservation and Dev. Comm.
Erin Seekamp, NCSU - Parks, Recreation & Tourism Mgmt.
Norma Sermon-Boyd, Jones County Partnership for Children
Jerry Sheeks, AAR Corporation
Allie Sheffield, PenderWatch & Conservancy
C. Johnson Sheffield, Duplin County Rotary Club
Steve Shuttleworth, Carolina Beach, Mayor Pro-Tem
JC Skane, WARM, Inc.
Chris Skrotsky, Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Assn.
Glenn Smith, Fasco Inc.
Kenneth Smith, Mayor of Beulaville
Lee Smith, Wayne County Manager
Luke Smith, WARM, Inc.
Rita Spence, STEM East
Kathy Spencer, Onslow County Schools
Darlene O. Spivey, Mayor of Trenton
Linda Staab, Morehead City Planning
Scott Stevens, City of Goldsboro
J.R. Steigerwald, Warsaw STEP Steering committee
Jo Ann Stone, Jones County Public Schools
Jo Ann Stroud, Duplin County Agribusiness
P a g e | 49
Scotty Summerlin, Town of Beulaville
Laura Lee Sylvester, Kinston Chamber of Commerce
Bill Taylor, Morehead City Councilman
Molly Taylor, Partnership for Children (Lenoir/Greene)
Steve Taylor, Wayne County Public Schools
Col Darrell Thacker, USMC - MCIEAST/MCB Camp Lejeune
Martha Thibault, Pender County Resident
Susan Moffat Thomas, Swiss Bear Downtown Dev. Corp.
David Thompson, Primus Contracting
Alexander Toodle, Weyerhaeuser Paper Co. (Ret.)
Raiford Trask III, Trask Land Company, Inc.
Tom Vermillion, DEPS - Down East Protection Systems
Mike Wagoner, Carteret County Chamber of Commerce
Harvey Walker, Morehead City Town Council
Amy Pinne Wang, Ward and Smith, P.A.
Steve Wangerin, W.T. Humphrey, Inc.
Deborah Watts, NC Broadband
Tim Webb, ONWASA
Student Participants
Claire Harris, Jacksonville High School
Kaylyn Siegel-King, West Craven High School
Johnathan Clark, Pamlico High School
Denzel Keyes, Kinston High School
Jeremy Pridgen, James Sprunt Community College
Cody Garris, C.B. Aycock High School
Bradley Baugus, Jones County High School
Philip Bowling, Croatan High School
Jamison Bell, Wayne Community College
Kiarra Hill, Jones County High School
Chris White, Albert J. Ellis Airport
Dino White, Dicyn Solutions / The Framsyn Initiative
Gloria Wiggins, Lenoir Community College
Richard Wiley, North Carolina Railroad Company
Darlene Williams, Dept. of Commerce - Workforce Solutions
Million Heir Williams, Chamber of Commerce
Chuck Wilson, Pender County
Mike Wilson, DoD - Office of Economic Adjustment
Ed Wilson, Wayne County Chamber
Richard Woodruff, City of Jacksonville Manager
James Wolfe, Duplin County EDC
Patrick N. Woodie, NC Rural Center, Inc.
Larry Woods, NC Commerce: Workforce Solutions
Wesley Wooten, Lewis Farms and Liquid Waste, Inc.
Bryant Worley, Bryant Worley Farms, Inc.
Debbie E. Worley, Bryant Worley Farms, Inc.
P a g e | 50
EnvisionEAST-2050 Sponsors
Marquee
Sponsor
Gold
Sponsors
Silver
Sponsors
Bronze
Sponsors
P a g e | 51
Community Supporters
P a g e | 52
EnvisionEAST-2050 Steering Committee
Dan Oliver, Progress Energy, Co-Chair
Doug Brady, Waterfront Lifestyle Properties, Co-Chair
Janice Allen
NC Coastal Land Trust
Calvin Anderson
Chairman
NC's Eastern Region
Don Baumgardner
Director of Planning
Craven County
Jack Best
Wayne County Commission
Candy Bohmert
PlanIt EAST Representative
Kyle Breuer
Director of Planning
Pender County
Scott Chase
Director of Planning
City of Havelock
Gary Keel
Pamlico Representative to NC's
Eastern Region
Randall Tyndall
Director of Planning
Duplin County
J. Mac Daughety
Lenoir County Commission
Steve Keen
Eastern Carolina Council,
Amy Wang
Attorney at Law
Ward and Smith, P.A.
Sam Davis
Farmer, Jones County
Carl Ollison
Pamlico County Commission
Kenny Heath
Pamlico County Commission
Sheila Pierce
Jax-Onslow Economic
Development
Joanna Helms
Wayne County Economic
Development
Charles Hughes
Charles Hughes Construction Co.
Ken Jones
Mayor of Pine Knoll Shores
James Wolfe
Duplin County Economic
Development
Dr. Lawrence Rouse
James Sprunt Community College
Myles Stempin
Carteret County Economic
Development
Jimmy Tate
Pender County Commission
Julie Paul
Technical Advisor to the Steering
Committee
Urban Land Institute, Triangle
P a g e | 53
PlanIt EAST Delegates
























Janice Allen, Deputy Director, NC Coastal Land Trust
Don Baumgardner, Director of Planning, Craven County
Candy Bohmert, Technician, Pamlico SWCD
Doug Brady, Waterfront Lifestyles Properties
Kyle Breuer, Director of Planning, Pender County
R. Scott Brewer, Communications Officer, USMC , Camp
Lejeune
Bill Canuette, Dir. Planning, Research, & Institutional
Effectiveness - James Sprunt CC
Scott Chase, Director of Planning, City of Havelock
J. Mac Daughety, Lenoir County Commission
Sam Davis, Farmer, Jones County
Mike Evers, Deputy Director Government and External
Relations, Camp Lejeune
Arnold Flowers, President, Flowers Timber & Land, Inc.
Curtis Fountain, Agricultural Ext. Agent, NC Cooperative Ext.
Ashley Frank, Pender County Planning
Craig Fulton, Director I&E, Camp Lejeune
Tom Glasgow, Director, NC Cooperative Ext.
Ray Harris, Retired Agricultural Agent
Tyler Harris, Community Plans & Liaison Director, MCAS
Cherry Point
Kenny Heath, Pamlico County Commission
Joanna Helms, President, Wayne County Dev. Alliance
Kendall Hill, Co-Owner, Tull Hill Farms, Inc.
Franky Howard, Jones County Manager
Charles Hughes, Charles Hughes Construction Co.
Ken Jones, Mayor of Pine Knoll Shores


















Steve Keen, Eastern Carolina Council
Lauren Kolodij, Deputy Director, NC Coastal Federation
Tasha Logan, Assistant City Manager, City of Goldsboro
Angie Manning, Onslow County Planning & Development
Larry Moolenaar, Eastern Carolina Council
Sheila Pierce, Executive Director, Jacksonville Onslow
Economic Development
Allen Plaster, Comprehensive Forestry Services, Inc.
Cliff Ray, Ray Development & Consulting
Jayne Robb, Jones County Economic Development
Eric Rouse, Lenoir County Commission
Mark Seitz, Pender County Extension Director
Myles Stempin, Executive Director, Carteret County
Economic Development
JoAnn Stroud, Secretary, Duplin Agribusiness Council
Jimmy Tate, Pender County Commissioner
Randall Tyndall, Director of Planning, Duplin County
Harvey Walker, Mayor Pro Tem, Town of Morehead City
Amy Wang, Attorney, Ward and Smith, P.A.
Bryant and Debbie Worley, Bryant Worley Farms, Inc.
P a g e | 54
EnvisionEAST-2050 Volunteers and Staff
EnvisionEAST-2050 would not have been possible without the generous contribution of time, knowledge, resources and personal energy on the
part of many people and organizations. Some were responsible for data collection and GIS mapping. Facilitators and scribes guided the
discussion at the tables and documented key comments and data. Control Table volunteers addressed analysis of the participants’ scenarios.
Other volunteers assisted with the registration, event setup and logistics. These volunteer groups were in great part responsible for the success
of EnvisionEAST-2050. PlanIt EAST extends special thanks to the following individuals:
Super Facilitators
Scott Mingonet, Kimley-Horn and Associates
Cindy Camacho, URS Corporation
Joanna Helms, Wayne Economic Alliance
Paul Friday, MCIEAST
Connie Price, Wayne County Planning
Myles Stempin, Carteret EDC
Facilitators
Ben Andrea, Pender County Planning
Camille Barchers, Kimley-Horn and Associates
Don Belk, NCSU - Sentinel Landscapes
Reginia Bell, NC Coop Extension - Carteret County
George Bernard, City of New Bern Planning
Sandra Birkhead , Lean Team Management Consultants
Kyle Breuer, Pender County Planning
Brian Byfield, NC Sustainable Communities Task Force
David Carter, Carter Consulting Group
Mark Garner, Greenville - Rivers & Assoc.
Jenna Geigerman, Consultant
Randy Guthrie, City of Goldsboro Planner
Chuck Halsall, NC Community Planning
Judy Hills, East Carolina Council
Dale Holland, Holland Planning
James Jeuck, NCSU Extension Forestry
Angie Manning, Onslow County Planning
Maureen Meehan, NC Division of Coastal
Larry Moolenaar, NC Eastern Region
Alex Naar, Center for Sustainable Tourism ECU
Lee Padrick, NC DCA - Washington
Gloria Putnam, North Carolina Sea Grant
Dianne Reed, NC DENR - Water Quality Management
Jessica Rossi, Kimley-Horn and Associates
Mark Seitz, Pender County Extension
Dr. Elizabeth Shay, UNC Chapel Hill
Nancy Sharpless, Nancy Sharpless Mediation & Facilitation Services
Trey Smith, NC DCA - Washington
Brian Strong, NC Parks & Rec Planner
Jeff Tyndall, Marstel-Day
Randall Tyndall, Duplin County Planning
Regan Westra, Crossroads Consulting Group
P a g e | 55
Scribes
Kevin Bigsby, NCSU grad student
Kimberly Cesafsky, Duke grad student
Scott Chase, Wooten Company
Chris Clary, NCSU grad student
Kacy Cook, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Ryan Correia, FIU grad student
Paula Cothren , NCSU grad student
Adrienne Cox, Lower Cape Fear Consortium
Karyn Crichton, New Hanover County Planning
Helene Csar, NCSU Extension Forestry
Randall Farren, Marstel-Day
Jason Frederick, Craven County Planning
Sarah Gillig, Duke grad student
Catherine Grimm, Craven County Planning
Emma Hedman, Duke grad student
Jessica Knight, NCSU Extension Forestry
Jonathan Kohl, Marstel-Day
Patrick Nerz, UNC CH grad student
Z Lee Nichols, NC Community Planning
Edward Olive, Mt Olive College
Meg Perry, Duke grad student
Tim Richards, Onslow Planning
Chris Seaberg, Cedar Point
Jennifer Fran Slesinger, UNC CH grad student
Sarah Slover, NCSU
Matt Stuart, Onslow Planning
Jeremy Sutherland, Ascendant Strategy Management Group
Eric Thomas, UNC CH grad student
Daniel Widis, UNC CH grad student
Rob Will, East Carolina Council
Mark Zeigler, NC DCA - Wilmington
Control Table
Ashley Frank, Pender County Planning
Bill Canuette, James Sprunt C.C.
Dan Cronin, Duplin County GIS
Tasha Logan, City of Goldsboro
Event Support
Sam Davis, Jones County
Franky Howard, Jones County
Gretchen Davis, Jones County
Melissa Grady, NC Eastern Region
Steven Pearce, NC Eastern Region
Shirley Powell, Carteret EDC
Leigh Smith, NC Eastern Region
Mary Strickland, East Carolina Council
Land Use and Data Input
Janice Allen, N.C. Coastal Land Trust
Camille Barchers, Kimley-Horn and Associates
Don Baumgardner, Craven County Planning
Candy Bohmert, Pamlico Soil & Water Conservation District
Kyle Breuer, Pender County Planning
Kacy Cook, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Ryan Correia, FIU grad student
Dan Cronin, Duplin County GIS
P a g e | 56
Ashley Frank, Pender County Planning
Jim Jennings, Carteret County Planning
Wayland Humphries, Lenoir County GIS
Nikhil Kaza Ph.D. UNC Chapel Hill
Dan Madding, NC Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Angie Manning, AICP, Onslow County Planning
George Miller, NCER, Food & Fuel 4 the Forces
Professional Services
Tim Allcott, Padgett Communications
Camille Barchers, Kimley-Horn and Associates
Scott Mingonet, Kimley-Horn and Associates
Margo Moehring, NEFRPC
Julie Paul, ULI Triangle
Jesse Pushee, Evolve
Chad Sawyer, YTC, Greenville
Ameera Sayeed, NEFRPC
Greg Smith, Audio Visual Services, Wilmington
Adrian Soloman, All in the Details
Lynne Soloman, All in the Details
Brian Taylor, Evolve
EnvisionEAST-2050
Staff Leadership
Mark Sutherland, Program Director
Carron Day, AICP, CEP, CNU-A, Project Manager
Loraine Carbone, Director of Communications
Margo Moehring, NEFRPC
Connie Price, Wayne County Planning
Ameera Sayeed, NEFRPC
Randall Tyndall, Duplin County Planning
Kyle Vangel, UNC Chapel Hill grad student
Amy Pinne Wang, Ward and Smith, P.A.
P a g e | 57
Appendix
Regional Maps and Data
P a g e | 58
EnvisionEAST-2050 – Regional Map Categories
Agriculture - Farms and Forests
(Appears TAN on the map.)
This category includes agricultural, horticultural, and forestland
assessed at present-use value not market value.
Wetlands
(Appear LIGHT GREEN on the map.)
This category includes wetlands identified by the NC Coastal
Region Evaluation of Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) where
available and the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) elsewhere.
Protected Lands
(Appear DARK GREEN on the map.)
This category includes managed conservation lands (or MAREA)
developed by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program to
document public- and privately-owned lands and easements
that are of some conservation interest.
Military Bases
(Appear DARK GRAY on the map.)
This category includes military bases, auxiliary landing facilities
(ALF), and outlying fields (OLF).
Residential
(Appears YELLOW on the map.)
This category includes residential uses from single family to
multiple family. Where available, data for the residential,
commercial and industrial categories was collected from the
local governments. Elsewhere this information was developed
using county parcel information and aerial photography.
Town – Mixed Use
(Appears as a hatch on the map.)
This category covers the municipal limits of towns which did not
have GIS existing land uses shape files available
Commercial
(Appears RED on the map.)
This category includes business and government uses where
most of the jobs are located. Included are offices, retail
(shopping) centers, restaurants, government buildings, schools,
hospitals, and churches.
Industrial
(Appears PURPLE on the map.)
This category includes industrial parks, warehouses,
manufacturing and assembly facilities.
Military Training Route
(Appears as magenta dashed lines on the map.)
This category covers current aerial corridors in which military
aircraft can operate below 10,000 feet for high-speed, low-level
military training activities.
Roadway Recommendations
These roadway improvement recommendations are included in
the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.
P a g e | 59
Military Training Routes and Special Use Airspace
P a g e | 60
P a g e | 61
P a g e | 62
P a g e | 63
P a g e | 64
EnvisionEAST-2050 Guiding Principles
Participant Polling Results
Carteret
County
Craven
County
Duplin
County
Jones
County
Lenoir
County
Onslow
County
Pamlico
County
Pender
County
Wayne
County
47%
56%
82%
50%
37%
73%
56%
29%
73%
16%
6%
14%
33%
16%
11%
11%
14%
6%
Leverage existing
infrastructure
0%
0%
0%
6%
0%
2%
0%
0%
3%
Promote compact
and sustainable
development
9%
6%
2%
0%
11%
5%
11%
50%
6%
Maintain and
improve quality of
life
22%
19%
5%
6%
26%
7%
22%
7%
12%
Improve regional
transportation
6%
13%
0%
6%
11%
2%
0%
0%
0%
Protect/promote
the region's
economic drivers agriculture, military,
and tourism
Protect and
conserve open
spaces, agricultural
lands, and natural
resources
All 9
Counties
56%
14%
2%
9%
15%
4%
P a g e | 65
EnvisionEAST-2050 Barriers
Participant Polling Results
Carteret
County
Craven
County
Duplin
County
Jones
County
Lenoir
County
Onslow
County
Pamlico
County
Pender
County
Wayne
County
All 9
Counties
Inadequate
infrastructure and
/ or funding
31%
34%
38%
56%
42%
49%
57%
46%
36%
38%
Too much
regulation
6%
16%
0%
6%
11%
3%
0%
0%
12%
6%
Financial realities
25%
16%
33%
33%
26%
18%
14%
31%
27%
26%
Environmental
constraints
13%
6%
5%
0%
0%
5%
14%
0%
3%
5%
Military
encroachment
6%
0%
5%
0%
0%
5%
0%
0%
6%
3%
Lack of regional
collaboration
19%
28%
19%
6%
21%
21%
14%
23%
15%
23%
P a g e | 66
EnvisionEAST-2050 Solutions
Participant Polling Results
Carteret
County
Craven
County
Duplin
County
Jones
County
Lenoir
County
Onslow
County
Pamlico
County
Pender
County
Wayne
County
All 9
Counties
Invest in education
6%
10%
20%
41%
42%
7%
0%
21%
35%
19%
Improve regional
governance and
regional planning
27%
27%
10%
6%
11%
23%
0%
7%
21%
21%
Provide a vision
and leadership
21%
27%
20%
24%
16%
30%
63%
21%
18%
23%
Invest in
infrastructure
30%
20%
15%
18%
21%
14%
25%
36%
12%
19%
Educate people to
issues and quality
growth
15%
13%
35%
6%
11%
23%
13%
14%
12%
17%
Provide local
control and less
regulation
0%
3%
0%
6%
0%
2%
0%
0%
3%
2%
P a g e | 67
PlanItEAST.org