Land Use Plan-1980

TYRRELL COUNTY LAND USE PLAN, 1980
Prepared by Tyrrell County
Commissioners with the Technical
Assistance of Coastal Consultants,
Ltd.
This plan was prepared with partial funding from the
Office of Coastal Management, Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, which administered a grant given them
by The National Oceanic and Atmospheric. Administration.
w
PROPERTY OF
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE

w
IV
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Data Collection
Population
Seasonal
Economy
Agriculture
Forestry
Commercial Fishing
Peat Mining
Existing Land Use
Land Compatability
Unplanned Development
Areas Likely to Change
AECs
Map of Existing Land Use
Current Plans, Policies, Regulations
Local Plans
Policies
Enforcement
State and federal regs
Constraints: Land Suitability
Physical Limitations
Hazard Areas
Soil Limitations
Water Supply
Excessive Slope
Fragile Areas
Coastal Wetland
Pocossin
Estatuarine and public
trust waters
Complex natural Area
Remnant Species
Resource Potential Areas
Agriculture
Mining
Forestry
Recreation
Cultural/Historic
Capacity of Community Facilities
Water
Sewer
Schools
Police and Fire
Solid Waste
Health
Roads
Recreation
2-6
6-13
8-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-17
14
14-16
16-17
17
See Maps
17-23
18-19
20
19
20-23
24-38
24
25-26
26-27
27'
29-30
30-31
31-32
33-34
34-35
35-36
36
36
36-37
37
39
39-40
40
40-41
41
41-42
42
42-43
39-43

r
Estimated Demand
44-48
44-45
Population Estimate
45
Future Land Needed
Community Facilities Demand
Explanation of Model Used and
45-48
handling land constraints
(some discussion of facilities demand in section.
on
community facilities)
Policy Statements
49-77
Resource Protection Policies
Soils
49
Flood Hazard
50
Wetlands
50-51
AECs
51
Bogs, pocossins, swamps
51-52
Cultural/Historic
52-53
Hurricane evacuation
53-54
Erosion.
54
Resource Production
54-55
Agriculture
Forestry
55-56
Mineral
56
Fisheries
56-57
ORVs
58
Lake Phelps
57-58
Economic and Community Development
Industrial
58-59
Services
59-61
Growth Patterns
61-62
Redevelopment
62-64
Commitment to State/Federal
64-65
Programs
Channel Maintenance
65
Energy Facility Siting
Beach Access
65-66
Items of Special Importance to
County
Housing
67-69
Second Home Development
�99
Hog Farms
Public Participation
71-73
Implementation of Policy: timeframe for action
70-71
Land Classification
73-77
Intergovernmental Coordination
77 .
Appendices
Rare and Endangered Species
80-83
Population Study
85-90
Housing Analysis
Fiscal Analysis of Housing
92-104
106-110
Questionnaire
112-129
Peat Mining
131-138
(deleted)
Phelps Study

1
MANNER IN WHICH DATA ASSEMBLED
The data in this report was assembled through the use of
research material, phone and personal conversations, and independent
research. The context of the assemblage should be apparent from the
text. Original research has been placed in the appendix of this
document.
MAJOR CONCLUSION
The major land use problems affecting the County involve the
problems of very poor inadequate housing, a need for a major employer
and the need to anticipate the secondary impacts from peat development.
IV The County needed to have a more accurate grasp of its -population and
the location of that population within the County; also an intricate
r
study of housing conditions with attention to the use of mobile homes.
Both of these issues, together with the peat issue were fully discussed
in the appendix. The redevelopment of the waterfront in Columbia is
also of major concern. The County does. not feel that any development
activity is likely to significantly degrade environmental features.
Agricultural and fishing industry activities have been rising in im-
portance and should contribute significantly to the tax base (along
with forestry and other uses) for the planning period, making it
possible to provide an adequate level of services to the people of
the County.

K
PRESENT CONDITIONS.
Section I
The purpose of this section of the Land Use Plan Update is to
evaluate existing conditions within the County, especially demo-
graphic and economic conditions.
POPULATION
The North Carolina Office of Management and Budget projects
that the 1980 population for Tyrrell County was 3,972. (This
population is projected as of April lst, 1980.) This figure compares.
sharply with the 1970 population estimated at 3,806, a population
which was described as "decreasing at an ever increasing rate." It
appears that Tyrell County has begun to reverse its previous trend
which was marked by a 15% loss in population within a ten year period
(1960-1970).1
The County notes that a survey of population prepared for the
County by Coastal Consultants, Ltd. concluded that the 1975 population
was erroneous and that the population of the County could be as high
as 4901 people. This estimate was based on a count of all structures
which the County Tax Office designated as currently being inhabited
and the application of a low multiplier to reflect family size. Prelim-
inary indications from 1980 Census show the population of the County
r
to be approximately 4,000: this count reflects a high vacancy rate in
excess of 16% for all occupied structures.3
------------
1Tyrrell County Land Use Plan, 1976, p. 5.
2Population Paper"prepared by Coastal Consultants, Ltd.
3Conservations with J.D. Brickhouse, Finance Officer, Tyrrell Co.

3
In all likelihood the 1980 Census is expected to document an
increase in growth for the County.
The population in the County is fairly evenly distributed It
throughout the rural areas, with pockets of populations (communities)
M
in Columbia rural and Scuppernong townships. According to Coastal
Consultants, the spread of population is as follows:
Table 1
POPULATION BY TOWNSHIP
Rate of Growth
Township
1980
1975
1970
1970 to 1980
Columbia (rural)
1842
1581
1409
3.0% per year
Columbia (town)
896
841
800
2.5
Scuppernong
1032
954
853
2.2
Gum Neck
600
545
487
2.5
Alligator
452
447
415
1.0
South Fork
73
67
61
2.0
The strongest growth rates occur in Columbia rural, then Gum Neck
and the Town of Columbia. For the most part all townships with the
exception of Alligator are showing increased activity at a noteable
level. This data is important for it shows the effect of current
market conditions as well as government regulations on development
within the county, namely that the growth pattern is naturally
diffused, with perhaps some semblance of nodal activity centered about
Columbia and its environs. More detailed information from Coastal
Consultants, Ltd. showed that new building starts are heavier along
the Sound on both sides of the Scuppernong River and in several inland
communities, such as Newlands.4 (This information has been in a series
of maps designed by the consultants to graphically portray this infor-
1Housing Paper prepared by Coastal Consultants, Ltd., 1980.

4
i
mation. )
The County has expressed a desire to see this pattern of popu-
lation disbursement continue (see Policy section). It feels that this
method of development will result in lower service costs than nodal
growth and that it is more in keeping with the style of development
preferred by its residents.
In addition to the geographical implications, certain conclu-
sions also appear to be noteworthy from examining the age, sex and
race of the population. We should note, however, that because Tyrrell
County has a small population, shifts in any segment of that population
will appear dramatic and in fact may be illusive, especially where
-
the number of data points is smallest.
Table 2
COUNTY POPULATION BY AGES
Age Group
1960
1970
1980
Change 70-80
0-4
537
265
236
-19
5-14
1064
849
589
-260
15-19
427
375
364
-11
20-24
200
210
352
+142
25-34
412
311
267
-44
35-44
526
364
407
+43
45-54
526
464
383
-81
55-64
374
474
439
-35
65+
454
493
695
+302
Although two groups experienced very heavy changes, the losses in the
5-14 age groups appear less significant than the gains in the 65+ age
group. The losses in the 5-14 age group and the small number of people
in the 0-4 age group are noteworthy in that they probably indicate the
absence of any sizeable shift of impact on the County school system for
1North Carolina Office of Budget and Management, 1980

5
at least the next five years. This forecast could be extended further
by noting that women in the child bearing years is showing considerably
{
more stability than in previous decade. (Data not included in plan.)
Furthermore, the 65+ population is demonstrating considerable increases,
a' trend that should increase less dramatically (but still increase)'
during the next ten years. The impact of this aging population has
been and will continue to be visible in terms of demands for elderly
housing, the need for medical services and the continuation of tradi-
tional values and attitudes in the County. We should note that the
random sample questionnaire prepared and distributed by Coastal Consul-
tants, Ltd. showed a strong prioritization for medical and health care
services.6
In terms of other aspects of population profiles, we note that
the County is projected to have 2,479 whites and 1,493 non -whites.?
Blacks comprise approximately 95.6% of the non -white population. This.
percentage (62% white, 38% black) has varied considerably during the
last 20 years. In 1960 the County had 1652 blacks and 2148 whites.8
Thus, in comparing population increase, we note that the growth rates
are about the same for both races within the County. Furthermore, the
increasing number of elderly is a biracial problem. During the past
decade 79 additional non -whites entered the 65+ age group and 127 whites.9
1.
When we compare Tyrrell County with the neighbouring counties,
we note that Tyrrell's growth rate is very similar to that of Hyde x
6Tyrrell County Questionnaire and Analysis
?North Carolina Office of Management and Budget
8Tyrrell County Land Use Plan, 1976
9North Carolina Office of Management and Budget

6
County. Hyde's population is projected to have increased to 5,797
after experiencing a decline from 1960 to 1970 of 194 people, from 5,765
to 5,571.10
IN CONCLUSION, population data seem to indicate:
(1) steady increases in population
(2) broad dispersal of population throughout County, with some focus
in areas near Columbia and especially near Sound
(3) a strongly aging population with a heavy 65+ group, both blacks and
whites
(4) little immediate shift in school age population
ECONOMY
Tyrrell County ranks below that of the State in per capita
income. In 1977 the County had a per capita income of $3,679, compared
to the State's $4,505. Both the'County and the State showed approx-
imately the same net gain in per capital income between 1977 and 1978,
but, of course, the percentage increase for the County was larger.
Table 3
PER CAPITAL INCOME: COUNTY AND STATEII
Governmental Body Income 1977 Income 1978 Increase
County (Tyrrell) $3,679 $4,505 20%
State (North Carolina) $5,923 $6,640 10%
Although Tyrrell, County has increased in population from 1970
to 1980, the number of persons employed has actually decreased. Accor-
ding to statistics prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the pro-
lOTyrell County Land Use Plan, 1976, and North Carolina Office
of Management and Budget
llBureau of Economic Analysis

7
file of the County's labor force is as follows:
Table 4
1978 OCCUPATIONS OF EMPLOYED PERSONS
I2
Occupation Numbers
Proprieters 385
Farm (not salaried) 226
Non -farm 159
Wage and Salary 802
Misc not included
Total Employment- 1187
Wage and salary workers, the largest category, can be further broken
down as follows:
L�
Table 5
BREAKDOWN OF WAGE AND SALARY- WORKERS
I3
Occupation Numbers
Farm 136
Non -farm 666
Private non -farm 474
Government non -farm 192
(Private non -farm:
Agricultural services under 10
Construction 16
Manufacturing 222
Transportation under 10
Wholesale 24
Retail 122
Finance under 10
Service 77
This reflects a substantial increase in farm employment from 225 to
362 in 1978.
No single sector employs an extremely large percentage of the
workforce. Agriculture, forestry and fishing employ about'18% of the
12Bureau of Economic Analysis
13Bureau of Economic Analysis

labor force, manufacturing about the same and wholesale, retail,
service, education, government and construction about 10%.14 What,
was true in 1970 appears to be true today, namely the labor force is
" strongly male and blue collar. 15
INCOME AND POVERTY
According to 1970 Census data, 936 families were below the
poverty level in the County. This amounts to 37.9% of all families,
or 44.8% of all persons.16 The family income distribution is as
follows:
Table 6
INCOME AND POVERTY CHARACTERISTICS
I7
FOR FAMILIES, TYRRELL COUNTY 1970
Income Number of Families
1,000 - 1,999 129
2,000 - 2,999 144
3,000 - 3,999 117
4,000 - 4,999 75
5,000 - 5,999 52
6,000 - 6,999 81
7,000 - 7,999 64
8,000 - 8,999 72
91000 - 91999 15
10,000 and above 132
AGRICULTURAL TRENDS
The national, state and local trend in agriculture has seen a
shift towards fewer, larger farms with a large increase in real estate
14Tyrrell County Land Use Plan, 1976, p. 15.
15Same as above
16Same as above, p. 17.
17Census of Agriculture, 1974.

9
value and value of goods sold. In 1975 the Census of Agriculture
estimated that there were 41, 249 acres of harvested and idle crop
land in the County with an estimated income of $8,521,000. In 1974,
the County had 173 farms with total acreage of 37,979.18 Since 1975,
First Colony Farms and other large corporate farms have cleared or are
planning to clear sizeable tracts of land for farming and other
development pursuits.19
Tyrrell County has made significant improvement in the amount
of acreage cultivated and the value of harvest. In addition to crops
the County's farmers raised 16,100 hogs. (1977) Hog production has
increased from $1.3 million dollars in 1977 to $2.1 million in 1978.20
The clearing of land for agricultural purposes is credited with
significantly improving the tax base. The tax base of the County would
be very poor if it had to rely on residential and commercial real
estate as neither of these are capable of supporting the costs of
services.
We should note that Tyrrell County is not within the top ten
counties in production in any crop or livestock. However, the amount
of acreage has increased dramatically for at least two crops during the
last ten years. Soybeans were harvested on approximately 8,000 to
16,000 acres in 1971, whereas in 1979 they were harvested on 26,300
acres.21 Corn was harvested on between 4,000 to 8,000 acres in 1971,
. 18Census of Agriculture, 1974.
County.
19Conversations with J.D. Brickhouse, Finance Officer, Tyrrell
20North Carolina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1979.
21Preliminary information to be published in 1980 North Carolina
Agricultural Statistics by Crop and Livestock Reporting Service.
It
a
It

10
whereas in 1979 it was harvested on 14,900 acres.22
.. FORESTRY
The 1976 Tyrrell County Land Use Plan, relying on statistics
Id supplied by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1974 (which statistics
are still the most current) concluded that removals of timber have not
exceeded growth in the County and that the County is in a good posi-
tion to continue its forestry operations from either a county or re-
gional perspective. The plan also noted that in 1974 there were-249,600
acres of forest land, of which 213,411 were in productive commercial
forest. Of this the forest industry owned 39,428 acres, the farmer
17,398 acres and private individuals 156,585 acres.
In terms of forest group the commercial forest is classified
as follows:
Table 7
FOREST TYPE OF COMMERCIAL FOREST
23
Forest Type Acreage
Loblolly shortleaf 87,276
Oak pine 30,589
Oak hickory 8,698
Oak gum cypress
86,848
The commercial forest is fairly evenly distributed between sawtimber,
poletimber and seedlings.24 Annual removals of sawtimber and growing
stock average approximately 14,291 species with 50% of these pine and
50% soft hardwood. On the other hand, the net annual growth of all
22Same as above.
23Tyrrell County Land Use Plan, 1976, p. 47.
2417yrrell County Land Use Plan, citing Forest Statistics for
the Northern Coastal Plain of North Carolina, 1974. See Land Use Plan
Tables, pp. 48-51.

11
species is in excess of 50,000 trees.
COMMERCIAL FISHING
Commercial fishing is fairly active in Tyrrell County.
Currently there are three active retail fish dealers in the County
and a large number of commercial fishermen (at least in view of the
number of licenses issued). Fisheries are varied; they include pound
net activity, gill net, crabing and eeling. Most of the fishing is
done in the Albemarle Sound and the Alligator and Scuppernong.Rivers.
In 1978 commercial fishing in the County harvested the following
A
it
catch: herring 171,000 (pounds), crocker 121,000, stripe bass 184,000,
white perch 125,000, hard shell crab 976,000.25 Herring is principally `
caught in the Scuppernong; crockers, bass and perch in the Sound.
A review of catch for the past five years shows the following:
Table 8
COMMERCIAL FISH CATCH: TYRRELL COUNTY
26
Year Lbs. of Fish Products Value of Catch
1975 765,000 $143,000
1976 748,000 200,000
1977 1,109,000 240,000
1979 1,729,000 440,000
(note: numbers have been rounded from source)
As will be noted from the policy section, the County desires
to revive the commercial aspects df Columbia. Increases in the fishing
industry is seen as one way to achieve this economic goal. In order
25Chestnut and Davis, Synopsis of Marine Fisheries in North
Carolina.
26Chestnut and Davis, Synopsis of Marine Fisheries in North
Carolina.
I,

12
to accomplish this policy the County will need to undertake a water-
front plan and dredge the mouth of Scuppernong. (See Policy section).
The Scuppernong has a natural channel which is marked with a depth of
y 12 feet.
We should note that the value of fish products on the retail
market is estimated at $3.5 million dollars. This is the value that
the U.S. Army Corps would use in determining the benefits from such
a dredging operation.27
PEAT MINING
(An entire chapter of this land use plan has been set aside
to discuss the Peat Mining issue, see Appendix F.).-
By way of conclusion, we should note that a considerable
amount of peat lands are still in forested condition, that the amount
of peat in the County is sizeable, that opportunity exists for shipment
of peat.or the burning of the fuel is also significant (although the
technology may not exist), that the revenues and increases in property
value for the County are substantial and the environmental consequences
of some importance.
IN CONCLUSION, the economic picture of the community is
improving. Industry, agriculture, forestry and services share an
y important part in the County. The local ad valorem tax base is
highly sensitive to agricultural improvements and should become
increasingly so in the future. Major problems lie in the poverty,
of the residents. A coordinated effort to improve the commercial
27Conversations with Harold Johnson, marine biologist,
DNRCD field office in Elizabeth City.

P
district in Columbia by creating the opportunity for commercial
fisheries there could secondarily improve services in the Town of
Columbia, the waterfront and image of the Town,,the sport fishing
and boating instituting from Columbia, etc.
EXISTING LAND USE
Tyrrell County is.a rural County with only a small area of
urbanized use. Columbia is the only municipality in the County; there
are numerous communities in the County --most are easily identified by
the country store and local church. During the last ten years, many
subdivisions have occurred along the Albemarle Sound in Columbia
rural township and Scuppernong township; at the same time many fishing
and hunting lodges appear to have been abandoned in the heavily wooded
eastern portion of the County. Residential development has occurred
along the roads dispersed throughout the County. The number of mobile
homes in the County has reached 415, a substantial increase since 1970
(See paper prepared by Coastal Consultants, Ltd. on Housing and
included in this Land Use Plan.)
Although it is difficult to estimate the number of dwelling
units in seasonal use, a scan of tax records for persons with.out-
of-state addresses and not listing autos for taxing purposes within
the state I revealed less than 100 units. Personal communications with
long time residents of the County has limited this number to a frac-
tion of the former.
Large farms and timber tracts.account for the majority of
land in the County. Small commercial establishments are located in
Columbia and along U.S. 64. Several small industrial enterprises are
located near U.S. 64 west of Columbia.
r
1l

14
According to the State Comprehensive Recreation Plan (SCORP)
the County has several recreation sites, including Bulls Bay Boatel,
Gum Neck Landing boat ramp, Columbia boat ramp, Norman Smith Memorial
Beach, Pettigrew State Park, Prichetts Marina, Sawyers Marina, Scup-
pernong Community Center, Travis Playground.
SIGNIFICANT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PROBLEMS
One would expect that with the large and increasing number
of mobile homes in the County that the County would be experiencing
considerable hostility from residents living in stick and brick (con-
ventional) housing units towards the newer aluminum housing. However,
this does not appear to be the case. This is probably due to the
fact that the mobile homes are being used by the long-time residents
and their offspring to replace the very poor, often substandard
housing stock in the County. (See report of Coastal Consultants, Ltd.
on housing included in this Land Use Plan, Appendix C.)
The major incompatibility arising from the use of the land
has arisen over the raising of hogs in the County. Many small
farmers have complained that large scale hog operations have caused
them to suffer with strong, unpleasant odors. (See further discus-
sion of this problem in Policy Section.)
Conflicts between.seasonal and permanent residents, between
the auto and man, between mining and farm and residential uses are
4 not significant enough to address as a significant compatibility
problem.
PROBLEMS FROM UNPLANNED DEVELOPMENT
The major problems from unplanned development are a decreased
traffic flow and road capacity for U.S. 64 and typical problems asso-

15
ciated with poorly designed and coordinated subdivisions, namely
access and water and sewer disposal. The nature of the community-16
-
rural, living along the sides of the major roads, make solutions to
y
the first problems rather unacceptable even if economically feasible.
The second problem appears under control since the adoption of sub-
division regulations, which insure that streets and roads are coor-
dinated and that developers consider problems of soil suitability
for waste treatment and water availability.' These later concerns are
implemented on a voluntary basis, but form an important part of sub-
division review for the Planning Board. (The Planning Board is
using the soils information presented by Coastal Consultants, Ltd.;
this consists of a map indicating soils suitable for development with +
septic systems and was prepared from Soil Conservation Service survey,
currently in preliminary form in the County.)
The County is experiencing a dispersed pattern of development
with concentration of development in areas. with the better soils for
septic systems (Columbia rural, Scuppernong townships). This pattern
does not conflict with other government goals and does not diminish
the amount of land available for agriculture to any large degree.
Where development has occurred on soils classified by the SCS as un-
suitable, the County notes that the enforcement of health regulations
(requirement of site testing for installation of septic systems) has
greatly decreased the problem. Most problems with septic systems k
appear to be occurring on small lots in subdivisions (something pro-
bited by current subdivision regulations) and in rural areas where
the large tracts allow for considerable separation of residences from
the wastes. The recent completion of the County water system has

16
lessened the concerns over contaminating the surficial aquifer which
was the principal source of water for most residents.
AREAS LIKELY TO EXPERIENCE MAJOR LAND USE CHANGES
` The County anticipates that the major land use.changes during
the coming ten to twenty-five years will center about developments in
peat and farming. The County anticipates increasing steady growth
for both uses throughout the County but particularly west of'route 94
between Cross Landing and the Hyde County line. Because farmers.and
peat miners will need increasingly better and cheaper transportation
to bring their goods to market, the County feels that eventually strong
presures will arise for developing docks and boat facilities along the
Alligator River with access to the Intercoastal Waterway. The County
can also envision industries utilizing these goods to locate near
water (a necessity for cooling in many energy intensive industries,
including aluminum processing and powerplants). Although peat develop-
ment and the farming operations are not believed to be labor intensive,
many spinoff industries are, at least in their construction phases
which could be lengthy. Such development could cause increased resi-
dential development in the Gum Neck and Kilkenney areas. Major devel-
opments on either the Alligator or Scuppernong Rivers could pose
environmental consequences to water quality in the river and estuarine
areas. (Se Peat report and Policy discussion for lengthy discussion
of this problem.)
The County expects slow steady growth of areas near the
Scuppernong and along the Sound (north of Columbia) for recreation and
permanent home development. Such development is utilizing the best

Y !
,Lyl,1 ,si l�til
LvLy�LT1i11 -?'1i � �Jli•>
L Ltil L- _ j-albTL"�� i�/ j. •_!` _ 1 „'/ LlTrjT
• 1 }, LlJ �• '� ti� i�tL'L• �...tihi�l•r...:� •r',`�• • i:.T t f J �.. �•''%ttli'�lal,
4T l
`• Lrl ! L ;,tr �L!`•1 ♦!•'r i T ✓T th \ ���li i., 1 'i1L �T 11L/ � !♦ L '♦ � 0
`'; ! J /L > L(y, _, L L Iti'i1�dL� •'r•' -.-/ i -� \_'' ,STT, S''_. (• 1i Jy-ly�T♦-, tLy 1�- LJ L!,/r, ✓�•!11`•
•!y ✓ i1 1 L !� 1 = 1L�! r! t' •-! ,-tom i \' it �'%✓-'�1 Tti -"� J +�r1 r i 1L ! ,L!_�• -'+-' !
y � l:L>1+ j tii.�,� _ Lt .1.•1'1:✓, t1r I '.,\. `ljYL-.r'�1,�•\L;r_ti1iJ. IL ~L %•!: •ri�LTL�1ti�'i1 L i�'��`'`'_�j� L��,L
TL"� ;, �. ,jLti T, S , , J,�,L •/L, L✓✓\ 1tiL ;✓�. w1,rTT'•%l�t;,\�%♦%^'t!%ir , �. �, i✓,L`'�\' , y�r1'` `'-.LT
.t-'.ti L,-.`, 1• 1 �t ✓ �J!✓1 ^•✓_:!r I- /. 3►'_j�y1lLi, �^%-'� �,ti_TT,,r1�%L ,1 �1`�JL,i`!_,`-,•%`�-
♦`� ♦ r 1 �• ♦,% L \ I -. ✓ L (.� ✓ L i 1 L I �, 1 y J ; , i - �.
-, t 1, "� ! \ •.! 1 � -•'! 1 r ✓ ./ - s.�, it \ 1 1/ `.L % ✓ / L %. /ry-+L 11y`,1ti1._,y �.. 1=y., \, ���-'♦
/'L ,1 L . rL ,�, L ti �•. L �' T 1y-,_i y L�,y�� , /r_l
�,( ! �1Lri`r •1 L � 1 /,!- y'i\' % !1 ~i ,�L �' L `•L � � �, > y`' i ^'i \ 2 „1v ��l/ram',♦L �-.L•
L L 1 . L s♦ L!J `% ! ! \,!., ✓- 1 ,/1 r '� L tti
l�L 1' T L- 1 L 1 '• i L � 2 � ✓ 1• 1 • ( /� L .1 >: �' J ♦.
Llr`,t�S it 2 1./11>> - :;'`t �r� �:J�-• �• i;•�/•11L1L!"� il�JIJ1T!:iLr
L,/ -'11 - sue,♦ \'••`.�, \tiri•>�.LJ1�.�',�,L•'.� '!>LJ L ✓.�L: ✓� �� \-'.S/-,!�.y` Js 'L '♦,+ y�`L•
�L\ �,y1 L, l.,` 1�,�>1�� � IL''_,lL�'!1-•_. \y!♦�♦•�•! !.�!'�1`r 1 � '/_yi'LL=',1>r 1✓ J♦ !L /LL 1•
�•1\L1L �til� ,.;11` >•� !t1/` i�.l� !`'� 11_ L"/ ♦ \!-'!"LJ r! yll. �,I_�lLby 1.11r1 lL✓11
1�.1�,••y` L''LS\- ( „ ♦ 1_ �. .' �. S! ltl.J`�'2,,. �1�islj ►' i r ,_, ♦1 1� �vL /. !\lyl,,l
1\1t 1-+(♦ �,1t�.!1J %L•� - tii11i_1 l -L -, lri`�� �L�L' y L✓i'/=.2-!� 1i `,1`iJ`,l y'y! t�,llf Tl♦T '. �,
f( /� �L �yttl,.tii S♦•1 .jy; .L`1; 1!'�LLS11 ' /�/ 1'•lyl: \'"!r! �,1'-'T'i� _ i•T,'!�ST
Lly1ll •.�:. `•1Z•1j�L�•:! L1\,`��••%-�,L�L\L IF
I`•v'�: :r `�-'`'S. �.1•\-,,
t /.1 �.1lw lL1rL1ry 1L ` .,4 ! l ✓ >' 1'' - 1L i ! _,1r.`•_T1! ^T y �•" 1 L`•L
->1'• � J.Lliy�♦, y-'.w ./ _ r♦-. \ l �� 11�11( +''2�.L \r 1!�'L_' � 1 , J'1 'LI
`• \ jLL11 ! , y \' .s !✓L_'"1 \►�`> `T 1 r`1 ,%.•j ` + ! \ L! r 1
r!Li`'•T\,' !L °rIL• �`%'1 jyf1L% > (� i '`+ ♦11�'L� '✓'Z-,TL�.ti�jtiT�'�� 1 i\,.'ll. _,ll .(aL
�'�'1�,`! �1`�: iLL`tl • �\'" L"•,� `,) '`• t 1\• 1-,r-,• '•. i,�1.•y.,,
.� -'\ ,,t "'� '`1-•L1Z.L
♦tol
L✓,. ,,TLIa�( � ."1 f :-' • S,�'!' � � t 1. •, ••'� 11yL tiT_�`,i !
ram: TiLr•Tt•\�`_ '�!'L ��"a•J2`•1 '� � �:� :r •!y-'1�.1!�Lti!-L L� t�-• !!.1 �.
t `�',L fl Lam, bti yam,` .L\. !L LL j �,t _�� .. 11• Lti�.! L •.-'♦ \-,L !L
�'L'IL-LL�`2','`\ ✓ IL ,•,✓1 il;�.�'•^,:y�>LyltL�j1.T/•t\ljLLLy\!r•lILLJ�'�`'�.
1.���'.�lyi•1L11LL.�"L`!% ~i
�� 1L J�.J✓ ^, , ''1L�TL 1 i! j 1L 1L 11 1 L S
1, r✓'! rJ rti 1 ♦-' l - 1`.,r t .Ltii•.
Jl� ! f ,L\`! ! Ltily \1\- r>
!, J L 1( y Tb i I 1
1 ,_✓ 1 t y^,-.`.�.1._� l'i` 1. L L ti, Lt Lam. L 1� j l• �-i-,
t J 1r! ✓� ., L` �, •i. t. ti !, L!- T\•1 ./ 1J !y L .l ! y 1 i tl. ti '-�•
r`�, •�,ll'1✓✓• 'Jl Ly/�• y- !11 :!i,:� ��•♦J/1,1.1t1�1'TLC.L�'ily/111'�,✓LLiiLiiLL1L11L.l,L7S`•bl`'.''/` f 't t!•1`ii,.S
ih'`t e1LkIZr r 1�� r,1 _�L`'1 `L
t °�'• I✓!„1 -'y- i,L�L >ll�`�• t�`�`•itii✓•ll2•,t'Ll1 /L11,\,'pL�`t�•/LA'S rltti/`(`\Ltl'�•r!/� Itly�,✓-
i a � Sl •-! "1 1 L _ �• r_,L L _, r•-a 1. i. L 1 L `, T
L_L_ !16 '_, --
'I , �''�.✓✓~•'`! •-'-,t� t L�1�'; � \j L`'' >y� 11\SS 1'1 �'L �l,l'r` 1LT✓L�'�L�!L�%`�11`/1 IL ,1"\-' '.1
1r r' 1♦L,_. -,Ill L S~_,ti / �'T-,' �j•1 r1 LT Il ;rLi`�� Lti I '.• , Li1� 1 a-L-/ T'''
,�♦l wit .. s`.. '-I I ;'L�-. '�•-� -' 1. I,` 1• \, .•- 1, �,1� !t> r12" \i1 t
�. � '-✓\' t T-, l -' � l jTi`.Sr =,\� LISj L.tii.1.IL1 ! 1��/2i1 1 L L>' 1.
i , yT L .11 T ✓ ti! 1.ti\-,t r-♦ ;'!_'L/SlLL!l.JjLJ
I,. jam, ';T, 's -!' '� \ ..�-�• �'T-'1 \.l' ��-,1\,1�,-�-,.�,-,✓ 1 •'L-'��.1 jT�•`I
��, + '\ ✓1• l,,.-,T ♦i �•r ,/_ � tiitir j,• iL.>1 i +.• lyT 11'
'�•�` 1 TiT. '.. �, �`�sT � iy'\. � r ..c�.?,7•� �t i '�`j-1 �'�'1-- tom\ ti/Ilrl .,} ; r; , �✓ j f+1 ;•i..L; � f� tl�L"•= i~1� i ti !i /�',-'1
✓✓� f •jr�' tS�i',, �ti\� �`,� jTj ` i`t�ti!/iT1 : tih��l�i`I ��1f•fT��✓f1:fi �Tr,r✓�t;11 i'�L! TfJl✓1� fj �1( jl�
/-',` w`'•.\'S` �j•',``1%�ItT��rLil✓,►✓\i��'-.iLil/1'�,\7`Tii��/!✓Lit,r\jLl,�:•l� ti
'��^"S'`✓tilli✓�_.�iti�t.
r •r .. r 1 \ 1 ' 1, J•• v / t i \ — ._ '\ _\ i / i ✓ T 1 \._ ✓ ,=
'44 1♦r, S i ii✓L" t ';'�^jS tii LL �S1 1jjh-Tti-\1 h,T ✓ "� r�✓
jT�• J �i�T / t1i;'2"lT,l/S; j,� ��\ j� :��i:l✓•'1`� �\ ,� 1
\tit'�1T�1 ,tiil✓`\✓/S'.1✓lZ I.�j jSr-��r,rrT
> > i S- 1 S.,_ -S ✓_✓ T l c Sti' r i.. _ 1"'t.�S ✓
• t _- �1 � i �. �i l ✓ ✓ L'- l ✓ ✓ '�i ♦! i•\T �.'\,_'\ ✓ T 5..1 �.
�.;-?.11'•J `S �_' 1• �\Ti/•/,i✓11 1-yT �j ��_�,ti\TS�rlT✓ttt,TSLLLTitTi�hj✓i�,
, T 1jT r� ✓ tS1\ ✓ 11t�=\ T/ hi TSB Lih\✓ti%/ '. _, jh
ZtitiTtiJ1^tj ltiS=\jTtit`=1 Tom\ i T1T\t' ~T\1T"/i✓•'�rr4�"� �y1
a\�S -•♦ jl •L.t`-. -` \ ♦:1lTTT.•,, �i,_tii:�t/ •�,,-ti`jh \ i.'-:�ti` 1i iti'r� T1.1
' j_. '►!_ \,� �- `•' r%1.•✓'\i'�tiT'\-i.-/ i /L hl'ri� ~'.^'`+�• •jt/�! •ti r
f�1 1�'`\ `j1:11 t�-`''\`�' 'ST✓,�jLS 1S\SI
' :' '��♦• i 1�' �'�1 \ li \'✓T,\ i,1 TS .`,1 `T� Zj/ t, l i\ T\r •,_tr ,"✓h
/ i / 1.1• atiT� j1� � i'lS_tiLT � 1 i"- •._ t" T, +t' Z,
r'L✓ `��. S i TTLr��1TST�` �L,:t�t✓�1"ti•+��M1, J
D
O
U
J
J
LU
t�
1-"

R L E p S O
U � D
L
tl1�Y 1112
\ «wy
(� ✓ �I I w, llfa
BULL BAY lw— I I �WIIMP
L mg
.902
�, i•,du+d .L Sc`PP6A �NC-� I ', 1 I I I " ��P �—./ •
\ 7T
F•.4 •� � �'" B!G SAVANNAH
in I /
Wa•dr •� SCUPPERNOl`G
it
LMM
tt
NO W GROUND L I s wH I I 4
�t THE
t C4'" �-- �PRYlNC PAN
CII
lETDtw f
STAT! I I 0(
IARII ( i
LAKE PHELPS
w4 _^ u.. e C PEY/NE 1 a„
BAY
�.I I
_.
T'PRElLl COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
fullll��,,,
ff•u!
EXISTING LAND USE
1980
DEVELOPMENT
-AGRICULTURE
I I I 7F OR EST
OTHER (WETLAND; WATER. OPEN)

17
soils in the County for accommodating septic system effluent.
The County desires to develop the port facilities at Columbia
for recreation and commercial uses. This will require substantial
dredging of the Scuppernong River from Columbia to the Albemarle
Sound. (See Policy section for fuller discussion.) The County hopes
that this will help revitalize the commercial area in Columbia and
result in increased residential development near Columbia. This
would help fill in some of the sprawl patterns of development near
Columbia.
AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
Tyrrell County has the following ACES within its boundaries:
Estatuarine Waters and Shoreline:
Scuppernong River to Riders Creek, 1 mile south of Columbia;
Several small branches of the Scuppernong
Several creeks along the Albemarle Sound, mostly east of
Soundside
The Little Alligator at its source
Second Creek near Pleasant Point
Frying Pan Creek to Lyons Point
Alligator River to Cherry Ridge Landing
Gum Neck Creek to near Gum Neck Landing
Public Trust Waters:
All surface waters not estuarine waters are public trust waters.
Wetlands
The majority of wetland areas occur along the low lying land
• near the Alligator.
Lake Phelps
CURRENT.PLANS, POLICIES.AND REGULATIONS
State Agency Plans
Transportation Improvement Program, 1980-1986.
This plan, prepared by the N.C. Department of Transportation,

is a statewide schedule of highway improvements to be undertaken
during the seven.year period 1980-1986. The only project included
for completion in Tyrrell County was minor improvements along State
Road 1209.
i Y
North Carolina Airport System Plan, 1979
Recommended that Tyrrell County construct a minimum airport
facility to implement State policy of having an airport within 30
minute drive of 95% of State's population.
North Carolina Water Resources Framework Study, 1977
This study, completed by N.C. Department of Natural Resources
and Economic Development in 1977, identified water resource needs
for River Basins in the State. Needs identified with Tyrrell County
are as follows: (1) designate floodway for Columbia .(@) develop
regional water and sewer (3) designate conservation Scuppernong River
corridor, Alligator River south to Gum Neck, wooded swamp along Albe-
marle Sound, Lake Phelps (4) designate fishing use the Little Alligator
(5) designate scenic use Second Creek.
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation P1an,,SCORP.
The purpose of the SCORP is to compile and analyze the
existing supply of and demand for recreation facilities in the State.
The SCORP analysis is by regions and has no specific analysis for
each County. Tyrrell County is in Region R.
Local Land Use Plans
Tyrrell County Land Use Plan, 1976.
Prepared by D.N.R.C.D. under C.A.M.A. the Plan provides a
description.of present conditon of population, economy, land use,

19
constraints to development. It discusses fragile and hazard areas,
areas of environmental concern, areas with resource potential, and
community facilities. It estimates future needs and sets out policies
and objectives related to implementing those needs.
Comprehensive Water and Sewer Study, Tyrrell County, 1971
Prepared by Rivers and Associates analyzes water and sewer
needs and possibilities.
201 Facility Study, 1977.
Prepared by Von Oesen and Associates, determined that a re-
gional sewer facility to serve broad area surrounding Columbia was not
feasible.
Local Regulations and Implementation
Subdivision Regulations, 1973.
The Tyrrell County Planning Board was organized in 1973 to
undertake comprehensive planning. The subdivision ordinance is admini-
stered by the Board which reviews development proposals against stan-
dards set out therein.
Federal Flood Insurance Program
The Federal Flood Insurance'Program is in effect throughout
the County.
State Building Code
The County has adopted the State Building Code. An inspection
officer is planned at such time as required by the State.legislature.
Septic Tank Regulations
Septic tank regulations are administered by the Health Department.
Mobile Home Ordinance
Regulates siting of mobile homes.

20
Policies from the 1976 C.A.M.A. Plan and Other Plans
Tyrrell County adopted the following policies, called goals,
in the 1976 Land Use Plan. These goals were not meant for detailed
implementation.28
(1) To weigh every governmental decision in the balance of these
goals and in the light of the plans which follow from -these goals.
(2) To stop the population decline by encouraging the improvement of
the County, especially as a place of trade, agricultural production,
and recreation(al) opportunities.
(3) To recognize the importance of supporting Columbia in an effort
tp ml4lize the Torn as the County's center of business..
(4) To seek maximum participation by Tyrrell County citizens in the
decisions which will affect their lives.
(5) To provide an environment in which every resident may have the
opportunity to secure adequate, decent, safe and sanitary housing.
(6) To promote the management and use of all natural resources
according to the capability of the resource.
(7) To improve recreational.opportunities.
(8) To provide the most efficient quality government services.
(9) To provide functional and attractive transport routes.
STATE LICENSES AND PERMITS
Aaencv Licenses and Permits
Department of Natural Resources - Permits to discharge to surface
and Community Development waters.or operate waste water
Division of Environmental treatment plants or oil discharge
Management permits; NPDES Permits, (G.S.
143-215).
- Permits for septic tanks with a
capacity over 3000 gallons/day
(G.S. 143-215.3).

21
Department of Natural
Resources and Community
Development
Office of Coastal
Management
Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
Division of Earth Resources
Department; of Natural Resources
and Community Development
Secretary of NRCD
- Permits for withdrawal of
surface or ground waters in
capacity use areas (G.S. 143-
215.15).
- Permits for air pollution
abatement facilities and
sources (G.S. 143-215.108).
- Permits for construction of
complex sources; e.g. parking
lots, subdivisions, stadiums,
etc. (G.S. 143-215.109).
- Permits for construction of a
well over 100,000 gallons/day
(G.S. 87-88).
- Permits to dredge and/or fill
in estuarine waters, tidelands,
etc. (G.S. 113-229).
- Permits to undertake develop-
ment in Areas of Environmental
Concern (G.S. 113A-118).
NOTE: minor development per-
mits are issued by the
local government.
- Permits to alter or construct
a dam (G.S. 143-215.66).
- Permits to a mine (G.S. 74-51).
- Permits to drill an exploratory
oil or gas well (G.S. 113-381).
- Permits to conduct geographical
exploration (G.S. 113-391).
- Sedimentation erosion control
plans for any land disturbing
activity of over one contiguous
acre (G.S. 113A-54).
- Permits to construct an.oil
refinery.

22
Department of - Easements to fill where lands
Administration are proposed to be raised
above the normal high water mark
of navigable waters by filling
(G.S. 146,6(c)).
Department of Human - Approval to operate a solid
Resources waste disposal site or facility
(0,S. 130=166,16).
- Approval for construction of
any public water supply facility
that furnishes water to residences
(G.S. 130-160.1).
FEDERAL LICENSES AND PERMITS
Agency Licenses and Permits
Army Corps of Engineers.
(Department.of Defense)
Coast Guard
Department of
Transportation
Geological Survey
Bureau of Land Management
(Department of Interior)
- Permits required under Sections
9 and 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors of 1899; permits to
constructin navigable waters.
- Permits required under Section
103 of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972.
- Permits required under Section
404 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act of 1972; permits
to undertake dredging and/or
filling activities.
- Permits for bridges, causeways
pipelines over navigable waters;
required under the General
Bridge Act of 1946 and the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899.
- Deep water port permits.
- Permits required for off -shore
drilling.
- Approvals of OCS pipeline cor-
ridor rights -of -way.

Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
23
- Licenses for siting, construc-
tion and operation of nuclear
power plants; required under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and
Title II of the Energy Reorgani-
zation Act of 1974.
- Permits for construction, opera-
tion'and maintenance of inter-
state pipelines facilities
required under the Natural Gas
Act of-1938.
- Orders of interconnection of
electric transmission facilities
under Section 202(b) of the Federal
Power Act.
- Permission required for abandon-
ment of natural gas pipeline
and associated facilities
under Section 7C (b) of the
Natural Gas Act of 1938.
- Licenses for non-federal hydro-
electric projects and associated
transmission lines under Sections
4 and 15 of the Federal Power
Act.

24
CONSTRAINTS: LAND SUITABILITY
Section II
Hazard Areas: Man -Made
Several man-made hazards exist. A USAF bombing range is
located in the Albemarle Sound north of Dewer Pier (see SR1218).
All but a ten mile wide air corridor over the County is closed to
private aviation (this is a new corridor for private and commer-
cial flights.) There is a privately owned landing strip east of
the Pier.
One oil tank storage facility remains on the Columbia water-
front. Recently a second storage facility owned by Hollowell Oil
Company was moved.
Hazard Areas: Natural
The County's elevation is above 6 feet in only a few locations,
mostly near Lake Phelps. All lands below 6 feet elevation have been
designated by the U.S. Geologic Service as being within the 100 year
flood area. This means that most of the County has a 1% chance of
being flooded each year.
Riverine floodways and flood plains have not been delineated
in the County.
Estuarine erosion areas have been determined by the Soil
Conservation Service for 121 points along the Albemarle Sound and Alli-
gator River. Annual erosion rates are as follows:
Shoreline in Scuppernong Township, 3.1 feet
Other shoreline along Albemarle, 2.1 feet
Little Alligator shoreline, 2.2 feet
Little Alligator to.Second Creek on Alligator, 3.3 feet
Alligator to Gum Neck, 2.0.
Alligator River, Gum Neck to Kilkenney, 1.5 feet

Soils
25
The Soil Conservation Service is in the process of preparing
detailed mapping of soil types in the County. At the time Coastal
Consultants, Ltd. prepared their factor map these maps were available
for most of the residential or community areas in the County. The
consultants used these maps to prepare their factor map, Soils Unsuit-
able for Development.
The soils -in Tyrrell County are generally unsuitable for on -
lot sewage disposal due to wetness, too rapid permeability, too slow
permeability, or poor filtering capacity. Of the thirty-five soil.
units which are found in the County, only five soil units are reason-
ably suited for septic system filter beds; Bojac Loamy Sand, Conetoe
Loamy Sand, State Loamy Sand, Tarboro Sand, and Wickham Loamy. Sand.
Unfortunately, these soils are found in generally the same region of
the County, the northern portion. Many areas in which development
seeks to locate are devoid of these more suitable soils. Although the
County water system continues to expand, lessening potential problems
from individual water supplies which could become contaminated, pollu-
tion of surface waters and health hazards from septic leachates which
may pond or appear in drainage ditches remain a problem of concern.
Soils were also felt to be a major constraint to agricultural
production yet through drainage and (in some instances, as in peat lands)
the removal of overburden of unsuitable soils, the land has been made
suitable for crops. Several projects of note here are the Gum Neck
watershed project, begun in 1959 under sponsorship of the Pamlico
Soil and Water Conservation District and others, which reclaimed 7,450
acres of land for crops and wildlife management. This was accomplished

26
by creating 17 miles of channels and 21 miles of levies to protect the
land from wind tides. The land being diked, water was pumped from it.
The costs of this reclamation was $778,000. Similar PL 565 projects
are underway at the present time in Fairfield (Hyde County) and in
Creswell.29 Many private landowners have used channelization to drain
their land so that it would be suitable for agriculture and other uses.
Early First Colony Farms reports stated that company's intent to re-
move several feet (depth) of peat to reach a rich topsoil layer
suitable for producing crops.
Soils also pose a problem.in.other respects, namely the suita-
bility of the soils greatly restrict the areas where an airport could
be located and where dredge material can be disposed of,30
Ground Water
The Yorktown aquifer is the principal source of water supply
in Tyrrell County. This aquifer consists chiefly of beds of marl,
sand and consolidated coquina that are generally separated by beds of
clay or sandy clay. Yields of 5 to 20 gpm are common in most small
diameter wells in the Yorktown aquifer. Yields of 75 to 100 gpm may
possibly be obtained from carefully constructed wells of large diameter.
The aquifer is recharged directly in the area of outcrop and indirectly
by seepage of water through overlying surficial sand. The chemical
quality of water from the Yorktown aquifer varies with the lithology.
The water is commonly moderately hard to hard.31
29Conversation with Mr. Pierce of N.C., Division of Soil and
Water Conservation
30Conversations with Mr. Bruce Matthews, N.C. Division of Aero-
nautics and Mr. James Wells, U.S. Army Corps.
31Tyrell County Land Use Plan, 1976, p.�32.

27
Surficial sediments of Pleistocene and Recent Age comprise
the non -artesian or water table aquifer of the Swan Quarter area.
This aquifer is recharged directly by precipitation and surface
storage and, where it immediately overlies artesian aquifers, acts
as a source of recharge to them. The water table is usually within
2 to 3 feet of the land surface except in the swamp, where it is at
the surface. Water from this shallow aquifer is characteristically
31
soft, irony and corrosive.
The County has recently completed a public water system. This
system which connects the Columbia system built in 1964 services most
of the northwestern, central and southeastern portions of the County.
The plant can produce 250 gpm, with two wells capable of producing
250 gpm each. The system has an elevated storage of 250,000 gallons.
The provision of public water to additional areas continues to be
feasible on a cost effective basis.32 Alligator Township, which appears
to have some difficulty with septic systems, is not currently being
served by public water.32
Steep Slopes
Because of the flatness of the terrain, steep slopes are not
a constraint to development in the County.
Surface Water Quality
The quality of the surface water is sometimes a constraint to
31Tyrrell County Land Use Plan, 1976, p. 32.
32County Water Department
33Tyrrell County Plannipg Board

0
industrial and commercial development that needs the water for proces-
sing, cooling or consumption. High chloride concentrations make
estuarine waters often unsuitable for many industrial uses. Typical
high values are those above 55 mg/l. Data for the Albemarle and
Scuppernong is as follows:
ALBEMARLE SOUND NEAR EDENTON
% of Time Chloride (in mg/L.)
95
5
90
15
80
30
60
40
50
120
40
250
30
300
20
880
10
1500
5
2530
1
7000
SCUPPERNONG RIVER NEAR CRESSWELL
% of Time Chloride (in Mg/L.
95
5
90
7
80
12
60
20
50
25
40
28
30
30
20
38
10
90
5
200
1
1200
SCUPPERNONG RIVER NEAR COLUMBIA
of Time
Chloride (in Mg/L.)
95
25
90
40
80
200
60
310
50
550
40
880
30
1000
20
1200
10
1500
5
1850
1
2530

29
ALLIGATOR RIVER
No test data exists at this time. However, satellite
infrared photography suggests that salinity may be sig-
nificantly lower than the Albemarle, as well as overall
water quality.
FRAGILE AREAS
Coastal Wetlands
Coastal wetlands include salt and fresh water marshes.
The marshes in Tyrrell County are fresh water marshes. The dominant
species in these areas are bullrush, cattail, sawgrass, and cordgrass.
The soils of these marshes are typically peaty and continually water-
logged with fresh to brakish water.34 The majority of the wetlands
occur along the Alligator River and its tributaries, with the largest
wetland located on Long Shoal Point. In total about 850 acres are
located on 15 sites. These wetlands are often referred to as AEC
Wetlands in differentiated them from wetlands not regulated by the
State but considered within the Army Corps jurisdiction.35 Although
these wetlands are in little danger from urbanized uses, they can be
affected by agriculture, forestry, mining and other similar uses. (See
map of AEC wetlands)
Wetlands provide a wide variety of functions. They recharge
groundwater reservoirs, act as a sediment and nutrient trap in which
eroded soil and wastes are filtered out naturally from water.; retain
flood water during heavy rainfall; act as plant and wildlife habitats
and provide the lifecycle for wildlife. Many species of fish and wild-
34Conversations with Mr. Ken Jolly, U.S. Army Corps
351976 Tyrrell County Land Use Plan

30
life spend at least part of their lives in wetlands.
404 Wetlands, or Wetlands Adjacent and Contiguous to Coastal Waters
In addition to the wetlands noted above where development
activity involving dredging and filling will require State and
Federal permits, the U.S. Army Corps also asserts jurisdiction to
wetlands that are "adjacent and contiguous" to coastal waters
(waters with a flow of 5 or more cubic feet per second). In Tyrrell
County these wetland areas are typified by the presence of Atlantic
white cedar, cypress, tupelo gum, black gum, red maple and red bay
(the latter species -being those that fill in the canopy.) The
soils in these areas are saturated or inundated by the ground or
surface so that it supports wetland vegetation.36 These areas domin-
ate the low lands near the Alligator River and the various creeks and
streams making their way from the inland parts of the County. The
County is not aware of any existing map of these areas.
Pocosins
The 404 wetland area closely resembles the "swamp forest."
The pocosin, on the other hand, is described as a "swamp on a hill."
It consists of dense masses of evergreen shrubs, with scattered
pond pine, growing on highly organic peat soils. The peat underlying
the surface may reach fifteen to twenty feet and have'a distinct layer
of buried logs.37 Pond pine is usually the only tree of any importance.
It has a slow growth rate. The pond pine forest is highly susceptible
36Conversations with Ken Jolly, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington
37North Carolina Atlas, 1975. Chapter on "Vegetation" written
by Arthur Cooper et. al.

31
to fire and reproduces in this manner. The major shrubs are ti-ti,
fetter bush, sweet pepperbush, red bay and myrtle. Although the
water table is near the surface during much of the year, the pocosin
is not regularly flooded. It is generally land -locked and without a
water outlet. However, many of the species found in the pocosin are
also found in the swamp forest.
Some pocosin-areas in Tyrrell County are drained and used for
commercial forestry. Other areas have been cleared for agriculture.
These areas were designated by First Colony Farms for the peat mines.
The pocosins lie for the most part immediately to the west of NC 94.
In LANDSAT imagery these areas appear bright red in color.
Estuarine and Public Trust Waters
Estuarine waters include the Scuppernong River to Riders
Creek (about 1 mile south of Columbia), the Little Alligator at
its source, the Second Creek near Pleasant Point, Frying Pan Creek
inland to Lyons Point, the Alligator River to Cherry Ridge Landing
and Gum Neck Creek to near the Gum Neck Landing, and many small
creeks, branches and streams. All other lakes, streams, canals
and surface water bodies are public trust waters.
The North Carolina Stream Classification System categorizes
all streams according to their intended use. The following list shows
classification of water bodies in the County:
C Swamp Scuppernong River to Riders Creek
Alligator River and tributaries to
junction of main forks
Most canals
SB Bulls Bay
SC Albemarle Sound
SC Swamp Alligator River

32
Class A is the highest use and is reserved for sources of drinking
water or food processing. Class B is for bathing; C is for fishing
and boating. S means salt water.38
The Sound and its tributaries have proven to be exceptionally -
favorable habitats for anadromous fish, such as stripped bass and
herring. Marshes are important as nurseries and nesting for waterfowl.
The Sound is healthy and shows few signs of eutrophication. (However,
LANSAT imagery, used by Coastal Consultants, documented heavy turbidity
in the Sound when compared with the Alligator River.) Commercial and
sport fishermen have complained that the Sound is becoming increasingly
fresh. This may be from increased drainage from agricultural and -
other uses, or from increased impervious surfaces from urban uses, or
from decreased saltwater intrusion from loss of inlets from the Sound
to the ocean.
Neither the Sound, nor the Alligator River appear to be in
danger of pollution from Tyrrell County septic systems, animal lots,
etc. Fecal and total coliform counts, readily a measure of this `
type activity, are both well below State standards, namely 200 colo-
nies per ml. for class B waters and 1000 per ml..for C waters.39
According to the Department of Agriculture there is no evidence to
support the claim that agricultural uses are significantly contributing
to water quality problems with the Sound or any other water body in
Tyrrell County. (See comments of State, Department of Agriculture
to preliminary draft of this plan.)
381976 Tyrrell County Land Use Plan
39Water Quality Management Plan and Sanitation Reports 1977
through 1979.

33
Complex Natural Areas
Complex natural areas are lands that support native plant and
animal communities and provide habitat conditions or characteristics
that have remained essentially unchanged by human activity. Such
areas are surrounded by landscapes that have been modified but that do
not drastically alter the conditions within the natural areas or their
scientific or educational value.
Complex natural areas provide the few remaining examples of
conditions that existed within the coastal area prior to settlement
by Western man. Often these natural areas provide habitat conditions
suitable for rare and endangered species or they support plant and
` animal communities representative of pre -settlement conditions. These
areas help provide an historical perspective to changing natural
conditions in the coastal area and together are important and irreplace-
able scientific and educational resources.
Most of Tyrrell County could be described as a complex natural
area. In addition to the marshes and pocossins discussed above, this
area also includes the vast area of wooded swamp. A close relationship
exists between these lands and the areas that sustain remnant species
for the swamps and bogs are the preferred habitats for many rare and
endangered plant and animal species.
Bog land occurs along the Alligator River and extends far in-
land with Second Creek and the Frying Pan. Bog land is the result of
poor drainage; the soils are usually moist to waterlogged. Over time,
bogs become overlaid with a layer of organic soil formed by decaying
plants and plant materials. It is not uncommon for fallen trees to
become embedded in the muck. Bogs can be used for timberland under

34
intensive managements; they can also be drained and used for farmiod.
Bog used for timberland can still provide refuge for big
game, especially bobcat, deer and bear found in the County. Bog
converted to agricultural use may still be suitable for deer.
Wooded swamps in the County are largely east of route 94.
Lowlands near the Alligator River are flooded annually. The dense
shade of trees growing in the swamps restricts the growth of aquatic
plants that serve as food for ducks and muskrats. Swamps serve as a
refuge area for a variety of wildlife and are excellent for growing
certain types of timber. Much of the swampland in Tyrrell County is
valuable for peat. This land which is currently wooded maybe drained
and cleared in the future if peat is to be produced in Tyrrell County.
Swamps converted to peat harvest and eventually farming may still be
suitable for deer. Such use is probably incompatible with habitat
needs of bobcat and bear. Intensive forest management is not likely
to decrease the value of the swamp for wildlife.
Areas that Sustain Remnant Species
Areas that sustain remnant species are those places that
support native plants or animals,.rare or endangered, within the coastal
area. Such places provide habitat conditions necessary for the survival
of existing populations or communities of rare and endangered species
within the county.
The North Carolina Endangered Species Committee, convened by
D.N.R.C..D., has compiled a list of endangered plants and animals in
North CArolina. The list provides a knowledge of those plant and
animal species that are threatened with extinction. In many instances,

35
such as the cougar and the alligator, these are species that lend
character to the State and County and should never be allowed to
disappear from our native flora and fauna. By identifying species
endangered, and by identifying projects and actions that could
threaten the species habitat, State agencies should be able to develop
programs that protect the species.
AREAS WITH RESOURCE POTENTIAL
Agricultural Lands
Areas having resource potential for agriculture include
productive and unique agricultural land that consists of prime
agricultural soils, potentially valuable agricultural land with
moderate conservation efforts, and other productive or unique agri-
cultural lands. Productive farmland is generally defined as land
suited and available for producing food, forage, fiber, and oilseed
crops. Examples of productive farmland are cropland, pastureland,
rangeland and forestland. Productive farmland has the soil quality
and growing season necessary to produce significant and sustained
crop yields when treated and managed according to modern farming
methods. Unique farmland is land that is suited for the production
of specific high -value food and fiber crops (citrus, olives, fruit,
vegetables.)40
Once drained, much of Tyrrell County yields good farmland or
forest acreage. (Note, Gum Neck watershed project referred to earlier).
The best agricultural lands lie in the northern sections of the County.
39Tyrrell County Land Use Plan, 1976, p. 45.

36
Other productive land lies east of route 94, north of Gum Neck.
Mining Lands
A mineral resource is a concentration of an element, a chemical
compound or a rock such that a usable mineral commodity can be extracted
from it without regard to profit. Mineral resources include undiscovered
deposits as well as identified deposits that cannot be recovered now.
The mineral resources of present value lying in Tyrrell County are
probably .limestone, phosphate and sand. No'mining of these materials
is going on at the present time.
Currently much attention is centering about the possible
harvesting of the peat reserves within the County. First Colony Farms
estimated that the amount of peat reserves in the County amounted to
approximately 45,000 acres. (A full report on the peat reserves, its
implications, and a map of lands appears in the section dealing with
peat.)41
Forest Resources
(A full analysis of forest lands, type forest, size of stands,
growth and yield appears in the first section of this plan under the
economy.)
Outdoor Recreation Lands
Private and public lands are heavily used in Tyrrell County
for hunting and fishing. The Wildlife Resources Commission estimates
that the following wildlife are hunted in Tyrrell County: deer, ra-
41See report on Peat Mining, Appendix F.

37
coon, possum, rabbit, geese, squirrel, fox, woodcock, ducks, dove
and quail. The hunting of bear and cougar, also present in the
County, is prohibited.42 In terms of fishing, white perch and pan -
fish comprise about 70% of the catch. (Information on fishing is
presented in the next two pages.)43
Pettigrew State Park, a growing State recreation area on
Lake Phelps, is partially in Tyrrell County. This park has camping
sites, hiking, boating, etc. (See Report on Lake Phelps.)
Cultural and Historic Resources
The County is aware of only one historic site placed on the
' register of national landmarks, namely the Tyrrell County Courthouse.
This building which has been renovated is open to the public.
The County is not aware of the existence of any specific
sites of archaeological importance.
42See Tyrrell County Land Use Plan, 1976, pp. 37-43.
43Same as above.

ECOLOGICAL TYPE CLASSIFICATION OF NORTH CAROLINA STREAMS
WIDTH
DEPTH FLOW TEMP.
TURB. BOTTOM AILK.pH
FAUNA
OTHER
1 Dace
Shallow
Sand, gravel.
Dace,
-Most Headwater
Trickle,
0-5'
few pools 0-1 Varies
Clear boulders Varies
Shiners
Piedmont and
Coastal streams
*4 Largemouth
Over
Mod, deep Over 5 Cool
Clear Predomin- M 6
L.M.B.
Mod. sized
Pickerel.
10'
pools
antly sand
Suckers,
upper Piedmont
*10 Tidal Over Deep Over Warm
20' 10
12 Dredged o-50 Shallow, 0-100 Warm
no pools cfs
* Tyrrell County Streams
SOURCE: Wildlife Resources Commission
1976 County Land Use Plan
Varies Sand, muck, Varies`
silt
Varies Sand, silt
Bullheads and some
Coastal Plain
streams
Bass, Coastal
Catfish, streams
W. Perch, influenced
various by tide
andromous
species
Shiners, Coastal plain
small and some
centrare- Piedmont
hids Streams
8

39
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Section III
Water
The Town of Columbia and the County of Tyrrell operate a
water system which can deliver water from either system's storage
tank or from both systems operating together.
The Town system has had some recent improvements, it has
the following capacity:44
Above ground storage 200,000 gallons
Pumping capacity 300,000 gallons/minute
Actual use 280,000 gallons/minute
The County system, whose service area is dilineated in the
map that follows, has the following capacity:45
Above ground storage 250,000 gallons
Pumping capacity 350,000 gallons/minute
Actual Use 250,000 gallons/minute
The delivery system for the County reaches shoreline areas along
the Albemarle Sound near Columbia and Gum Neck. The County plans to
serve Kilkenney and Alligator areas in the near future.
Sewer
The only sewer system in the County is operated and maintained
by the Town of Columbia. Some improvements have been made to the
system, especially in line placement and sizing. The system has ex-
cess capacity for use by the commercial or industrial sector. In a
recent study it was determined that the sewer system could not feasibly
44Tyrrell County Water Department
45Mr. Harrell, Manager, Town of Columbia

40
be extended to serve a large sewer area including Columbia and
Scuppernong township. The system is capable of serving areas that -
would be within the proposed diked area for the Town and its environs.
Further extension might also be possible.46
Schools
The County operated school system consists of two schools,
the one an elementary school operating for grades kindergarten through
sixth grade and having a total enrollment of 411 students, the other
a high school with grades seven through twelve and having an enroll-
ment of 395 students. The County employs 53 teachers. Recent
additions (or items scheduled to be completed within the next few
months) include a new auditorium, a new band building and a library
for the elementary school. The school system is not anticipating an
increase in school enrollment. Buildings and recreational facilities
at both schools appear adequate for future needs to 1985.47
Police and Fire
Police services for both the County and Town of Columbia are
centered in the County Sheriff's Department. The sheriff's department
consists of l sheriff, 3 deputies and 4 radio dispatchers. The dis-
patching unit is used to dispatch all emergency vehicles, including
ambulance and fire. Two volunteer fire departments operate in the
County, one in Columbia and one in Gum Neck. There is some popular
support for creating a third volunteer fire department in the New-
46Mr. Harrell, Manager, Town of Columbia
47Tyrrell County Superintendant of Schools (office)

41
lands --Cross Landing area. The County is also considering the
possibility of adding additional personnel to the Sheriff's Depart-
ment.
cni;A Wae+c
The elevation of the County prohibits the siting of a landfill
within its boundaries except in the peat bogs where extensive exca-
vation would be necessary. The County operates a rubblefield. All
solid wastes.'in the County are hauled to a private landfill site in
Washington County. The County anticipates that the private sector will
be able to handle future demands.
Health
The County has had difficulties with the provision of health
services. Currently the Albemarle Regional Health Services, Inc. is
supposed to be providing doctors, technical people and staff on an 8
hour basis for 5 days a week. The residents of the County have expressed
considerable concern that the services even if rendered as promised
would be inadequate in that -the County.needs a full time doctor and
dentist. The residents, however, expressed -some dissatisfaction with
the staffing of the facility and the costs of the care.
The County has approached the Tyrrell Rural Health Association
for assistance. The Association has requested a grant to provide
medical services, especially that of a full time doctor with staff who
would live in the County and be available for emergencies. The
grant application also requests funds for hiring dental personnel.48
48James Ryan, Tyrrell Department of Social Services

The County currently operates the ambulance service.
Roads
42
The State maintains all roads and streets in the County
except those in the Town of Columbia or that are privately owned. The
two primary roads in the County are US 64 and NC 94. Both of these
roads operate in excess of capacity. Substantial improvements were
made to US 64 in the last couple of years. Plans to improve sections
of US 64 in Washington County will make it necessary to improve the
road east of Columbia. The County is concerned that the road system
may not be adequate to evacuate the Dare beaches. During the last
evacuation traffic appeared to flow steadily for some 18 hours prior '
to the anticipation of the storm coming.
Library
The County library is reputed to be one of the most heavily
used in the region; it's circulation is estimated at $4 per person.
Regrettably the facility is housed in small quarters and sufficient
space for showing films does not exist. The Library Board has recom-
mended that new facilities be provided. The County commissioners are
investigating the possibility of moving this facility into a new
building which would be built at the Tyrrell County Hall (other places
are also being considered). The County has applied to the Governor's
Office for funds for this purpose.49
Recreation
Through the Community Schools Program the County has extended
49Conversation with-J.D. Brickhouse, County Finance Officer.

43
recreational opportunties to the general public. Both schools have
athletic and other facilities which are available and have been
extensively used by the public, including football fields, baseball
fields, playground, and gyms. The program has included usual sport
use and more unusual items, such as chorus and ballet.

0
0
u
SEWAGREATME
` FORCE
MAIN I
PUW STA
- , T O
•^ _ - 10
•r L /
i
O � _
.'t
1
10r~
SEWER SYSTEM
s '
t _
TOWN OF COLUMBIA
TYRRELL COUNTY, N.t.
200 0 200 400 900 WO
SOLE i[[T
Ip0
t

U I
f 1 `•N � r, rl � I �I /
� r y � ` ram; •ir' •!� � / _� row
i. i
W
I • I
. air , , rn • . a Ir I'`S.. �zyAyi (Y r.w � '
I FYIF�vA. YI
R t CQUNTY N i.
... a � TY RENOL, CAROLINA
Water System =� W 4 IRAPEME
BAY
rn 8" MAINS
MAINS
l
J•
r
31 IT

44
ESTIMATED DEMAND
Section IV
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Various efforts have been made to estimate the County's
population for the next ten years. According to the North Carolina
Office of Budget and Management projections, projections are as
follows:
1990 PROJECTIONS (O..B. M.)50-
Year Population
1980 3792
1985 4200
1990 4400 `
The.above projections were based on 1970 and previous census in-
formation.
In a report filed with this land use plan, Coastal Consultants,
Ltd. contended that the estimated population for 1980 based on the
1970 census is too low, primarily due to a miscount of the actually
counted population in 1970. Thus in the last land use plan the County
planned for a loss of population between 1975 and 1980. Even accor-
ding to census estimates this loss has not occurred. Coastal Consul-
tants, Ltd.'s projections were -based on a study of tax records.and
housing stock (see report for methodology) That projection is as
follows:
1990 PROJECTIONS (C.C.)51
Year Population'
1980 4901
1985 5464
1990 5976
50N.C. Office of Management and Budget
51Report from Coastal Consultants, Ltd. "Population"

45
This would represent a growth rate of 2.2% per year. A projected
population by Township is as follows:
1990 PROJECTIONS:
BY TOWNSHIP52
Township
1980
Annual rate
1990
Columbia (town)
896
2.0
1002
Columbia (rural)
1842
3.0
2405
Scuppernong
1032
2.2
1250
Gum Neck
600
2.5
739
Alligator
452
1.0
493
South Fork
73
2.0
87
Strongest growth rates are in Columbia rural, Gum Neck and Scuppernong
Townships.
FUTURE LAND NEEDS
The following analysis is presented to project the amounts
of land needed to accomodate the projected population to 1990. The
analysis is intended to serve as a general indicator of amounts of
land which could be used given general standards for land which
would be consumed for various development uses. A brief discussion
follows of the kinds of uses or factors through which areas were
"removed" from potential development in the land use projection model.
The policies and methods of implementation for those uses which were
removed from development potential in the model are addressed in Sec-
tion V. The purpose of the analysis is to determine if enough land
area exists to accommodate the planning period development in areas
suitable for development given the areas which the County wishes to
constrain with policies indicated and implemented.
Consideration of Constraints
Sewer: The model makes no provision for a County sewer

46
system being built within the ten year planning period. Provision is
made to serve as many as 100 residents moving to Columbia had a small -
percentage of persons added to neighboring townships who could be
served by minor extensions of the Town of Columbia's sewer system.
Water: Water availability is not anticipated to be a constraint
to development, except in Alligator township --even here it is only a
partial constraint.
AEC Wetlands: Coastal wetlands which meet the definition of
an area of environmental concern were considered as constraints and
removed from development potential.
Soils Unsuitable for On -lot Sewage Disposal: Implementation
of proposed subdivision regulations would require one acre minimum
lot size on soils unsuitable for on -lot sewage disposal. The model
first removes these soils entirely from development to determine if
theoretically enough land area is available to develop without resort-
ing to use of these soils. Then the model reinserts these areas with
one acre minimum lot size as the only restriction.
Estuarine Shoreline: Although the rules and regulations which
apply to these areas do not restrict development within 100 feet of
estuarine waters (rather only the location of septic systems and the
amount of cover destroyed), the model removed this area from develop-
ment, reflecting the difficulty in obtaining a permit to build in these
areas.
Woodlands: Woodlands were not considered'a constraint.
Flood Hazard Areas: Tyrrell County is currently not enforcing
flood hazard regulations since no detailed study has been done for
the County and no elevations are available.

47
Zoning: Tyrrell County has not adopted a zoning ordinance.
State Lands: Areas owned by government agencies were removed
from the model.
Developed Areas: Areas already developed with structures,
roads, etc. were removed from development potential.
Hurricane Evacuation: The County's population should be able
to be evacuated in the event it were required or became desireable.
STANDARD FOR LAND USE PROJECTIONS
Land Use Land Consumed Per Person (acres)
Residential .4100
Commercial .0020
Institutional .0026
Recreational .0035
Industrial .0120
In developing these standards, residential use was descriptive of the
actual situation. For other uses, we consulted national standards and
used our experience from similarly situated counties.
Projections
Projections of future land use needs were calculated using
model prepared by Coastal Consultants, Ltd. Projected population
increase to 1990 is 400 to 1,075 people.
LAND ACREAGE NEEDS 1980 to 1990
Residential
Commercial
Institutional
Recreational
Industrial
441.3
2.2
2.8
3.3
13.2
Land suited for development with constrained acres considered exceeds
15,000 acres. Thus, enough land is available to handle the 1990
growth without using constrained areas.

48
If we consider the more realistic approach that soils un-
suitable for septic systems will be used, then the acres available
fPr development exceed 150,000 acres. Thus, various land controls
can be implemented without significantly reducing development
potential or limiting area choice.

Resource Protection
Soils
POLICY DISCUSSION
Section V
The soils in Tyrrell County are limited for the use of on lot
sewage disposal systems (see Section II). An individual analysis of
each site is needed to determine the soil suitability of a particular
development proposal. Many tracts of land in Columbia and Scuppernong
Townships have land rated as generally suitable for septic system use.
The County considered the following alternatives for dealing with this
problem. (1) building County sewer facility, or extending the sewer
facility lines of the Town of Columbia approximately 10 miles (2) buil-
ding County water system and restricting the use of septic systems in
one of the following manners: (a) restricting septic systems only
to areas on the soils map shown as suitable for such systems (b) re-
stricting systems on unsuitable soils to varying minimum lot sizes of
one-half to three acres (c) requiring 24 inch separation Deiween
lines and water table (3) not doing anything
Selected policy: (1) Make County -wide water available to
all communities in the County and to all subdivisions (2) restrict
septic systems on poor soils as rated by the Soil Conservation Service
to one acre minimum lot size.
Implementation: Revise subdivision regulations to (1) require
developers to connect to County water system (2) require one acre
minimum lot size on land rated as unsuitable for septic systems (see
map of soils)..

50
Flood Hazard
Tyrrell County is still in the preliminary phase of the Federal
Flood Program. Therefore, a detailed flood study showing elevations
throughout the County has not been completed. The County has no inspec-
tion office to administer a flood ordinance. The following alternatives
were considered: (1) allow no development in the flood hazard area
(2) attempt to determine where flood hazard areas exist and require
structures to be elevated above the hazard (3) status quo
Selected Policy: The County determined that until a detailed
flood study was completed in Tyrrell County by the Federal Government,
enforcement of any regulations could not be carried out.
Wetlands (Coastal Wetlands.of AEC wetlands only)
The County has determined that wetlands in the County are a
valuable resource. Since many other areas exist for development
wihtout developing coastal wetlands, development in such areas does
not seem necessary. The County considered the following alternatives:
(1) require an environmental assessment prior to development for
all proposals involving wetlands (2) require large lots in wetlands
as a condition for development (3) allow no development in wetlands.
Selected Policy: Allow no development on areas -designated as
AEC wetland which would require dredging or filling except for farm
uses, placement of utilities, or uses which would require the inter-
face of wetland areas with water uses (such as marina development) and
only with adherence to rules and regulations of CAMA.
Implementation: (1) amend subdivision regulations to prohibit
development in AEC wetlands except in accordance with the above policy

51
(2) notify CAMA in the event that development in AEC wetland areas
occurs (3) designate area as conservation on land classification
map and designate appropriate uses in the zone.
AECs
Tyrrell County has the following AECs within its boundaries:
estuarine and public trust waters, estuarine shoreline, wetland and
Lake Phelps. Alternatives considered in dealing with these areas
included (1) listing specific uses which would be appropriate.in each
of the AECs (2) allowing no development in AECs (3) attempting to en-
force more stringent regulations than the State in these areas.
Selected Policy: The County has determined that present
State regulations on AECs are sufficient to protect them from
significant damage. The County will require a minimum of one acre
lots where such lots were judged by Soil Conservation Service as
being limited or severely limited for the use of septic systems as a
means of protecting the estuarine and public waters from possible
septic tank contamination.
Implementation: The County will amend subdivision regulations
to enforce the above policy.
Pocossins, Bogs, Swamps:
A large portion of the County falls into one of these three
classes of land. Many of these areas are valuable for commercial
forestry; they also have potential for good farmland. These lands
are valuable to the County for hunting and fishing and possible
habitat for rare and endangered species. Alternatives considered
in dealing with these areas are:

52
(1) adopt an environmental protection ordinance to evaluate pro-
posals on an individual basis recognizing their different benefits
and the adverse consequences to the environment and other uses
(2) designate the entire area for nomination as an AEC (3) des-
ignate a portion of the area as conservation on the land classification
map and specify acceptable uses (4) do not seep to protect these
areas in their natural state but allow them to be drained for agri-
cultural and forestry uses.
Selected Policy: The County has determined that keeping land
in forestry production and increasing the amount of land in agriculture
is of prime importance. The County is opposed to increasing the amount
of government interference with the individual, especially the regula-
tion of the use of his land. The restrictions that government has
placed on Ithe-development of 404 wetlands and perhaps pocosins is not
considered in the best interest of furthering.agricultural develop-
ment and other development in the County.
Implementation: The County will not designate these areas as
conservation. The County will not adopt a zoning ordinance or amend
its subdivision regulations to protect these areas from development.
Cultural and Historic Resources
The County Courthouse is the only structure placed on the
National Register. The County is not aware of any other significant
cultural or archaeological. resources. Until a list of such sites
are provided the County cannot effectively plan to protect these
resources. The County considered the following alternatives: (1)
develop an archaeological and cultural review ordinance (2) inven-
tory older structures to'determine if any have significant historic

53
value (3) request private citizens to notify the County if they
have a house or structure that they might feel has some historic or
cultural significance.
Selected Policy: Before undertaking significant developmental
actions, the County will investigate the site for possible archaeo-
logical or cultural significance. The County will not destroy a
building if it is found to be of unique historical significance. The
County will conform to all applicable laws regarding archaeological
and other historic sites.
Implementation: The County will issue a directive to County
agencies asking for historical, cultural and archaeological review
of construction sites before County actions are taken.
Hurricane Evacuation
Tyrrell County plans and shelters are sufficient to handle
its own residents. The County anticipates that the growing popularity
of the Outer Banks may make evacuation through the County on existing
bridges and roads difficult. The following alternatives were con-
sidered: (1) request the State to improve US 64 to increase its
safety and its capacity (2) build additional shelters (3) request
.Dare County to address this in their hurricane evacuation plans.
Selected Policy: Civil Preparedness Coordinators in Tyrrell
and Dare County believe that plans are sufficient to allow for safe
evacuation if people respond properly to early warnings. The County
will request that the Department of Transportation improve US 64
through the County.
Implementation: The County will make a request to the Depart-

ment of Transportation.
Erosion
54
The factors which influence the rate of erosion are fetch,
exposure, wind, tides, soils, bank height and use. The varying erosion
rates have been set out in this land use plan (see rates, p. 27.)
Heaviest erosion occurs along the Sound. The following alternative
policies were considered: (1) require all areas experiencing
greater than two feet annual erosion per year to'be bulkheaded (2)
require all new developers to bulkhead or protect natural protection
barriers (3) maintain status quo
Selected Policy: The County has determined that the current
policy of providing information through the CAMA permit officer of
erosion rates and structural devices for protection is adequate to
deal with the problem. The County does not wish to substitute its
judgment for that of the individual landowner's as to what is good or
bad for his property.
Implementation: Maintain current advise on erosion and
bulkheading through CAMA officer (or if necessary through County
Finance Office.)
Resource Production and Management
Agriculture
When drained, a large portion of the lands in the County are _
suitable for agricultural use. Agricultural production is an important
source of income for the County (see Section one). Extensive drain-
age may affect water quality by reducing salinity. The Department of
Agriculture noted that current farm practices are able to eliminate

55
nutrients and other pollutants from entering the watercourse. The
alternatives considered by the County were: (1) require landowners
anticipating to clear in excess of 500 acres in any single year to
file an environmental assessment addressing implications on water
quality (2) status quo, rely on the Department of Agriculture to
distribute information on techniques to prevent nutrients and pollu-
tants from entering the rivers, lakes and sound.
Selected Policy: The County will maintain the status quo.
The County feels that the rights of ownership of the land are
fundamental to the American Constitution. Restrictions should not
be placed onthe land unless it is absolutely necessary.
Implementation: Leave to the Department of Agriculture.
Commercial Forest Land
Commercial forestry is an important source of income for the
County. Forestry use is deemed to be compatible with the protection
of wildlife habitats for bear, deer, cougar and other animals.
Regarding commercial forestry operations, the County considered:
(1) trying to gain increase tax monies from the use in light of its
increasing importance to the region and the value of the resource
(2) adopting an environmental assessment ordinance providing that
environmental considerations be made before large scale drainage
occurs (3) adopting ordinances requiring reclamation and replanting
of cleared areas.
Selected Policy: The County determined that no County action
was desired at this time. Placing an additional tax burden on commer-
cial forestry would place a discouragement on its use which would not

56.
be in the best interests of the County at this time. Actual planted
areas exceed harvest; so this is not a problem.
Mineral Resource Production '
Tyrrell County has extensive peat lands. If these areas could
be mined the County would gain substantial revenue from the increased
value in ad valorem taxes. The County could also benefit from spin-
off industries. Peat production could effect air and water quality.
The State and Federal government's administration of the clean air
and water acts are relied on to minimize adverse consequences to these
resources. Furthermore the application of the Army Corps 404 jurisdic-
tion, if done selectively, should protect the more valuable swamp
forests. The County considered the following alternatives: (1) adopt
a zoning ordinance and regulate peat mining through standards attached
to a special use permit (2) adopt an environmental review ordinance
to permit only those peat mines which would involve the least adverse
environmental impacts (3) status quo.
Selected Policy: The County determined that current regulations
were adequate to protect environmental quality. The County supports
the actions of individual landowners to mine peat within the County.
It does not desire to further interfere with the right of the indi-
vidual to manage his lands as he sees fit.
Implementation: Leave regulation to State and Federal govern-
ment.
Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
Commercial fisheries are a significant resource in Tyrrell
County. Despite significant drainage for agricultural and other

57
purposes, the fish catch has almost tripled in the past five years.
Fishing is an important recreational activity in the County. The
following alternatives were considered: (1) protect water quality
by regulating the placementof septic systems (2). encourage siting
of additional commercial fisheries (3) limit amount of land clearing
with adverse environmental consequences in county (4) status quo.
Selected Policy: (1) Protect water quality by limiting the
use of septic systems on soils designated by Soil Conservation Service
as unsuitable for such use by limiting the number of dwelling units on
such lands to a maximum of one per acre (2) Encourage the location
of additional commercial fisheries in the County, especially in Colum-
bia.
Implementation: '(1) Amend subdivision regulations.to require
one acre minimum lot sizes for houses built within the area mapped as
unsuitable soils for on -lot sewage disposal systems (2) Support
the efforts of the Town of Columbia to redevelop the waterfront and
make it a more desireable place for new industrial and commercial
development.
Lake Phelps: AEC
The County of Washington has designated Lake Phelps for nomin-
ation as an Area of Environmental Concern. Development standards include
regulation of shoreline for the use of septic systems, a possible
growing problem from increasing demands for second home development.
The County has within its boundaries a small portion of the Lake; it
is currently in agricultural use. Alternative policies considered
were: (1) to support designation of Lake Phelps as an AEC with

44
requirements addressing septic system pollution (2) to not support
the same, enact County regulations to protect the resource (3) to
not support AEC designation, nor enact County regulations.
Selected Policy: The County supports the designation of Lake
Phelps as an AEC.
Off Road Vehicles
Off road vehicles are a necessity for travel in any bog or
swamp areas. This use is not considered a problem for the County.
The County therefore determined that addressing this issue was irrel-
evant.
L1
Economic and Community Development
Industrial Development
Tyrrell County has a significant number of unemployed unskilled
laborers. Furthermore, 40% of the County's families were deemed to
be below the poverty level. The County has excess capacity on its
water system; the Town has excess capacity on both water and sewer.
The County and Town are committed to redevelopment of the waterfront.
The County considered the following policies: (1) encourage industry
to locate anywhere in the County, provided it was job intensive (2)
encourage industry to locate in Columbia, where greater need and
facilities exist (3) encourage only industries that were environ-
mentally "clean" to locate in the County or Town.
Selected Policy: The County encourages industrial develop-
ment.which will provide additional jobs for its present residents
throughout the County but particularly in the Town of Columbia.
Implementation: The County will implement this policy by

59
supporting the redevelopment of the waterfront (see other policies),
by committing itself to extension of water service to industrial
and commercial users. The Town feels the excess capacity on the
sewer system might be attractive to some industries. The County
will establish an industrial development committee to identify and
contact industries which are more job intensive.
Services to Development
Services currently provided by the County include water,
sewer, police, fire (buildings, land and equipment), health (regula-
tion of se;tic systems), schools, social services, solid waste removal,
library, tax and administration. Non-profit agencies provide fire,
health (medical) and some recreation. Excess capacity to meet the
needs of present and future population to 1990 exists for water,
sewer (where necessary), schools, social services and solid waste.
In order to meet future demand the County may need to increase the
number of personnel in the Sheriff's Department, perhaps build or as-
sist in building an additional fire station in the Newlands area (an
area receiving considerable development in the last five years) and
build a new library facility. In addition to government provided
services, the County is concerned with the level of health and medical
services provided in the County. The County has identified the need
for a full time doctor and dentist and support staff as a major need
in the County. The County tax base has improved significantly in the
past ten years. The County anticipates that modest revenue exist to,
support an extension of services.
Alternative policies considered include: (1) Maintaining
present level of services, encouraging private sector to provide

for new services needed, or do without (2) increasing level of services
to meet demands of new growth
Selected Policy: The County has decided to increase its _
level of services to meet existing demands and future demands to 1990.
The County will hire additional police personnel as necessary to pro-
tect the health, safety and welfare; it will assist volunteer and
private actions in building a new fire station in the Newlands area
providing development in this area continues at its past rate over
the next couple of years and providing there is local support for
the same in the community; it.will build a new structure to contain
the County Library. The County is committed to extending water to
all communities within the County, especially those having potential
f0►' industrial nr commercial siting or having difficulties with septic
tanks functioning properly. The County supports efforts to improve
substantially the quality of medical services in the County.
Implementation: The County will budget additional services
needed during the planning period. The County has applied to the
Governor's Office for assistance in planning and building a new
library structure. The County has extended water lines to all commu
nities except Alligator and Kilkenney. .Plans.have been adopted to
complete service to both of these areas as well as existing subdivi-
sions. New subdivisions will be required to hook up with the exist-
ing system (subdivision regulations will be amended to so provide).
A letter of support for the Tyrrell County Rural Health Association
which is currently applying for a grant to set. up a full medical pro-
gram, including the hiring of a full time doctor and dentist for the
County, has been written and included with the grant application.

61
The County has offered its assistance in documenting the need.
Types of Urban Growth Patterns Desired
Currently the County is experiencing a steady rural growth
development throughout the County, with somewhat heavier patterns
occurring in Columbia and Scuppernong Townships. This is in part
a response to demands to be near the Sound and an index of the
amount of good soils for development in this area of the County.
This pattern of development reflects the location of existing
commercial activity in Columbia and along US 64 and industrial
adtivitiy in the northern part of the County. The market should
continue this pattern, provided significant new industrial or commer-
cial activity does not occur in the Gum Neck or Kilkenney areas of
the County. The State does not feel that any real employment need
will occur in this area during the planning period. (See comments
to preliminary draft)
Alternatives considered included: (a) encourage a return
to an old community way of life, centered about the country church
and store (b) encourage a continuation of recent trends with
heavy development in the northwestern section of the County (c)
plan a new community in the Gum Neck-Kilkenney area so as to encourage
spin-off development related to peat to locate in Tyrrell County.
Selected Policy: The County will shape future growth patterns
to continue the trend of the recent past.
.Implementation: The County relies on a continuation of
existing attractiveness for property near the Sound, the continuing
employment and expansion of existing businesses and industry, and the

62
availability of good development land to effectuate this policy. In
addition, the County will amend its subdivision regulations to dis-
courage development on soils unsuitable for on -lot sewage disposal.
It will actively encourage commercial and industrial redevelopment
of the Columbia waterfront --which should attract residents to the
area around Columbia. It will extend water to existing subdivisions
and require new -subdivisions to tap on to the water system (amend-
ment to subdivision regs).
Redevelopment of Developed Areas
Columbia has purchased property on the waterfront. The
Town is consdering plans to renovate existing structures and build
a new Town W l'on the'site. A wholesale fishhouse has discussed
with the Town intentions it may have for developing on the water-
front. The Town has encouraged the oil companies to remove the
storage facilities which pose a hazard to the residents of the Town,
one has moved. The Town has made contacts in an effort to acquire
property along the waterfront for a park. A marina is located on
the waterfront with space for twenty sailboats. The waterfront
has a natural bay suitable for small boats (other uses may pose
conflicts with old residential nature of the community near the bay --
ownership of the bay shoreline is in a number of private landowners.)
The major problems to redevelopment involve dredging the
natural channel, especially at the mouth of the Scuppernong River;
purchasing additional property and finding a ready buyer for commer-
cial or industrial development, or encouraging the private sector to
redevelop the same; obtaining an adequate source of funds to supplement

63
local sources.
Alternative policies considered: (1) request that US Army
Corps dredge the mouth of the Scuppernong (2) contract with private
firms to dredge the same (3) purchase waterfront property not likely
to be redeveloped by the private sector for picnic, boating, recre-
ational, or governmental use(s) (4) encourage private sector to
redevelop the waterfront.
Policy Selected: The County will encourage the private
sector to redevelop as much of the waterfront as the market will
justify. The County will support the Town of Columbia as well as
pursue its own actions leading to the purchase for public purposes
of land along the waterfront. Both government agencies will request
that the Industrial Development Committee make contacts with private
industry which might be interested in developing or redeveloping on _
the waterfront.
The County and Town will petition the US Army Corps to dredge
the natural channel in the Scuppernong River to its mouth to make it
suitable for commercial and recreational activity and such future
needs as the Industrial Development Committee might identify.
Implementation: The County will request that the Town
of Columbia join it in petitioning the Corps to dredge the Scupper-
nong. The County will identify spoil sites and assist in acquiring
easements for the placement of spoil. The Town and County will contin-
ue to make contacts with interested persons concerning the redevelop-
ment of the waterfront. The Town is applying for funds to renovate
buildings along the waterfront for a Town Hall. The Town intends
to approach the Corps concerning plans for bulkheading the waterfront.

64
The Town will investigate the possibility of using a CAMA grant for
studying the planning phases of the waterfront and Community Block
Grant monies for the implementation of any plans. The County will
rely on the Industrial Development Committee to identify interested
persons who might redevelop some of the property for commercial and
industrial use. The County and Town will allocate funds to purchase
some or all of property not suitable for redevelopment because of
lack of a market or otherwise. Governments will plan for the use
of the property to meet recreational and administrative needs of
local government.
Commitment to State and Federal Programs
The amount of State and Federal activity (in terms of pro-
jects) already being undertaken in the County or already planned
seems minor. However, the Town of Columbia has requested the Corps
to study the diking of the Town, the bulkheading of the waterfront.
The.County is asking the Corps to study the dredging of the natural
channel in the Scuppernong. The County will request additional
improvements to the highway system.
The County considered the following alternatives: (1) de-
veloping a high degree of independence from State and Federal pro-
grams (2) supporting State and Federal attempts to control erosion,
etc.
Selected Policy: The County supports State and Federal Pro-
grams, especially those which further the expressed policies stated
in this land use plan.
Implementation: The County will work with the State and

65
Federal government to identify suitable land, obtain easements, and
work out arrangements with private landowners to accomplish the
goals set out above.
Provision for Channel Maintenance
See policies on redevelopment, industrial development and
commitment to State and Federal programs.
Energy Facility Siting and Development
Reports from First Colony Farms indicate that sufficient
peat reserves exist in Dare, Tyrrell, Hyde and Washington Counties
to support electric generating facilities with a capacity of pro-
ducing 1600 MW of power for 35 years. (This is a rated capacity,
different combinations are possible, see report on Peat Mining
appended to this report.) Even a 400 MW powerplant sited in this
region would assist the region in becoming more self-sufficient.
The location of a powerplant in the County is expected to contribute
significantly to the tax base. Ample water is available for cooling
purposes on the Albemarle, or Scuppernong, or Alligator Rivers. The
Alligator River, being on the Intercoastal Waterway, might offer
advantages for shipping and docking. The anticipated consumption of
water from such use might help offset increased additions of water
to the River as a result of drainage for mining and farming.
The County considered the following alternatives: (1)
oppose the siting of powerplants, substations, etc. in the County
(2) encourage the use wherever the utility industry and the Utilities
Commission deem necessary and appropriate (3) encourage the use
where it will least interfere with wildlife and recreational uses.

Selected Policy: The County supports efforts of private
individuals,.membership corporations and thelike to acquire sites and
locate powerplant facilities along the Alligator River or the
Scuppernong River or the Albemarle Sound, provided such siting has
considered and minimized to a reasonable extent the adverse impacts
on the environment, especially rare and endangered species, fish
and wildlife and recreational uses.
Implementation: The N.C. Utilities commission has a mandate
to consider environmental factors in the approval of powerplant
applications. Where the plant is not within the jurisdiction of the
Utilities Commission, the plant may still be subject to regulations
of Department of Natural Resources and Community Development dealing
with emissions to the water, so'that an environmental assessment
might have to be prepared. Where a CAMA permit is required, lands
unsuitable for such use have been designated conservation and power -
plants eleiminated as a permitted use in land classification.
Beach Access:
Tyrrell County has a number of State owned and maintained
recreation access points. Most of the shoreline along the Sound does
not consist of a beach. The questionnaire did not indicate a strong
need to acquire additional beach access for public use. Currently
subdivision regulations do not require. any dedication for this
purpose. The.Coastal Resources Commission has adopted a policy of
requiring local governments to provide adequate public access.
The County considered the following alternatives: (1) not
provide additional access because the County determined no need

67
4
existed (2) provide additional access to further enhance public
access.
Selected Policy: The County will take measures to increase
the amount of public access to estuarine or public trust waters in
the County.
Implementation: The County will amend its subdivision regula-
tions to require developers to provide public access to estuarine or
public trust waters when these waters are involved in a development
plan. The County and town will also consider public access and
parking facilities in its redevelopment plans, especially of its
own properties, of the waterfront.
• Housing
Besides the lack of jobs and the low standard of living, the
poor quality of housing is the most serious problem in the County.
Of the 1275 housing units in the County, 15.8% are in poor condition.
The relative concentrations of this housing were mapped by Coastal
Consultants, Ltd. (See Housing report appended to this land use plan).
In recent years the County has experienced a strong increase
in the amount of mobile home use. In 1970, 20% of the housing stock
was believed to be mobile units, in 1975 that percentage reached 23,
in 1980 it reached 25. By 1990 approximately 28-30% of the total hous-
ing stock will be mobile homes.
A mapping of mobile homes showed that the largest increases
in this use were occurring in areas that had the largest percentage
of dilapidated housing. This suggested that since many of the units
judged to be abandoned were also in these areas that the County's

permanent residents were using mobile homes to replace dilapidated
housing. Their use in several other areas suggested they were being
used for new residents and the second home or retirement community.
The County concluded that the use of mobile homes was not
basically offensive, that the use served an important function of
providing decent housing for a poor population. The County was
concerned that new residents who could afford stick and brick housing
might not build or purchase the same. The County is concerned about
the effects that mobile home growth may have in the long run on the
tax base of the County.
The County considered the following alternatives: (1) alter
the method used to tax mobile homes so that increased revenue would
come from this source and the use might be discouraged (2) adopt
zoning to permit the use only in areas that have a large number of
dilapidated housing (3) pursue grants for public housing and
assistance for the poor and the elderly.
Selected Policy: The County will not discourage the use of,
mobile units, but encourage such use as -an alternative to continued
living in poor quality housing. The County will seek to improve the
quality of housing for the pggr and the elderly.
Implementation: At the suggestion of State officials to the
preliminary draft of this plan, the County has decided to abandon the
need to use zoning to control mobile home location. The County has
decided to implement this policy by continuing its taxing policies
concerning mobile homes and by not regulating their use in the County.
The County will observe how the market distributes the location of
new units. (Monitoring will involve annual identification of mobile

.•
homes by mapping unit.) The County has recently been accepted by
Mid East Regional Housing and is making an application to HUD for
assistance. Mid East has requested an allocation of funds for
housing for the poor and elderly; the County is looking for sites.
In addition, the Town of Columbia is an annual applicant for rehabili-
tation money to improve blighted areas in the Town. In 1977 the Town
installed plumbing and siding in 38 units, made tennis courts and
cleaned ditches. Recent applications were denied, but the Town will
continue to request funds.
Second Home Development
Issues surrounding the use have been covered in previous
sections on housing, recreation, etc.
Selected Policy: The County encourages the development of
second home communities in the County. The County will develop
additional regulations to insure that mobile home parks meet
minimum standards for reaching goals of health, freedom from inter-
ference and aesthetics.
Implementation: The County will revise its subdivision regu-
lations to require one acre minimum lots unless soils are suitable
for use of septic system (see soils map). The County will otherwise
continue a policy requiring one-half acre lots. County will continue
to require developers meet subdivision requirements for setins. County
will require subdivisions created after this date to tap on to
water system. County will require future developers to provide public
access to beaches where subdivision involves public trust or estuarine
waters. (Subdivision regulations will be amended accordingly.)

70
Hog Farms
The number of hogs and the size of hog farms has grown
substantially during the past ten years. As a result, the County
frequently receives complaints of obnoxious odors. The NC General
Assembly has recently passed legislation protecting landowners
engaged in raising hogs from suits to prohibit the continuance of that
use where that use has continued for more than one year. Agricultural
uses are excepted from zoning enabling legislation.
Selected Policy: The County knows of no way -in which it could
enforce any policy it may adopt concerning the regulation of this use,
although it's limiting this use to designated areas in the County
where population and housing are lightest seems obvious. (See map
prepared by Coastal Consultants, Ltd. on housing density.)
Time Frame for Implementation
Not all policies require specific action by the County to
implement them, for those that do the County has set the following
timetable:
1980 to 1982
Designate Land Classification System and Uses
Complete Land Use Plan
Acceptance by Mid -East Regional Housing and receipt of
allocation for Housing
Letter in support of Tyrrell County Rural Health Association
Request to US Army Corps to dredge lower Scuppernong;
identify spoil areas
Set up Industrial Development Committee
Town request -to dike and -bulkhead the waterfront
Town requests to rehabilitate housing
Apply for library funds
Extend water system to Kilkenney and Alligator
Improve sheriff's department (add personnel)
Request D.O.T. to make improvements to US 64
Letter to CRC on Lake Phelps

71
1983 to 1985
Establish department of inspection for issuance of building
permits and enforcement for subdivision regulations
Revise subdivision regulations to account for one -acre lot
size on poor soils, mandatory hook-up to water system,
set-in and set -back revisions to insure privacy,
public access, prohibit development in wetland areas
Bring enforcement of CAMA permit back to County
Adopt required building codes as mandated by State
Private action on waterfront redevelopment time is up,
begin public action following up on recommendations
of Industrial Development Committee. Apply for funds
for redevelopment following the development of concrete
proposal.
t985
Revise land use plan.
Public Participation
a. Objectives: the public participation program was designed
as an integral part of the planning process. The following objectives
were strived for during the process:
(1) to develop an understanding among the citizens and the
organized interests in the County of the principal physical problems
and needs of the area and the role of planning in dealing with them
and bringing about a more liveable environment;
(2) to cultivate a practice among civic leaders and interest
groups of sharing in the planning process;
(3) to overcome the lack of established political mechanisms
to reach segments of the population not adequately represented in the
decision -making process;
(4) to serve as a forum for communicating the concerns of
interested citizens and groups;
(5) to educate the public in technical matters and keep them

72
well informed on matters in controversy, proposed and existing laws
and policies;
(6) to reflect changes in the public's perception of the
area, its needs and resources.
b. Approach: the approach used was to combine the educational
process with issue rainsing sessions, questionnaires and public meet-
ings
In order to involve persons in the planning process, the Planning
Board and consultants contacted persons identified with varying inter-
ests in the County to insure their input. In terms of an educational
forum, the County relied on newspapers and public meetings. Further-
more, the County prepared a questionnaire which was distributed to
a selected random cross-section of the County's population. Profiles
were compiled for interests as well as age, sex and.locational groupings.
The questionnaire was made available to the people, so that persons
not solicited could have input.
A copy of the questionnaire and the results are included in
the appended materials.
For continued and better participation, the following alter-
natives were considred: (1) issue a monthly newsletter to all resi-
dents of the County informing them of modifications of the plan and
attempts at implementation (2) hold monthly meetings to discuss
planning issues (3) pubchase television or radio time to discuss
issues and implementation.
Selected Policy: The Planning Board will hold a special
land use planning meeting each six months to review new issues facing

73
the communities, progress with the application of adopted policy,
recommendations on that policy, results of implementation and the
like.
Implementation: (incorporated in policy above)
Note: in terms of the number of times that substantially
different policies were accepted by the County Commissioners and
County Planning Board, the County would have to assess its public
participation element, especially as regards interest group repre-
sentation, as being highly effective.
LAND CLASSIFICATION
Developed: The purpose of the developed class is to provide for
continued intensive development and redevelopment of existing
urbanized areas. Areas to be classified as developed include lands
currently developed for urban uses at or approaching a density of
500 dwellings per square mile that are provided with usual municipal
services including at least public water, sewer, recreational facil-
ities, police and fire protection. In Tyrrell County, the City of
Columbia is in the developed class because it has all of the above
mentioned features.
Transition: The purpose of'the transition class is to provide for
future intensive urban development within the ensuing ten years on
lands that are most suitable and that will be scheduled for provision
of necessary public utilities and services. The transition lands
also provide for additional areas when lands in the developed class
are not available or when they are severely limited for development.
In the County, a small area of land surrounding the City of Columbia

74
has been shown as transition lands. In these areas, sewer and water
extensions are feasible as future development occurs. The 201 facility
study for the County indicated that sewer extensions beyond areas
immediately adjacent to Columbia are not feasible during the planning
period.
Community: The purpose of the community class is to provide for
clustered land development to help meet housing, shopping, employment
and public service needs within the rural areas of the County. These
areas are characterized by small groupings of mixed land uses, (resi-
dences, general store, church, school, etc.) and which are suitable
for small clusters of rural development not requiring municipal service.
In the County, development has not only occurred along many of the
major transportation routes, but also many small crossroad communi-
ties have developed. In many areas, public water is available. Areas
shown as community on the classification map are those communities
which have a cluster of residences with some limited services such
as a store, church, etc. (e.g. Travis, Goat Neck, Gum Neck)
Rural: The purpose of the rural class is to provide for agriculture,
forest management, mineral extraction and other low intensity uses.
Residences may be located within rural class areas where urban
services are not required and where natural resources will not be
permanently impaired. Lands in the County classified as rural are
those lands which are used -or -have potential -for agriculture, forestry,- -
or mineral extraction. In addition, lands remaining which are not
classified as developed, transition, community or conservation are
classified as rural.

75
Conservation: The purpose of the conservation class is to provide
for effective long-term management of significant limited or irre-
placeable areas. This management may be needed because of its natural,
cultural, recreational, productive or scenic value. These areas
should not be classified as transition in the future. In Tyrrell
County, lands classified as conservation include all AECs (e.g.
estuarine shoreline, coastal wetland, all surface waters.)
Uses permitted in AECs or Conservation classed lands include
natural uses, low intensity recreational,uses, agricultural and
forestry uses, utility uses (except for location of powerplants,
substations and pipelines likely to encourage the location of resi-
dential development in these areas) and water dependent uses.
RELATIONSHIP OF POLICIES AND LAND CLASSIFICATION
Developed: In this class, present land uses include a combination
of urbanized uses (e.g. high, medium and low density residential;
commercial; transportation; and institutional) which occur in
the City of Columbia. It is the policy of the County to support
additional growth to occur in the City of Columbia to take advantage
of existing services, as well as make them more efficient.
Transition: In the transition class, it is hoped that some flexi-
bility will be available for additional growth to occur in case
some areas within the City of Columbia are not available for
development or redevelopment. The transition area would be close
enough to existing services so that extension of sewer, for example,
would be available to new industry or other development. It is
expected that the transition area would be suitable for urbanized

16
uses throughout the planning period.
Community: In areas designated as community, clusters of development
already exist at areas where historically, people have settled, such
as transportation crossroads. The County wishes to continue to support
limited development in these areas with minimal services (e.g. water,
police, fire protection etc.) These areas should serve as focal
points for resource utilization in the area such as agriculture,
forestry, mining:
Rural: The rural area oT ine uounzy lb uCa iyi►a LCU as Wnuac YI .-..�
in which resource production actually takes place, for example
agriculture, forestry, and mineral extraction. It is expected that
low density rural residential uses would also be appropriate for
these areas. Many of these areas are also included in this class
due to limitations that would make development costly and hazardous
or that contain limited natural resources not classified as conser-
vation (e.g. soils where groundwater contamination is possible
from septic tanks, areas of significant game habitat, wetlands, areas
of high water table.)
Conservation: The purpose of designating conservation is in keeping
with the County policy of providing for long term management of sig-
nificant limited or irreplaceable areas. This management may be
needed because of its natural, cultural, recreational, productive
or scenic values. In the County, this class is applied to all AEC
areas, which include the estaurine shoreline, coastal wetlands, and
all surface.waters. The County supports the CAMA regulations in

77
applying standards for use of the areas. The County is not, however,
yet in a position to determine and implement local regulation of
these areas and relies on consistency requirements of.the state and
federal governments to not take actions which would significantly
degrade these areas. Uses that require significant destruction
of the essential values of these areas are not deemed within the
uses recommended for those areas. Although the County fosters an
attitude of allowing agriculture, forestry and natural uses (even
hunting and fishing) throughout the County, the County encourages
and recommends that other uses be allowed in conservation areas
only where they are water dependent or the siting in such an
area is necessary or justified.
Intergovernmental Coordination
During the planning process, the County contacted adjacent
counties, as well as state and federal agencies to share information
and discuss alternatives. The County will continue to maintain
intergovernmental coordination by exchange of planning documents,
and through continued contacts with officials at various levels of
government.

u
CONSERVATION(leeludes Waters)

APPENDIX
78
A. Animals and Plants
B. Population Analysis
C. Housing Analysis
D. Revenue from residential alternatives
E. Questionnaire and Analysis
F. Peat Mining
G. Lake Phelps --this paper was deleted as unnecessary;
copies are available from the County
Note, other work papers are available from the
consultants.
n

79
APPENDIX A
Animals and Plants

INVERTEBRATES
SPECIES RANGE IN N.C. PREFERRED HABITAT
MILLIPEDS
Onomeris
Macon County,
australora
Highlands vicinity.
Milliped
Pseud000l dy esmus
pa udicolus
Dismal swamp area only.
MOLLUSKS
Bivalves -(Fresh-
water clams)
Alasmidonta
Wake County, Neuse
heterodon
& Little Rivers;
Mollusk:
Franklin County,
bivalve)
Tar River; Pitt
BIRDS
County, Chicod Creek.
Catinella Currituck County.
pugilator
Pelecanus
occidentalis
Brown
Pelican
Uncommon local
resident along
coast.
Moderately flowing
water, gravel, sand,
or muddy sand.
VERTEBRATES
Coastal infringe,
sounds & inlets.
Nests on low
islands.
GENERAL COMMENTS STATUS
Also found in Endangered.
Georgia.
Endemic to Dismal Endangered.
Swamp, N.C. & Va.
Found only in 5 Endangered.
rivers outside of
N.C.
Occurs in S.C. Undetermined.
Nests only in Endangered.
Ocracoke Inlet
Production, 1972,
about 40 young.
0

co VERTEBRATES, cont'd.
SPECIES RANGE IN N.C. PREFERRED HABITAT GENERAL COMMENTS STATUS
Passerculus
Uncommon -rare
Found in beach
Outer banks may
Rare.
princeps
winter resident
grasses on sand
become major winter -
Ipswich
along outer banks.
dunes.
ing area due to
Sparrow
habitat loss else-
where.
Pandion
Uncommon summer
Large lakes &
N.C. population
Rare.
haliaetus
resident along
rivers, & sounds.
relatively stable,
Osprey
coast. Transient.
but populations to
north are threatened.
Thalasseus
Fairly common
Coastal gringe.
Terns increasingly
Undetermined.
maximus
summer resident..
Nests on beaches or
use dredge islands
Royal Tern
low sandy islands.
for nesting.
Limnothlypis
Locally uncommon-
Swamps and Rivers
High nest mortality
Undetermined.
swainsonii
rare summer resi-
floodplains in
from natural causes
Swainson's
dent coastal
coastal plain and
on coastal plain; dis-
Warbler
plain & mountains.
Rhododendron thickets
tribution in mountains
in mountains.
poorly known.
Charadrius
Locally uncommon-
Dry, sandy beaches.
Beach nesting birds
Peripheral-
melodus
rare summer resident
like this threatened
Rare breeder
Piping
on coast.
by heavy recreational
in N.C.
Plover
use of beaches.
Sterno hirundo
Uncommon -rare breed-
Coastal fringe.
Terns increasingly
Peripheral -
Common Tern
ing summer resident.
Nests on beaches or
use dredge islands
Rare breeder
low sandy islands.
for nesting.
in N.C.

VERTEBRATES, cont'd.
M
SPECIES
RANGE IN N.C.
PREFERRED HABITAT
GENERAL COMMENTS,
STATUS
Haliaeetus
Rare local resi-
Shores of sounds
Last known nesting
Endangered.
eucocephalus
dent along coast.
& Large Lakes.
site in N.C. is now
Bald Eagle
Rare visitor else-
unproductive.
where.
Falco
peregrinus
Uncommon to rare
Coast, mtns. &
East U.S. breeding
Endangered.
Peregrinus
winter visitor
woodlands. Nests
population nearly
Falcon
along coast.
on cliffs.
extirpated.
Sterna
Common -uncommon
Coastal fringe.
Terns unceasingly
Endangered.
a bifrons
summer resident.
Nests on beaches
use dredge islands
Least tern
or low sandy
for nesting. Low
islands.
nesting sites of this
species very vulnerable
to tides and storms.
Coturnicops
Uncommon -rare
Marshes and
Abundance & dist.
Rare.
noveboracensis
winter resident
grassy fields
in N.C. poorly known.
Yellow Rail
on coast.
Habitat loss is
threat.
Latterallus
Uncommon -rare
Marshes, wet
As above.
Rare.
jaimaicensis
summer resident
grassy fields.
Black Rail
on coast and
perhaps inland.
Gelochelidon
Rare summer
Coastal fringe.
Terns increasingly
Rare.
nilotica
resident along
Nests on beaches
use dredge islands for
Gull -billed
coast.
or low sandy islands.
nesting.
Tern
f t

M
CO
VERTEBRATES, cont'd.
SPECIES
RANGE IN N.C. PREFERRED HABITAT
GENEIRAL COMMENTS
STATUS
Thalasseus
san vicensis
Uncommon summer As above.
As albove.
Peripheral -
Sandwich Tern
resident.
Undetermined
in N.C.
MAMMALS
Sorex lon iros-
Dismal swamp
Endemic.
Endangered.
tr s fis eri
Merriam South
eastern Shrew
Blarina
Dismal -swamp
Endeimic.
Endangered.
to ma estes
Merriam
Swamp Short -
tailed Shrew
Synaptomys
Dismal swamp
N.C.. range
cooperi
periiphery.
Endangered.
Helaletes
Merriam
Southern Bog
Lemming
Feils concolor
Eastern swamps
EndiBmic.
Endangered.
cougar Kerr
Western mountains.
Cougar
VASCULAR PLANTS
Kalmia
Coastal plains Pocosin
Rarer -endemic.
Rare.
cuneata
of N.C. & S.C.

m
APPENDIX B
Tyrrell County Population

FiR
Tyrrell County Population
The study of population in Tyrrell County has presented several
obstacles. According to information in the last land use plan, the
County was and was likely to lose population. According to employees
of the County responsible for supervising the services extended by
the County, there had been a gain in population. A count of buildings
on U.S.G.S. maps suggested that the population had been incorrectly
counted. In light of these contradictions, we abandoned usual means
for collecting population information and decided to actually try to
measure the population.
The method we selected to measure population was an indirect
one. We decided to count every structure known to be used for human
habitation; then to apply a multiplier to arrive at permanent popula-
tion. In order to determine growth rate, we had hoped to use past
statistics (something we eventually had to reject), then we tried to
use building permits (something we had to reject because of irregula-
rity of recordkeeping), then we tried septic tank permits, tempered
by information provided by tax assessors on property cards. We
concluded that a fully satisfactory method to measure growth probably
does not exist.
From our study we have concluded that Tyrrell County has
gained, not lost population since 1970.
Methodology
We determined that as of March 1980, there were approximately
1690 housing units in Tyrrell County. This number does not include
houses that are clearly not in residential use, structures that were

removed from the housing stock by fire or flood or collapse. By
consulting the property records in the County tax office we were
able to determine when some of the houses were built. And, although
this method may underestimate the number of new houses, we were able
to ascertain that at least 302 housing units were added within the
last ten years. Because a portion of the new housing was mobile home
additions, we were forced to make another difficult assumption, namely,
that the greater majority of the units that were moved into the County
were new or only a year or two old. A mistake here would also result
in underestimating the population.
In order to complete our analysis we were forced to assume
an average house size. We decided to use 2.9 persons per house
which would reflect an aging population, declining family sizes and
a low vacancy rate (perhaps under 3%). We are not sure that all of
these assumptions are true and suggest that a random sample on all
data points be made. Our resultant population includes permanent
and seasonal residents. For purposes of land use analysis, we have
found that it is not usually advisable to remove seasonal residents
from the study. Seasonal residents have as much impact on land, the
environment and services as do permanent residents. Nevertheless, we
have been able to apply a methodology which will account for seasonal
residency.
The housing data on seasonal and permanent residents does not
include persons living in camper trailers or vehicles, nor does it
include possible "bulges" in house sizes from seasonal visition and
passers -through. Given these reservations, we estimate the population
as follows:

M
ESTIMATED POPULATION
Year
No. Houses
Size/House
Population
1970
1388
2.9.
4025
1975
1529
2.9
4434
1980
1690
2.9
4901
Graphically, we can present this information and estimates from other
sources as follows:
1980
1975
1970
4000 4500 5000
The growth rate for the last nine years is estimated at (at least)
2.2% (using our 1970 housing count); the growth rate for the last 4
years is estimated at 2.5% per annum. Needless to say, both of these
rates are higher than other estimates.
In order to project this information into our planning period
(1980 to 1990) we extended the more recent trends. Our projection
appears as follows:
PROJECTED POPULATION, 1980-1990
Growth Rate
Year
No Houses
(Annual)
House Size
Population
1980
1690
2.2%
2.9
4901
1985
1884
2.2%
2.9
5464
1990
2060
2.2%
2.9
5976
1980
1690
2.5%
2.9
4901
1985
1912
2.5%
2.9
5545
1990
2163
2.5%
2.9
6273

We should note that house size in ocean beach communities appear to
exhibit 4.5 persons per unit during the peak season. Whether this.
applies to soundside seasonal communities is not clear at this time.
If we break this information into the township unit, we can
learn something about those areas of the County which are realizing
the most growth. In terms of net increase in population, Columbia
township (rural) has shown the most growth, namely 149 new housing
units and 432 people in the last ten years. This information is set
out in more detail in the table below:
POPULATION (1970-1980) Rate of Growth
Township 1980 1975 1970 1970-1980 70-80 70-80
Columbia (rural) 1842 1581 1409 433 3.0 4.0
Columbia (town) 896 841 800 96 2.0 2.5
Scuppernong 1032 954 853 179 2.2 2.0
Gum Neck 600 545 487 113 2.5 2.5
Alligator 452 447 415 37 1.0 0.0
South Fork 73 67 61 12 2.0 2.0
A projected population under the 1970 to 1980 growth rate
by township appears as follows: (assume 2.9 persons per house)
PROJECTED
POPULATION (1980-1990)
Township
1980
Rate/yr.
1990
Columbia (rural)
1842
3.0
2405
Columbia (town)
896
2.0
1002
Scuppernong
1032
2.2
1250
739
Gum Neck
600
452
2.5
1.0
493
Alligator
South Fork
73
2.0
87
If we assume that the growth rate will be a continuation of
the last ten years, we can predict the number of new housing starts
(excluding those necessary to replace "worn out" stock).

ADDITIONAL HOUSING UNITS (1980-1990)
Township 1980 1990 # New Units
Columbia (rural)
635
828
193
Columbia (town)
309
346
37
Scuppernong
356
431
75
Gum Neck
207
255
48
Alligator
156
170
14
South Fork
25
30
5
If we were to assume that new housing starts were to require
one-half to one acre per unit, we would find that the land converted
to residential.use is as follows:.
LAND CONVERTED TO RESIDENTIAL HOUSING TO 1990
Townshiq .5 Acres House 1 Acre/House
Columbia rural)
97
193
Columbia town)
19
37
Scuppernong
38
75
Gum Neck
24
48
Alligator
7
14
South Fork
3
5
County
188
372
In order to portray this information in even greater detail,
we have decided to present both the number of units and the increase
in those units during the 1970s at the level of the individual mapping
unit. There are nearly 100 mapping units in Tyrrell County, thus, this
scale allows us an in depth view of the population and growth of the
county. (See attached maps)
Conclusion
The population of Tyrrell County is near the 5000 mark and
will probably exceed that mark by 1981. Tyrrell County is a slow
growing community with growth focused primarily in rural areas
surrounding Columbia and near the Albemarle Sound. Proposed indus-

.E
trial activity (peat mining, recreational activities in Lake Phelps
area, powerplant construction) could significantly alter the 1990
growth pattern, and especially the location of growth.

91
Appendix C
TYRRELL COUNTY HOUSING ANALYSIS

92
Tyrrell County Housing Analysis
From our population analysis we found that Tyrrell County had a
slow growth rate_. From the housing analysis we were able to verify
that the County has an aging housing stock, a larger than usual per-
centage of substandard housing and a large number of mobile homes.
The use of mobile homes reached a peak during the 1970s. The large
number of substandard housing and mobile homes posit some implica-
tions for the County in its future development; both in terms of
adequate tax base from residential sector and a suitable housing en-
vironment for the residents of the County.
In order to complete our housing analysis we needed to (1)
determine the number of units in the housing stock; (2) determine the
condition of the housing stock, both in terms of construction and
present condition; (3) determine the age of the housing stock; (4)
determine the valuation of the housing stock for tax purposes; (5)
determine how the traditional housing stock compares with mobile homes
in terms of age, construction, condition and valuation; (6) determine
the location of each class of housing stock, so as to profile condition
and changes. In the end, we hoped our information would allow us to
determine what policy the County should adopt to mobile homes and
other aspects of future housing mix.
Stick and Brick Housing
Methodology
The Tax Assessor's Manual establishes a system for tax asses-
sors to use in evaluating a house. This manual calls on the assessor
to determine the grade of the structure on a scale of A to E; the age

93
of the structure: the condition of the structure, good, fair or poor.
The County tax assessor evaluated every building in the County and
determined its ownership, location and structural grade, age and
condition. Thus, by analyzing'the records compiled for tax purposes,
we can have a picture of the housing stock of the County --at least
at the detail of a "tax mapping unit."
The Tax Assessor's Manual attempts to provide uniformity by
setting up standards for judging quality construction. If grades A
through C represent quality construction, then grades D and E repre-
sent potential substandard housing. The Manual describes a Class D
dwelling as "Cheap Quality Construction" and Class E dwellings as "Sub-
standard Construction." Class D dwellings are described as being of
cheap materials with inferior workmanship and costing $7500 to $12,500
(1975 dollars). Class E dwellings are described as being of very
cheap materials with inferior workmanship. They are often without
modern improvements.and cost less than $6000.
The "condition" of a house is a function of its physical
and functional depreciation. Physical depreciation is the loss of
value in a structure due to deterioration caused by physical wear
and tear, from use, exposure to the elements. There are two types
of physical depreciation, one is curable and measured by the cost of
repair, the other is incurable, measured by the loss of strength in
the frame or structure. Functional depreciation refers -to a lessen-
ing in value from economic and social causes. Functional depreciation
is generally associated with good grade housing and may be a result
of structural obsolescence, neighborhood changes, insufficient utili-
ties, etc.

94
The overwhelming majority of the houses that were rated in
poor condition (P) in Tyrrell County had an appraised value below
$1000. A Grade D house that was built in 1960 and had a structural
value of $7500 in 1975 dollars would be worth $1000 if it had used
75% of its useful life (i.e. had physically and/or functionally
depreciated 75%). We noticed that many poor condition houses carried
comments in the evaluation which inferred that the houses oh "struttUl@§
were falling in.
Most of the E grade houses lacked heating and sometimes
plumbing. Since we sought to measure existing substandard housing
and potential substandard housing, we decided that a house that was
rated as in poor condition was definitely substandard, that one that
was of E Grade construction would probably be substandard within
ten to twenty years, and that one that was of.D Grade construction may
deteriorate to poor condition during the planning period.
Application
'We analyzed the housing stock at the County and township level
and found the following:
HOUSING
STOCK BY
GRADE
(Stick and
Brick Only)
.
Township
Units
A
B
C
D
E
Columbia (rural)
439
0
0
24
5
105
24
158
36
152
35
Columbia (town)
267-
1
0
8
3
38
14
134
50
86
32
Scuppernong
.271
3
1
13
5
74
27
71
26
110
41
Gum Neck
158
. 0
0
0
0
18
11
38
24
100
63
Alligator
119
0
0
0
0
5
4
26
22
98
82
South Fork
21
0
0
3
14
6
29
3
14
8
38

95
HOUSING BY
CONDITION
(Stick
and
Brick
Only)
Township
Units.
Good
Fair
Poor
Columbia (rural)
439
6
1
384
88
49
11
Columbia (town)
267
22
8
211
' 79
34
13
Scuppernong
271
7
3
211
80
49
18
Gum Neck
158
0
0
117
74
41
26
Alligator
119
0
0
92
77
27
23
South Fork
21
0
0
19
91
1
5
Accordingly, we note that 201 of the County's 1275 units (15.8%) are
in poor condition. The rural townships of Gum Neck and Alligator
township have the largest percentages of housing in poor condition.
Since, ideally, poor condition substandard housing should be replaced
with structurally sound housing in the early part of the planning
period, the County has a need for 201 units to house its 600 residents
living in uninhabitable structures.
In addition to the 15.8% of the housing described as in Poor
Condition, we have 27.7% of the housing of E Grade construction which
is currently in Fair Condition. All but 35% of the units in Gum Neck
and 25% in Alligator township are Grade E structures. An additional
ten years of depreciation will probably result in a large percentage
of this group being considered uninhabitable A profile of.the sub-
standard and potentially substandard housing in the County appears
as follows:
POTENTIALLY
SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
_ Township
P Condition
Grade
E
Grade
D
Columbia (rural)
49
11
103
24
158
36
Columbia (town)
34
13
52
19
134
50
Scuppernong
49
18
61
23
71
26
Gum Neck
41
26
59
37
38
24
Alligator
27
23
65
59
26
22
South Fork
1
5
8
33
3
14
County
201
16
353
28
430
34

VP
By examining the age profiles, we notice that a substantially
larger percentage of housing units were built in the areas with the
fewest number of substandard housing.
AGE OF THE HOUSING STOCK: NEW ADDITIONS
Township 1-5 years 6-10 years 1-10 q/Total
Columbia (rural)
63
27
90
20.5%
Columbia (town)
8
6
14
5.2
Scuppernong
20
18
38
14.0
Gum Neck
10
6
16
10.1
Alligator
0
3
3
2.5
South Fork.
2
1
3
14.3
County
103
61
164
12.9
Thus, 87.1% of the stick and brick housing stock in the County
is over 10 years of age. The town of Columbia has the greatest
number of units over ten years of age.
In conclusion, the stick and brick housing stock in the
County is in extremely poor condition, suffering from inferior
materials and workmanship and old age.
MOBILE HOME HOUSING
Methodology
In the last ten years a significant number of the residents
have turned to mobile homes to meet their housing needs. There are
a large number of views held on'the subject of mobile units. We
were impressed by the way residents appeared to have accepted this
use as well as by government's apparent acceptance of the equities
and inequities inherent in the tax structure from trying to deal with
mobile homes. Despite this acceptance, we felt we needed to have
a clear understanding of how mobile units related to the total housing
in the County. Our goal was to find the answers to several questions:

97
(1) what was the percentage of units in the county (by township);
(2) what areas are experiencing more rapid growth: (3) what is the
age, structural quality and condition of the units; (4) how do these
units relate to the stick and brick housing units in quality.
Once again our methodology relied on information from the
real property cards. We were fortunate in that unlike most other
Counties, Tyrrell classifies all mobile homes in the same manner as
they do stick and brick units. Tyrrell County handles all mobile
homes as if they were real property; most units are described as
Grade D and are rated for value according to the number of square
feet of liveable area, just as stick and brick units are.
Application
Mobile homes have made up a significant portion of the
housing stock in Tyrrell County. 36.4% of the units added since
1975 were mobile homes; 43.2 of the units added between 1970 and
1975 were mobile homes. Despite these additions the number of
mobile homes as part of the total housing stock has not changed
since 1970, when it made up 20% of the total housing stock. This
profile appears as follows:
_ MOBILE
HOMES AND THE HOUSING
STOCK (1970-1980)
Years
No. Mobile
No. Houses
1970
277
1388
20.0
_
1975
357
1529
1980
415
1690
24.3
This non -radical 4% increase does not tell the entire story.
In terms of additions to the housing stock, mobile homes are making
up a significantly larger percentage of additional units.

MOBILE UNITS ADDED DURING THE 1970s
Years
No. Mobile Added
No. Houses Added
%
1970-1975
61
141
43.2%
1975-1980
58
161
36.4
1970-1980
119
302
39.4 -
If the trends of the past ten years were to continue into the next
ten years, the County can expect approximately 150 more mobile homes
in the County by. 1990.
Thus, assuming a continuation of recent trends, the housing
mix would take on the following characteristics:
HOUSING MIX, 1980-1990
Housing Type Units Added Total Units % of Total
1980-90 1990 Units in 1990 -
Stick and Brick 176 1451 71.7
Mobile Home 196 611 28.3
By 1990 the number of mobile homes would reach nearly 30% and this
percentage could be expected to increase even more dramatically to
the year 2000.
In terms of the grade and condition of the mobile home stock,
we notice that compared to the total housing stock, mobile homes have
a higher structural quality and are in better condition. Since 1970
the adoption of construction standards for the mobile home industry
has resulted in higher quality construction. However, we have only
limited experience upon which to test the average useful life of
even the better mobile homes. The Tax Assessor's Manual leads us
to believe that stick and brick homes are over 50% physically depre-
ciated in about 30 years. A mobile home may reach the same level
of actual depreciation in 15 years. Much.of the quality of the mobile

home stock is a result of the newness of the unit as a housing
alternative.
We can analyze the mobile home stock under the same format
as we did the stick and brick housing. In the following table we
have presented some summary information and some comparisons.
POTENTIALLY SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
MOBILE HOMES VS. STICK AND BRICK UNITS (1980)
Housing type # Units Poor Cond. Grade E Grade D
Stick and Brick 1275 201 15.8% 353 27.7% 430 33.5%
Mobile Homes 415 37 8.9 0 0.0 366 88.9
Clearly the greater bulk of the substandard housing in the County
is from stick and brick units.
What the Tyrrell County Tax Assessor has done in evaluating
the structural soundness of mobile units symbolizes our fears. From
the above table, you will note that nearly all the mobile units in
the County were described as Grade D construction (Cheap Quality
Materials and Workmanship). Nearly two-thirds of the mobile units
in the County may be over ten years old. Given another ten years,
we suspect that a large percentage of these units will be classified
as in poor condition (assume 35%). Furthermore, a number of mobile
units that are less than ten years of age may also be in poor con-
dition. The point is that if mobile units have a shorter life than
stick and brick houses, then they may become substandard in a sub-
stantially shorter period of time. Let us follow up on these assum-
ptions and see the implications for the 1990 housing stock.

SUBSTANDARD HOUSING (1990)
Housing Type No. Poor Condition % of Total
1980 Added to 1990 Units in Category
Stick and Brick 201 124 21.9
Mobile Homes 37 128 26.9
This number tends to ignore the fact that many mobile home owners
will "trade up" their units. One difficulty is to determine if
mobile homes are replacing the poor housing stock or merely
offering an alternative to`person-s moving into the County.
In order to grasp this problem it is important to look
at mobile homes versus total housing stock at the township level.
We notice that mobile homes for a varying percentave of the housing
stock in the various townships.
MOBILE HOMES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL UNITS
Township Stick/Brick Mobile Homes Total Units
# % # % 1980
Columbia (rural)
437
68.8
198
31.2
635
Columbia (town)
267
86.4
42
13.6
309 '
Scuppernong
271
76.1
85
23.9
356
Gum Neck
158
76.3
49
23.7
207
Alligator
119
76.3
37
23.7
156
South Fork
21
84.0
4
16.0
25
If we contrast mobile homes as a percentage of total housing
units in 1970 with that in 1980, we can determine those townships
that are experiencing the heaviest use in mobile homes.
MOBILE HOMES AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSING STOCK
Township
1970
1980
Net Gain
#
%
#
%
% Points '
Columbia (rural)
137
28.2
198
31.2
3.0
Columbia (town)
23
8.3
42
13.6
5.3
Scuppernong
61
20.7
85
23.9
3.2
Gum Neck
26
15.4
49
23.7
8.3
Alligator
27
18.9
37
23.7
4.8
South Fork
3
14.3
4
16.0
1.7

101
We see this as a good omen.. Gum Neck which had the highest percentage
of stick and mobile units in poor condition or of grade E construction
is also the township with the highest percentage increase in mobile
home use. Mobile home usage is increasing there at a rate above 7%
per annum and whereas these units make up only 15.4% of the township's
housing stock in 1970, they now comprise 23.7%.
If we express this increase in mobile homes in terms of an
annual growth rate, we can grasp the implications for 1990.
ANNUAL
GROWTH
RATE: MOBILE
UNITS.
Township
No.
Mobile
Units
Growth
Rate
1970
1975
1980
1970-80
1975-80
. Columbia (rural)
137
169
198
4.2
4.0
Columbia (town)
23
31
42
6.8
7.8
Scuppernong
61
78
85
3.8
2.0
Gum Neck
26
40
49
7.3
5.2
Alligator
27
35
37
3.6
1.2
South Fork
3
4
4
3.3
0.0
Mobile homes will play an increasingly larger role in the housing
mix in the town of Columbia (which has heretofore escaped mobile home
use) and the rural townships of Gum Neck and Columbia.
A profile of the 1990 housing stock as it relates to mobile
units is as follows:
PERCENTAGE MOBILE HOMES TO TOTAL ADDITIONAL HOUSING TO 1990
Township _ No. Mobile Units No. Stick % Mobile
Columbia (rural)
85
108
44.0
Columbia (town)
23
14
62.2
Scuppernong
32
43
4
42.7
91.7
Gum Neck
44
11
3
78.6
Alligator
1
4
20.0
South Fork
County
196,
176
52.7

102
PROJECTED 1990 HOUSING
MIX
Township
No Mobile Units
No. Stick
% Mobile
Columbia (rural)
283
545
34.2
Columbia (town)
65
281
18.7
Scuppernong
117
314
27.1
Gum Neck
93
163
36.3 ,
Alligator
48
122
28.2
South Fork
5
25
16.7
In conclusion, if natural growth and trends of the last ten
years continue, Tyrrell County can expect to find a significant por-
tion of its residents living in mobile homes by-1990. This may have
positive effects on the quality of life for many of the residents in
the County since the areas incurring fastest rate of growth in mobile
units are the areas where stick and brick units are in the worst con-
dition. Some fears have to be expressed about the long term benefits
of mobile home use.
CLASS D DWELLINGS*
CHEAP QUALITY CONSTRUCTION
Cheap materials with inferior workmanship. Houses costing $7,500 to
$12,500 are usually in or near this class of construction,
BASE SPECIFICATIONS
FOUNDATION - 8" concrete block walls or masonry piers. No basement.
EXTERIOR WALLS - 5/8" lap siding or 1" drop siding painted; no sheathing
2" x 4" studs, 16" O.C. 1 3/8" pine doors and double hung windows.
Brick Veneer Construction similar - Use Masonry Schedule.
ROOF -.Double pitch or hipped type; cheap asphalt shingles, 1" sheathing
2" x 4" rafters 24".O.C. No cornice.
*Source: Carroll & Phelps Company, Winston-Salem, N.C.

103
FLOORS - Flat grain Y.P. flooring, 1" subfloor, 2" x 8" joists,
18" O.C., timber beams and sills. No attic floor.
INTERIOR FINISH - Y.P. doors and trim throughout; cheap cabinets.
Rock lath and plaster, sheet rock or beaded walls and ceilings,
papered or painted. No tiling in bath.
HEATING - None included in base price, add from schedule.
FIREPLACE -None included in base price, add from schedule.
P111MRING - Kitchen sink, automatic_ water heater, cheap 3 fixture
bathroom.
LIGHTING - Electric lighting, concealed knob and tube wiring.
Cheap fixtures.
CLASS D GARAGES
BASE SPECIFICATIONS
FOUNDATION - Concrete block or brick piers.
WALLS - 1" drop siding, 2" x 4" studs, 24" O.C.
ROOF - Cheap asphalt shingles on 1" sheathing, 2" x 4" rafters, 24" O.C.
FLOOR - Cinders or gravel.
LIGHTING - None
DOORS - Cheap sash panel or batten hinged garage doors.
(Brick Veneer Garages same except for wall construction).
CLASS E DWELLINGS
SUB -STANDARD CONSTRUCTION
Very cheap materials with inferior workmanship. Buildings are
often without modern improvements. Cheap cottages costing up to
$6,000 are in this class of construction.

104
BASE SPECIFICATIONS
FOUNDATION Brick, stone, or concrete piers. No basements.
EXTERIOR WALLS - 1" drop siding painted; no wall sheathing, 2" x 4"
studs, 24" O.C. 1 3/8" pine doors and windows.
ROOF - Double pitch type roof, cheap metal or asphalt shingle roofing,
1" sheathing, 2" x 4" rafters, 24" O.C. No cornice, gutters orcon-
ductors.
FLOORS - Flat grain Y.P. flooring painted, 2" x 6" joists, 16" O.C.
INTERIOR FINISH - Cheap pine doors and trim, few cabinets and closets,
beaded or sheet rock walls and ceilings.
HEATING - No heating system.
FIREPLACE - Cheap fireplace or flue included in base price.
LIGHTING - Electric lighting, knob and tube wiring. Drop cords.
PLUMBING - No plumbing base. Add from schedule for fixtures.
CLASS E GARAGES
BASE SPECIFICATIONS
FOUNDATION - Brick or concrete block piers.
WALLS - Cheap drop siding or corrugated metal on light framing.
ROOF - Double pitched corrugated metal on wood strips, 2" x 4"
rafters 24" O.C.
FLOOR - Earth
LIGHTING - None.
DOORS - None.

105
Appendix D
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS OF LAND USE CHANGES
IN TYRRELL COUNTY: A LOOK AT ONE ASPECT
OF THE PROBLEM, HOUSING MIX

106
APPENDIX D
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS OF LAND USE CHANGES
IN TYRRELL COUNTY: A LOOK AT ONE ASPECT
OF THE PROBLEM, HOUSING MIX
Besides seeing housing as a necessity for its citizens,
government should also be cognizant of how housing selection affects
revenue production. Indeed, a county government must rea n ze the
implications from varying land uses, especially agricultural produc-
tion, wildlife and plantlife uses, recreational uses, industrial,
commercial and residential uses. Our land choices in terms of resi-
dential uses involve understanding the effects of building with single
family, stick and brick and mobile units, and multi -family housing.
Each housing mix (percentage of each housing type) effects the amount
of land removed from other uses, the revenue generated and the ex-
penses incurred. This paper will examine the differences between
stick and brick structures and mobile home structures as a revenue
generator for county taxes.
Because of the age and condition of the housing stock and
the time that has passed since the last evaluation of units for tax
purposes (1975), the County's housing stock is not a good revenue
generator. From a study of the property records in the County Tax
Office we were able to establish a valuation for stick and brick
housing and mobile homes treated as realty. This information is as
follows:

107
AVERAGE VALUATION BY HOUSING TYPE
Township _ Stick and Brick Mobile (Realt
Columbia (rural)
$6930.00
$3850.00
Columbia (town)
6270.00
3310.00
Scuppernong
7380.00
3640.00
3750.00_
- Gum Neck
4290.00
2950.00
3710.00
Alligator
South Fork
8300.00
2900.00
County
6210.00
3670.00
This table when compared with a profile of the age of the housing stock
establishes that real property is a considerably better revenue
generator in aged housing stock. We note that 81% of the stick and
brick units are over 10 years of age, compared with 67% of the mobile
home units. Nearly all mobile homes enter the tax roles as Grade D,
Fair condition units. Stick.and Brick units are generally either
Grade C or D, however, a small number enter the tax roles as Grade
B, Good Condition housing. A random selection of Grade B units
showed that the average valuation of this class to be $24,500 per unit.
The average valuation for Grade C units appears to be approximately
$13,250 per unit. The average valuation of Grade D units appears to
be $6000. In contrast the average evaluation for mobile units as
realty varies very little from the average of Grade D units. Grade
D mobile homes appear to have an average value of $3600 per unit.
If we were to restrict ourselves to viewing revenue generation
by average past statistics, we would miss a large part of the reality.
Past statistics show you a glimpse of the housing stock when it has
sufficiently aged, regrettably it ignores the fact that until recent-
ly mobile homes held value poorly. Also it distorts revenue in that
the number of mobile homes compared to stick and brick units was
rather insignificant until the mid-1960s and not really substantial

108
until the 1970s. Perhaps a better comparison would be to compare
the new units in light of their revenue producing capabilities.
For hypothetical purposes, we have decided to compare from
a government viewpoint a stick house costing $35,000, with a double -
side mobile unit costing $20,000, and a mobile unit costing $12,600.
Based on current evaluation practices, we will rate the stick house
as Grade C, the double -wide the same; and the mobile unit 864 sq. ft.
Hopefully these assumptions will place the housing into real alter-
natives faced by the new resident of the County.
Based on the 1980 tax schedule, we would expect the County
to derive income based on the following valuations.
VALUATIONS PER UNIT (1980)
Style Housing Valuation per unit
Stick house $12,700
Double wide 9,500
Mobile home 6,600
If a mobile home were treated as personalty (which it legally is),
then the valuation, based on 100% personal property valuation would
be $20,000 for a double -wide and $12,600 for a mobile unit.
Since the schedule in effect in 1980 is in fact the 1975 tax
schedule, we can create a more equitable situation if we move the
reference year to a point which is midway between valuation and re-
evaluation. To leave the point in the fifty year makes the real
property evaluations too low since they are not adjusted every year
for market value: Indeed 1979 represents a good year for comparison.
For purposes of comparison, let us assume that the value of stick
houses gained 12% in the past year compared to 8% for mobile units.

109
The results are as follows:
' TAX POTENTIAL
FROM DIFFERENT
TYPES OF HOUSING
St le Housin
Market Value
Tax Value
De rec.
Adj. Value
Stick House
$30,800
$12,700
9,500
$1270
950
$11,430
,940
Double -wide (realty)
18,400
11,592
6,600
660
5 ,0
Mobile home
Double -wide (persity)
18 ,400
18,400
0
0
18,400
11,592
Mobile home
18,400
11,400
The above table demonstrates that under a reasonable hypothetical situ-
ation addressing only new units added during an eight year time period
and being appraised only during that time period, that mobile units if
they were treated as personalty would actually generate more revenue
than stick homes. The difficulty is that in the second period of
re-evaluation for this same housing stock the situation will change.
Let us present this same housing stock in 1987.
TAX POTANTIAL FOR AVERAGE OFUI2NYEAR�CAGES(1987IT �PR0ACHES
Style Housing Market Value Tax Value Deprec.
Stick house
Double -wide (real)
Mobile home
Double -wide (persity)
Mobile home
$76,259
18,400
11,592
18,400
11,592
$31,445
23,520
16,341
18,400
11,592
$6289
4704
3268
0
j. Value
$25,156
18,816
13,072
18,400
11,592
If the irony of the first table was that the 1980 mobile home, which
was worth only one-third of the stick home, when treated as personalty
bore the same amount of taxes, the difficulty with the second table is
that the same home if treated as realty and worth only one -seventh
of the stick home, bears one-half of the taxes.
The current county policy is to treat mobile homes as realty.
This policy probably has several effects. It encourages new mobile
homes since it taxes them at a lower rate than the -same equivalent in

110
in stick housing would be taxed. On the other hand it encourages
persons with older mobile units to trade then since it taxes them
disproportionately to their real or actual value as compared with
stick houses.
From the County's point of view the rising number of mobile
homes will increase the total assessed value of the county if the
units are used to replace existing structures that are in poor
condition or of Grade E construction. If the units are merely an
alternative form of housing to stick housing for new residents, the
policy may be costing the County money. Ideally the County can
accomplish both the goal of improving housing quality for residents -
in poor housing at present and of encouraging new residents to build
stick homes by controlling the use of mobile homes in areas that
are attractive to new migration.

111
Appendix E.
TYRRELL COUNTY QUESTIONNAIRE

112
TYRRELL COUNTY QUESTIONNAIRE
The public participation element in Tyrrell County emphasized
citizen involvement primarily through open meetings and an attitudinal
survey. Because we have had poor involvement from the public through
the meeting approach, we have had to rely on public input from the
questionnaire. Our approach on the questionnaire was to draft an
issue oriented form that would reveal attitudinal differences of
several subgtoups. We used a random sampling technique to insure
quality and interpretability of the responses. Some 250 questionnaires
were mailed in January, by April we had received 67 responses, which
should result in approximately 85% confidence in the answers.
Conclusions
Before reciting the conclusions and offering some interpre-
tations, we should place this tool (attitudinal survey) in perspective
in the planning process. The results of the survey are a guide to
public response. They do not represent how the public might react
if it were subject to a vigorous informational program. Government
should not blindly follow public attitudes, yet understanding atti-
tudes is important in making decisions between relatively neutral
alternatives and in understanding where educational directives should
be focused.
From the responses, we have concluded that Tyrrell County is
composed of two or more.strong interest groups who seldom view the
same problem in the same perspective. The split between the agri-
cultural and residential community best exemplifies this difference
of opinion. Perhaps the most important issues and attitudes arising

113
from the survey concern health and the environment. The residents
of Tyrrell County are almost unanimous in their desire to fund.
• improvements in the ambulance program and to retain medical person-
nel on a full time basis, and in their desire to protect remaining
areas of environmental significance. The residents desire growth;
are fairly comfortable with the use of mobile homes; but, feel that
large farms and other industrial enterprises may pose risks to the
things they value in the County, particularly, the image of the small
farm atmosphere. Environmental consequences play a strong role in
how they view new developments. They favor government controls to
• reduce conflicts between the agricultural community and the resi-
dential community. They are concerned about the quality of housing
• in the County --they would support programs that improve housing for
the poor and the elderly, as well as government enforcement that
would bring current housing up to code standards. They desire to
see.a downtown and waterfront redevelopment plan begun for the town
of Columbia. Perhaps most importantly they are willing to spend
tax monies at the local level to improve health facilities and provide
better housing (and probably to preserve environmental areas.)
Particulars of the Survey
• The background of the respondents was as follows:
.(all answers in (%) percentages)
Residency: 93.8 permanent residents
3.1 non-resident property owners
3.1 other
Political and
Geographical: Columbia
26.7 Scuppernong
3.3 Alligator
26.7 Gum Neck
10.0 Soundside

Age:
114
Land Use
Special Interest:
Rural/Urban
Growth and Housing.Mix
18.2 18-35
39.4 35-55
42.4 55-
48.5 Agricultural Interests
12.1 Commercial interests
3.0 Sports -related interests
27.3 Residential interests
27.2 Resident of Columbia
3.0 Suburban resident
75.8 Rural resident
The residents of Tyrrell County feel strongly that the
County should increase the current level of growth in the County.
This attitude towards growth is surprising in light of the obvious
interest by major industrial operations in developing parts of the
County --something which would undoubtedly affect the perceptions
of the residents about growth. It is also surprising in light of
the amounts of new mobile home development in the County. In
contrast to many of the neighboring Counties, Tyrrell County
residents appear fairly comfortable with mobile home development
and with second home development.
Attitude Towards Mobile Home Development
_ Attitude Response (9�)
Good alternative form of housing 58.1
Substandard form of housing 16.1
Don't pay fair share of services 16.1
Esthetic problem 9.7
Attitude Towards Second Home Development
_ Attitude Response (�
Encourage more second homes 56.7
Keep same percentage as in past 36.7
6.7
Discourage

115
The indifference towards the style and shape of the future
housing mix implicitly recognizes that housing quality is still a
• problem in the County. The residents of Tyrrell County, especially
the residential community, strongly favored policies likely -to retire
poor quality housing. They favored enforcement of health and safety
standards that would force already built housing to comply with
electrical, structural and plumbing codes.
Attitude Towards Housing Stock and Building Code
Attitude Response %
Action to force housing to comply with 57.5
health and safety standards .42.4
No
(crosstab) Community
Attitude A ricultural Residential
Favor Standards 56..5 20.0
0.0%
Against Standards
The residents also expressed some concern that current lot
sizes are not adequate to support development. This attitude was
strongest in the agricultural community which is more familiar with
large lots and perhaps more aware of problems attendant with develop-
ment of septic tanks.
Attitude Towards Lot Sizes
A++; +1 Irlc
Lot sizes are too small
Lot sizes are adequate
Lot sizes are too large
(crosstab)
Res onse %
50.0%
46.7
3.3
Attitude A ricultural Residential
1.5% 40.0%
6
Too small 3.5 60.0
Adequate

116
The residents were particularly concerned about the quality
of housing for two of its subgroups, the poor and the elderly. The
residents support County action to provide housing and are willing
to spend tax dollars to accomplish their goals. Funding for housing
projects ranked second in importance to providing medical services.
Attitude_ Towards Additional Housing For Those
In Substandard Housing
Attitude Response (%)
Favor more opportunity for all substandard 531
Favor more opportunity but only for elderly 25.0
3.0
Favor more opportunity but only for poor 18.8
Do not favor
In interpreting the above table, we should note that we
can infer that 78% of the respondents support the creation at
public expense or subsidy of housing for the elderly.
In all, the respondents did not -feel that the new residential
development was threatening the image of Tyrrell County as a rural,
agricultural community. They did not feel the same about other
development interests in the County.
Attitude Towards New Residential Development
Attitude Response (%)
Does not threaten image of rural community 30.3
Does threaten image 69.7
Commercial Development
The residents of Tyrrell County are more urban (town) than
the cross -sample who answered our questionnaire. Nevertheless the
respondents expressed considerable concern over the viability of
Columbia as a commercial center. Nearly 72% of the respondents

117
favored a plan that would redevelop the downtown and waterfront
areas in Columbia.
Support a Redevelopment Plan for Columbia
_ Response M (Cumulative
Support plan for housing, downtown and 46.9
waterfront redevelopment .9
Support only plan for downtown and waterfront 255.0 7171.2
Support only plan for housing 21.9
Do not support plan
Industrial Development
Tyrrell County is experiencing several types of industrial
development. Traditionally industrial development has centered
about lumbering operations, which because they did not change the
substantive nature of the environment were probably very easily
accepted by the people. More recent forms of development include
the large farms, especially the large hog farm, and most recently
the possibility of a large scale peat mining operation.
Whereas the respondents were unconcerned that residential
development would harm the image of the county as a rural community
they were more concerned about conflicts from large farms, especially
hog farms, and peat mining operations. 56.6% of the respondents
would not trade increased employment opportunities in the county for
a loss in small agricultural image. Furthermore, if the reaction to
r the peat industry typifies their general reaction, the residents do
not find the increase in the tax base to be an important factor in
decision making over industrial development. The respondents felt
that the costs attendant with large farms has exceeded the benefits
to the County.

118
Willing to Trade Employment for Rural Image
Attitude Response (%)
Willing to trade 46.4
Not willing to trade 53.6
(crosstab)
Attitude Agricultural (%) Residential (%)
Willing to trade 28.6 90.0
Not willing to trade 71.4 10.0
(As could be expected -the urban, residential community is more
concerned with jobs than the rural, agricultural community.)
Attitude Towards Large Farms
Attitude Response (%)
Benefits outweigh costs 26.9 _
Costs outweigh benefits 73.1
(From the way we framed the question, we suspect that the major
concern centered about the envirdnmentel CdnsequenCet wrounding
the loss of vegetation and the loss of valuable hunting areas.) The
importance of hunting in the decision -making is reflected in the sub-
group support. 85% of the agricultural community felt the costs of
the large farms outweighed the benefits.
Attitude Towards Peat Mining
Attitude Response (%)
Strongly encourage the industry 36.0
Encourage 28.0 .
Discourage- 24.0
Strongly discourage 12.0
(crosstab)
Attitude Agricultural (%) Residential M
Strongly encourage 21.5 40.0
Encourage 14.3 30.0
Discourage 35.7 10.0
Strongly discourage 7.1 0.0

119
The lack of support for the peat industry by the agricultural
community probably reflects their priority for environmental
factors over jobs. This became clear when we asked the respondents
what was the most important factor in their attitude towards the
peat industry.
Most Important Factor in Peat Decision
Factor Response (%)
16.7
Jobs 4.2
Increase in tax base 41.7
Environment and health 36.4
Energy
(crosstab)
.
Factor A ricultural Residential
Jobs 0.0 25.0
12
Increase tax base 4..5 37.5
Environment 36.4 25..0
Energy .
If the residents of the County expressed some concern over
conflicts that may develop between the industrial community and the
small farmer and residential community, we asked them what steps
they would favor in coping with the problem. From the results, we
can conclude that they strongly support some kind of government
action, probably in the nature of management tools that they are
more familiar with, namely zoning.
Preferred Means for Preventing Conflict between Industrial
and Agricultural and Residential Communities
Management Tool
Response
43.3
Zoning 23.3
Impact ordinances 16.7
Building standards 16.7
Voluntary

120
(cross -tab)
Mana4ement Tool Agricultural.(%) Residential (�
Zoning 28.6 55.6
Impact Disclosure 35.7 22.2
Building Standards 21.4 11.1
Voluntary 14.3 11.1
Environmental Protection
Tyrrell County residents have a keen appreciation of the
environment and probably a higher degree of knowledge and awareness
than most communities. 87% (an extremely strong response) favored
government taking measures to protect environmental quality along the
western bank of the Alligator River and the Albemarle Sound shores
from Pledger Land Road to Great Shoal Point. Respondents also
strongly favored protecting the environmental quality of Lake Phelps,
although this view was not as strongly held by the agricultural com-
munity. They have expressed a desire to not see the Scuppernong
dredged, probably because of their strong protectionist attitude.
Finally they desire to see regulations on both industry and agricul-
ture in order to insure the quality of the Sound.
In balancing activity with the environment, most industry
except that which is offering environmental alternatives, will
probably have to yield to the environment, as will recreational
activities (boating) that may pose adverse consequences. Even other.
these balancing tests, certain areas seem to be beyond balance.
Judging from the response we had to other questions, we suspect that
if we had asked the people whether they desire to purchase open
space if it were necessary to preserve environmentally sensitive
areas or if they were willing to fund a program that would devise

121
methods to protect the environment, they would strongly vote in
favor of each measure.
The results of the environmentally styled questions are as
follows:
Attitude Towards Preserving Environmental Quality
Of Alligator River Areas and Eastern Albemarle Sound Area
_ Attitude Response (%)
Favor protection of both areas 86.7
Favor protection of Alligator River only 3.3
Favor protection of Albemarle Sound only 0.0
Do not favor protection 10.0
Attitude Towards Protecting Shoreline of Lake Phelps
From Second Home Development
_ Attitude Response (%)
Favor protection by CRC 44.4
Favor protection by County only 37.0
Do not favor protection
18.5
Most Important Factor in Decision on Peat Mining
Attitude Response (%
16.7
Jobs 4.2
Increased tax base 41.7
Environment and health 37.5
Energy
Attitude Towards Improving Water Quality in The Albemarle Sound
A++i+utio
Res onse %
11.1
Increase regulations on agricultural runoff 29.6
Increase regulations on -industrial wastes 59:3
Increase regulations on agriculture and industry 0.0
Situation does not merit increased regulation
We should note that the residential community strongly
supports the dredging of the Scuppernong River (88.9% favor); that
the agricultural community is more opposed to peat mining (only 35%

122
favor); that the residential community feels more strongly about tht
County rather than the CRC taking action to protect Lake Phelps.
Services and Facilities
Tyrrell County residents share some very equitable attitudes
towards facilities (as opposed to favoring only actions likely to
benefit their own interest group.) Thus, they favored extending
the water system to the few populated areas not currently served
by County water (90% favor); they favored increasing the priority of
paving dirt secondary roads (61.3% increase priority); and they favor
public waste treatment and other alternatives with areas having
septic tank difficulties (19.3). However, the most striking empha-
sis was the attention paid to the need for medical facilities.
Tyrrell County residents were definitely willing to spend
tax monies to improve ambulance services in the County.
Attitude Towards Spending Tax Monies to Improve
Ambulance Service
Attitude Response (%)
Favor spending 90.0
Do not favor spending 10.0
The residents continued this priority by setting spending for ambulance
services as number one priority on the government spending list.
Residents stated that they strongly supported retaining the services
of a fulltime resident doctor.
Attitude Towards Using Tax Money to Retain Services
Of Resident Doctor
Attitude Response (%)
Favor spending 72.2
Do not favor spending 27•3

123
Recreational Facilities
Tyrrell County residents clearly support recreational activi-
ties that are not in conflict with the environment. In addition to
hunting and those activities provided in the town of Columbia or in
the Schools or Churches, the residents desired to see some additional
facilities. The strongest support (majority support) came for
access for boats and beach use.
Attitude Towards Recreational Facilities
Facility Times Selected for Funding Weighted Score
Access for boats 25 pts. 87 pts.
Softball parks. 14 44
Tennis courts 13 25
Picnic areas 28 64
Rest area for travelers 31 79
Access for beach use 35 92
(Scores were weighted by allotting 4 points to the first choice, 3
to the second, 2 to the third -and 1 the fourth.)
Funding for all Facilities, Services and Activities
The questionnaire presented the respondents with a number of
potential activities, many of which would require local spending.
In order to check the importance of these activities in the face of
a sparcity of funds and the possibility of increasing the taxes paid
by individuals, we asked the respondents to decide (for the final
time) which of the activities they preliminarily approved, they wished
to fund and at what priority.
The results (shown below) show strong support for medical
facilities, a housing project, and alternate sewage treatment
facilities.

124
Attitudes Towards Funding for All Projects
Facility Times Selected for Funding Weighted Score
Housing Project for elderly/poor
34
100
Fire station: New Lands
21
41
Medical personnel full time
56
200
Alternative sewage treatment
17
39
106
Ambulance Services
34
43
Drainage plan to control flooding
19
Recreational facilities
10
10
Public Access and parking for sound
1
1
0

125
Tyrrell County Questionnaire
Tyrrell County is conducting a questionnaire to elicit
attitudes about land use and related services. The results of the
questionnaire will be used by the Planning Board and County
Commissioners in revising the land use plan and setting land use
related policies. Please complete this questionnaire and return it
to Coastal Consultants LTD., P.O. Box 304, Nags Head, NC 27959.
1. How would you describe your relationship to the County?
(A) permanent resident
(B) non-resident property owner
(C) other
2. With which of the following groups do you most identify?
(A) agricultural interests
(B) commercial interests
(C) sports related interests
(D) residential interests
(E) other
3. With which area in Tyrrell County do you identify?
(A) Columbia
(B) Scuppernong community
(C) Alligator community
(D) Gum Neck community
(E) Soundside community
(F) other
4. With which of the following groups do you most identify?
(A) rural resident
(B) suburban resident
(C) resident of Columbia
5. Please specify your age classification.
(B) 35 to 55
�C) over 55
6. How -do you feel about the population changes within the county?
(A) we need to increase the growth rate
(B) we need to keep the present growth rate
(C) we need to discourage growth
c

126
7. How do you feel about the seasonal, second home development in
the county?
(A) we should encourage more second home development
(B) we should keep the same percentage of second home development
that we currently have
(C) we should discourage second home development
8. How do you feel about the current density of development in the
County?
(A) lot sizes for building a house are.too small (people are too
close, septic tanks aren't working)
(B) lot sizes are adequate (no problems likely)
(C) lot sizes are too large (inefficient services, land wasted)
9. Should Tyrrell County foster additional housing opportunities
for the poor,.the elderly and those currently living"in substandard
housing?
(A) yes
(B) no
(C) only for the elderly
(D) only for the poor
10. Do you feel that new residential development (either that of new
communities or extension of older ones) is threatening the image
of Tyrrell County as a rural, agricultural community?
(A) yes
(B) no
11. Should Tyrrell County take action to force already built homes
to comply with electrical, structural and plumbing standards
designed to insure health and safety?
(A) yes
(B) no
(C) health standards only
(D) safety standards only
12. Should the town of Columbia undertake a redevelopment plan?
(A) only downtown and/or waterfront
(B) only housing
(C) both (A) and (B)
(0) n©
13. How do you feel about mobile home development?
(A) good alternative form of housing for low income persons .
B) substandard form of housing --dangerous to occupants
(C) an excess burden on the services of the county without
contributing fairly to the tax base
(D). an eyesore

127
14. Recently we have had much discussion about conflicting uses in
the county. One such conflict is between operators of large
hog lots and nearby residences. How do you feel about this issue?
(A) developments that are offensive to the residential community
should not be allowed in the county
(B) developments that are offensive to the residential community
should be limited to areas that have the fewest residences
(C) every man should have the right to use his property the
way he desires
15. Of the following methods, which one would you prefer for the
purpose of preventing future conflicts between the industrial
and large farm community and the residential community?
(A) zoning
(B) impact disclosure ordinance
(C) building standards
(D) no ordinances or laws --voluntary
16. Would you be willing to trade increased employment opportunities
in the county fora loss in the small, agricultural image of the
County?
(A) yes
(B) no
17. Would you favor building a new fire station in the New Land -
Cross Landing area (it is estimated that the population in that
area has now reached 250 people; current service is from Columbia)?
(A) yes
(B) no
18. Currently medical service is available only by traveling to
Plymouth or Edenton or by using the daytime clinics. Would you
favor using tax monies to retain the services of a full time
resident doctor in the County?
(A) yes
(B) no
19. Would you favor extending public water to heavily populated
areas not currently on the water system?
(A) yes
(B) no
20. Do you feel that communities with a fairly dense population and
with septic tank difficulties should look into alternatives for
handling household wastes?
(A) yes
(B) no
21. Some people would like to see the Scuppernong River dredged.
Dredging would diminish the likelihood of damage from flooding
in a major story, allow better access for sports and commercial
boats. On the other hand it poses environmental consequences

128
and costs money. Should the Scuppernong River be dredged?
(A� yes
(B no
22. Should the town of Columbia and the residential communities of
Alligator and Scuppernong spend town and county monies to formu-
late a drainage plan to alleviate flooding problems?
(A) yes
(B) Columbia only
(C) no
23. What policy would you favor the county and state adopting
concerning the paving of local roads.
(A) increase the priority of paving dirt secondary roads
(B) decrease the priority
(C) keep present priority
24. The recent development of large farms has involved the clearing
of large tracts of land. This has affected the water level with
consequences on pumping and diking. The loss of vegetation
has affected hunting. How do you feel about the development of
large farms?
(A) the benefits outweigh the costs
B the costs outweigh the benefits
25. Peat mining has received a lot of attention in the news. It is
said that the operation will create some new local jobs, increase
the tax base, provide a new energy source. On the other hand,
it is likely to raise the water level in the river while lowering
it in the ground._ It may create a new growth center near Kilkenney.
Which of the following best describes your attitude towards peat
mining?
(A) strongly encourage the industry
B encourage the industry.
(C) discourage the industry
(D) strongly discourage the industry
(E) take no position
26. What factor was most important to you in your decision on peat
mining?
A) jobs
8increased tax base
environment and health
(D) energy
27.' The South Forks Township area near Lake Phelps is currently sparsely
developed. The lake is a wildlife refuge; surrounding uses in
Tyrrell County are mostly agricultural. Lake Phelps is being
considered for nominatinon as an area of environmental concern by
the Coastal Resources Commission. Should the CRC develop standards
governing second home development that would restrict the amount
of development (and especially that on septic tanks) in this area?

129
(A) yes, the CRC should develop standards
(B) the County should develop standards
(C) no
28. The County currently has at least two large areas of environmental
significance --the western bank of the Alligator River and the
Albemarle Sound shores from Pledger Landing Rgad to Great Shoal
Point. Should the County take measures to protect the environ-
mental quality of these areas?
(A) yes
(B) Alligator River area only
(C) Albemarle Sound area only
(D) no
29. Recently some problems have surfaced concerning water quality
in the Albemarle Sound. The problems maybe related to industry
and agriculture on the Chowan, Scuppernong and other Rivers. It
may be related to the closing of the Dare County Inlet. Problems
include navigation, flooding, poor fishing and pollution. Which
action would you favor?
(A) Increase regulations on agricultural runoff in the Chowan,
Scuppernong and other river basins connected to the Albemarle.
(B) Increase regulations on industrial wastes dumped into the
river basins
(C) Increase regulations on both industrial and agricultural
uses that affect the water of the Albemarle
(D) The situation does not merit increased regulations.
30. Would you be willing to spend tax dollars to improve the ambulance
services in the County?
(A) yes
(B) no
31. Which recreational facilities would you be most willing to pay for?
(Place most desired facility on top, second below it, etc.)
(A) access for boats
(B) softball parks
(C) tennis courts
(D) picnic areas
(E) rest area for traveling public
(F) access for beach use
32. In spending tax monies, it is important to rank priorities.
Please rank the following projects in order of importance.
(A) housing project for elderly/poor
(B) fire station for New Lands - Cross Landing community
(C) medical personnel on full time basis at County clinic
(D) alternate sewage treatment facilities for communities with
severe septic tank problems
(E) ambulance services
(F) drainage plan to handle flooding problems
(G) redreational facilities
(H) public access and parking for sound

130
APPENDIX F.
Preliminary Overview of Peat Mining Operations

131
APPENDIX F
Preliminary Overview of Peat Mining Operations
In large areas of northeastern North Carolina, the surface
is covered by accumulations of organic matter commonly referred to a
peat. Such peat accumulations, if covered by mineral sediment and
left for several hundred thousand years, will form coal. The peat
lands in Tyrrell County support a vegetative cover of broad leaf
evergreen shrubs and occasionally mixed hard wood forest. As
agricultural soils, most "fuel quality" peatlands.are of poor quality.
They contain large quantities of buried wood (as much as 15% by vol-
ume) throughout the organic depth and they are very acid. Peat
bogs offer limited habitats for waterfowl and marginal habitats for
r deer, bobcat and bear. Because peat in Tyrrell County and the
adjoining counties has energy values similar to lignite coal, it can
be used as a fuel when dried of its excess moisture content. In the
Soviet Union, Finland and Ireland, peat supplies a portion of the
total energy requirement for electrical power generation. Peat is
a versatile fuel. In addition to being burned directly, it can be
gasified and converted to methanol and it has been mixed with oil or
coal to extend these sources of energy.
I Peat Proposal in North Carolina
First Colony Farms owns 120,000 acres of peat reserves spread
over four counties in northeastern North Carolina. These peat
reserves are estimated to yield a harvest of approximately 165
million dry tons of peat. Each ton, in turn, promises to yield
about 10,200 BTU's per pound. The energy of these reserves is equi-

132
valent to that of 350 million barrels of fuel oil or 135 million
tons of good grade eastern coal. Put in another perspective, the peat
reserves are sufficient to fuel a 800 megawatt power plant for 59 years
' or a 5,000 ton per day methanol plant for 36 years.
In September, 1978 First Colony Farms (FCF) was granted a
permit from DNRCD, Division of Land Resrouces, to operate a peat mine
on 405 acres designated as "Experimental Peat Mine, #1".'. In 1979 FCF
applied for a permit to mine 32,750 acres of peat in Washington,
Tyrrell and Hyde Counties. The proposal calls for strip mining the
land to a depth of 5.5 feet and a reclamation of the land for agri-
cultural purposes, particularly for row crops. A draft permit was
tendered to FCF for mining of 15,012 acres. At least two other
smaller companies have applied for a permit to mine peat in Hyde
County; one is to produce a commercial horticultural peat product
and the other is for energy related uses.
First Colony Farms has spent most of its efforts to date in
developing the equipment and procedures for harvesting peat from its
natural environment and testing reclamation procedures following peat
harvest. Raw peat contins roughly about 85% moisture. To be used
as a fuel, peat needs to be dried to or below'50% moisture. To remove
this excess moisture by artificial means would consume as much energy
as could be generated. Consequently, the excess moisture is driven
away in the field by solar heat. Equipment and procedures utilized
by the Soviet Union and Finland to field dry and harvest peat were
tried in 1978 by FCF. Most of the pre-existing equipment could not
cope with the large wood (size and quantity) found throughout the

133
depths of North Carolina peats, therefore new equipment and procedures
for drying and harvesting peat have required development. Two field y
drying and harvesting approaches have resulted. Both procedures incorpo-
rate the residual wood with the peat instead of trying to remove the wood '
before drying and harvesting the peat. One is referred to as the "sod
peat" method. The procedure utilizes circular saws which cut through
the soil 12-16 inches deep, propelling a mixture of raw peat and wood
chipa upward into an auger which compresses and expels the mixture through
a round extruding head. The extruded material (sods) sun dries and is
harvested. The second procedure is the old milled peat procedure where
the residual buried.wood is ground in place to a depth of about 4" at `
a time and the resulting peat and chips are harvested in approximately
1/2 inch increments as the land surface dries.
In order to operate one (1) 400 MW power plant, FCF would need
approximately 2.6 x 100 tons per year.of peat. To obtain a working
unit, 5,562 acres would have to be cut to a depth of 10.5 inches annu-
ally. After five years, the working tract would be exhausted and the
tracts would be moved to a new site. Originally these large tracts would
be divided into six smaller tracts of 927 acres --each with equipment,
access and drainage.
In order to move'the peat from each working unit to the powerplant,
f
FCF proposes to use either trucks, a train or conveyor. FCF estimated
that the total payroll to harvest and operate the peat for one 400 MW
plant would be 182 persons. If the land is reclaimed, it should not in
fact depreciate in worth. Local tax revenues could be expected from
the land and the equipment as well as secondary revenues from purchases
of employees, both real estate, personalty and a share of the sales tax.

134
By and large, real estate tax revenue should account for 60 to 70%
of revenue from all sources. Additional revenue could be provided if the
municipality were to find a method to tax the removal of resources (some-
thing which has been accomplished in many other states). In the event
that a powerplant is located within the county, it will also provide per-
haps as many as 100 jobs following construction and add significantly to
the tax base.. Sales between the FCF and the utility will generate
additional revenues. (A complete study of these secondary effects
ought to be initiated.)
The Environment
' In order to assess the effects of the project, we should attempt
to understand the nature of the natural systems.
General Character. The region in which fuel quality peat resources
exist includes a significant part of the Albemarle -Pamlico peninsula and
especially a large part of Tyrrell County. The region contains the
largest contiguous tract of peat lands in North Carolina. (Heath, 1975)
(Ingram and Otte, 1980).
Physiography. The dominant feature of the region is its gradual
slope. Elevation on the peninsula ranges from 20 feet to sea level.
66% of the area is below 5 feet above m.s.l. The Phelps peat bog occupies
relatively high ground at 12 feet above m.s.l.
Hydrology. The entire natural area is termed "swampland" and
ridden. Prior to drainage, natural runoff is by "sheetflow" to a few
small creeks which ultimately flow to bays and sounds. (Heath, 1975)
Soils. The region is made up of three general soil classifications:
mineral, shallow organic and deep organic. The deep organic soils

135
typically exhibit an organic surface greater than 51 inches deep.
Most of the deep organics range from 5 to 8 feet, but there are a few
channels containing peat up to 19 feet.thick. Most of the peat is
moderately to highly decomposed with low ash content (2-5%). (Ingram
and Otte, 1980). Shallow organic soils have an organic surface
depth of 16 to 51 inches. No more than half of these soil areas
possess "fuel quality peat containing less than 15-20% ash.
Almost all of the deep organic soils are composed of the Pungo
and Dare soil series. The shallow and deep organic soils are formed
over mineral marine sediments low in base saturation. The result is
these soils are low in bases (calcium and magnesium), therefore the
pH of the organic material is very acid (pH 3.5 to 3.9). By use of
pollen and carbon dating techniques, it is proposed that these organic
surfaces began accumulating in their wet envirohment about 9000 years
ago at the end of the Wisconsin glacial period (Dolman and Buol, 1967).
Climate. The region is subject to a humid subtropical climate.
It receives 50+ inches of.precipitation per year and loses 36 inches
to evapotranspiration, leaving a yearly surplus of 15 inches. Soil
moisure is lowest in June to September due to the high'evapotranspira-
tion rate during this period. Wind speeds prevailing from the southwest
average 9-12 mph (Clay, et. al, 1978). Wind direction varies greatly
with seasons, however.
Vegetation. The region is covered by pocosin vegetation which
occurs in broad flat uplands. Dominant species are broad leafed ever-
green shrubs. Variability of species varies through the bog community.
Increased drainage can cause some shift in the dominant association,
originally cyrilla racemiflora to ilex glabra and myrica heterophylla

136
(Kologiski, 1977).. Repeated fires have also had a great influence on
existant vegitation in many areas. There appears to be few endangered
y or threatened plant species in the region.
Wildlife. The peat mining areas are adjacent to important wild-
life habitats. High bog locations provide limited waterfowl potential
and marginal habitat for deer, bobcat and bear.
The Effects of Mining
Land Preparation. The first site to be mined (Phelps Peat Bog)
by FCF is already diteched. All other areas have at least part of the
primary drainage installed by previous land owners. Ditches are propo-
sed to be installed two years before mining activity is to commence.
After drainage, any existing commercial timber is to be removed and
remaining shrub vegetation is cleared by bulldozers.
The environmental effects from land preparation for peat are
similar to the effects of agricultural preparation minus the influences
of liming, fertilizer and pesticide applications. The most profound
impact is the elimination of terrestrial communities on the site.. The
completed drainage system will lower the water table. A three-year
study conducted by Skaggs, et. al., on the "Effect of Agricultural
Land Development on Drainage Waters in the North Carolina -Tidewater
Region" showed that average annual water tables on developed soils are
approximately 12 inches lower than on undeveloped soils. The soil types
studied included the shallow and deep organics in Tyrrell and Washington
Counties. This study also showed that there was basically no difference
in total flow of water from developed and undeveloped soils, but the
primary influence of drainage was that the flow rate (that amount that

137
did drain from the land) increased 3� times with agricultural development.
Since there are no plants growing on the land during peat harvest, there
will be induced evaporation from the land but there will be no transpira-
tion. Therefore, there should be a slight increase in total flow from
these areas until peat harvest is completed and the land put into agri-
cultural production. The influence of total increase in freshwater
flow is questionable since the number of acres involved in active peat
harvest at any one time is not extensive in relative terms. Peat
harvest on lands in Tyrrell and Dare Counties will drain ultimately
into the Alligator River which is fresh to brackish: This drainage will
be by pump which will be discharged into standing swamps at least z mile V
before reaching the receiving streams. Such practices are known to
serve as effective filters for dissolved and suspended material in drain- `
age waters and will also influence the flow rate entering streams. There-
fore, the influence of mining and agriculture on water quality is an-
ticipated to be small. Such possible changes should and will be studied
and monitored.
Mining. Maximum area being mined at one time is 10,000 acres
(one plant). Areas are expected to decline in elevation gradually. As
peat is removed, canals will ultimately have to be deepened. Peat
mining will create a new lower -lying landform by the amount of depth
equal to and not exceeding the thickness of the fuel quality peat.
Wind erosion may be noticeable during the mining period. Since
the colloidal organic material dries and forms a coarse, chaffy surface,
most of*the airborne particles will be that which is stirred up by
traffic activity during harvest.
Reclamation Period. Once peat mining is complete and the land

is converted to agriculture (the anticipated land use following
reclamation), the quality of drainage waters will be similar to that of
the dark surface mineral soils which are presently being cultivated
in Tyrrell County. Drainage waters from such soils are shown to have
slight increases in sediment load. Dissolved oxygen, biochemical
oxygen demand, temperature, pH and other water quality parameters are
measurably affected as compared to undeveloped areas, but the changes
are relatively small. Other parameters that change but have no appa-
rent effect on water quality are Ca, Mg, K, Na and Cl concentrations.
Nitrogen content in drainage waters from these soil types also increases
slightly, but remain lower than the content found in any other agricultu-
ral soil types (Skaggs, et. a., 1980).
The resulting water level will be lowered by that depth or
thickness.of peat which has been removed by mining plus the 10 to 12-inch
average annual water table drop that results from developed vs. un-
developed land use. This represents a reduction in present hydraulic
head, but the influence of such reduction is of intense debate since
the mineral substrata is imbedded with many impervious layers.

139
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ebasco Services, Inc. First Colony Farms: Peat Harvesting Study.
Nov. 1976.
Memo. Rod McLanahan, Field Biologist for Wildlife Resources Commission, '
to First Colony Farms, August 29, 1978.
Steve Stampfli. A Preliminary Assessment of Environmental Impacts of
Peat Mining in North Carolina. Sources or re erences to
technical sources in this paper.) August 1, 1979.
Memo. Stephen G. Conrad, Director of Division of Land Resources,
DNRCD, to Mining Commission. July 21 1977.
EPA. Prepared by L.E. Beyer, et. al. Surface Minin amend Natural
Environment: Technical Manual, Rase II. March-1979.
Dept. of Energy. Peat Prospectus. July, 1979.
Skaggs, R.W., J.W. Gilliam, T.J. Sheets and J.S. Barnes. 1980.
Effect of Agricultural Land Development on Drainage Waters in
t e North Carolina Tidewater a on. Water Resources Research
Institute of the University of North Carolina. WRRI Report No.
159.
Ir