NC0048861_Report_20110922

Wastewater Treatment and Collection System and Water Supply Line Improvements
Washington and Tyrrell Counties, N.C.
USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
22 September 2011
Lead Agency Contact:
Mr. Doug Causey
USDA Rural Development
403 Government Circle, Suite 3
Greenville, NC 27834
252-752-2035 (phone)
252-931-0560(fax)
Mr. Bill White
Mayor, Town of Creswell
PO Box 68
Creswell, NC 27928
(252) 797-485
Municipal Contact:
Engineering Contact:
Mr. Gary D. Hartong, P.E.
301 West 14th Street
Greenville, NC 27834
[phone]
Prepared By:
Mr. Willie Mac Carawan.
Manager, Tyrrell County
PO Box 449
Columbia, NC 27925
[phone]
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
1221 Corporation Parkway, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27610
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
RJG&A Project No. 10037

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 3
1.0. Purpose and Need for the Project 4
1.2. Purpose and Need 4
2.0. Alternatives to the Proposed Action 5
2.1 Wastewater Treatment 5
2.1.1 No Action 5
2.1.2 Optimization of Existing Facilities 6
2.1.3. Regionalization with the Creswell WWTP (Preferred Alternative) 7
2.2 Wastewater Collection 7
2.2.1 Low -Pressure Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) System 7
2.2.2 Gravity Collection System 8
2.2.3 Vacuum Collection System 8
2.3 Waterline 8
2.3.1 No -Action Alternative 8
2.4.1 Preferred Alternative 8
3.0. Affected Environment and Project Impacts 9
3.1. Land Use 9
3.1.1. General Land Use 9
3.1.2. Important Farmlands 11
3.1.3. Formally Classified Public Lands 11
3.2. Floodplains 12
3.2.1. Affected Environment 12
3.2.2. Project Impacts 12
3.2.3. Mitigation 12
3.3. Wetlands 13
3.3.1. Affected Environment 13
3.3.2. Project Impacts 13
3.3.3. Mitigation 14
3.4. Historic Properties 14
3.4.1. Affected Environment 14
3.4.2. Project Impacts 14
3.4.3. Mitigation 15
3.5. Biological Resources 15
3.5.1. Affected Environment 15
3.5.2. Project Impacts 16
3.5.3. Mitigation 16
3.6. Water Resources 17
3.6.1 Affected Environment 17
3.6.2. Project Impacts 18
3.6.3. Mitigation 19
3.7. Coastal Resources 20
3.7.1. Affected Environment 20
3.7.2. Project Impacts 20
3.7.3. Mitigation 20
3.8. Socio-Economic and Environmental Justice 22
3.8.1. Affected Environment 22
3.8.2. Project Impacts 22
3.8.3. Mitigation 22
3.9. Miscellaneous Issues 22
3.9.1. Air Quality 22
3.9.2. Transportation 23
1

3.9.3. Noise 23
4.0. Summary of Mitigation 24
4.1. Measures to Avoid and Minimize Direct Impacts 24
4.2. Tyrell County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance 24
4.3. Tyrrell County Subdivision Ordinance 25
Literature Cited 25
5.0. Correspondence 28
5.1. Scoping Materials Sent to USEPA, USACOE, FEMA, and USFWS 15 October 2010 28
5.2. Responses to Federal Scoping Received as of 30 November 2010 48
5.3 Response to Scoping Comments Submitted to Federal Agencies, 15 October 2010 55
5.4. Summary of Environmental Review Comments 2007-2008 56
6.0. Exhibits 693
Table 1.0 Soil Impacts in the Service Area and Project Construction Area
Table 2.0 Estimated Wetland and Stream Impacts in the Project Construction Area
Table 3.0 Protected Animal and Plant Species
Table 4.0 Summary of Air Quality Monitoring Data
Figure 1.0
Figure 2.0
Figure 3.0-3.1
Figures 4.0-4.11
Figure 5.0
Figure 6.0
Service Area
Soils in Project Area
FEMA Flood Hazard Zones in the Project Area
Wetland and Stream Impacts in the Project Construction Area
Surface Water Qualifications in the Project Area
Recreation Areas, Historic Sites, and Protected Species in the Project Area
State and Federal Permits Required
CAMA Permit
FEMA Form 81-93
7.0. List of Preparers 119
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
Vegetation and Wildlife Communities in the Project Area
Protected Species Descriptions
Civil Rights Impact Analysis Certification
Tyrrell County Septic System Survey
2

Executive Summary
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates (RJG&A) has prepared an environmental review (ER) pursuant
to the National Environmental Policy Act for the Town of Creswell and Tyrell County's Scuppernong
Township Low Pressure STEP System. The lead agency is USDA Rural Development (RD).
The 23-square mile Scuppernong Township in Tyrrell County is unsewered. Residential and
commercial establishments dispose of wastes using pit toilets, straight piping, and septic
systems. A 2001 survey by The Wooten Company found 24% of homes surveyed used straight
piping and 33% had poorly functioning septic systems that were close to failure. The
predominant soils in the service area are poorly suited for septic absorption fields due to wetness
and slow percolation. The lack of topographic relief with much of the project area less than 10
feet above mean sea level presents an additional challenge to septic systems. A regional
solution is needed to eliminate known and suspected septic tank failures, outhouse pit -toilets, and
straight -piping wastewater disposal.
Scuppernong Township in cooperation with the Town of Creswell in Washington County,
proposes to replace its insufficient and failing wastewater disposal facilities a new low pressure
septic tank effluent pump (STEP) sewer collection system. The system will include with 31 miles
of force main, two pump stations, and two main trunk lines. The project will be constructed
mostly within roadside right-of-way. To accommodate increased flows the existing Creswell
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) (NPDES Permit NC0048861) will be upgraded from 0.064 to
0.2 MGD using membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology to produce reuse quality effluent. This
project will enable abandonment of Creswell's three existing wastewater lagoons. The new
collection lines will transfer wastewater from Tyrrell County's Scuppernong Township to the Town
of Creswell's upgraded WWTP with discharge to the Scuppernong River in Washington County.
The STEP system will serve Scuppernong Township's existing 320 homes and businesses, the
Eastern 4-H Environmental Education Conference Center off Bulls Bay Road, and limited future
residential development all within Tyrrell County. As part of the same project, 1.75 miles of 6-inch
waterline will be installed along the northern side of US 64 and US 94. This line will improve
water pressure and fire flows to existing users in the area and provide potable water for several
commercial and residential establishments currently relying on wells. All above -ground
improvements associated with this project will be constructed to remain operational during the
500-year flood event through either fill or flood -proofing above flood elevations.
This report contains descriptions of environmental resources in the project area, possible
impacts, and efforts to mitigate these impacts. Information used in completing this report was
obtained through on -site reconnaissance by RJG&A biologists, supplemental literature, and
information obtained from the project engineers (The Wooten Company), and state and federal
resource agencies. A description of the proposed project was sent to the US Fish and Wildlife
Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency, US Environmental Protection Agency, and
US Corps of Engineers on 15 October 2010. Scoping of the North Carolina state agencies and
the State Historic Preservation Office occurred in 2007. Responses to scoping and comments to
an original draft EA can be found in Section 5.0,
Once accepted by RD as their environmental review document for the proposed project, this
report will be made available to the public for review and comment. The availability will be
advertised in local newspapers with a distribution covering the entire service area, and will
include instructions for obtaining a copy, submitting comments, and the timeframe within which
comments must be received.
3

1.0. Purpose and Need for the Project
1.1 Project Description
Scuppernong Township in Tyrrell County, in cooperation with the Town of Creswell in Washington
County, proposes to remedy its insufficient and failing wastewater disposal facilities with a new
low pressure septic tank effluent pump (STEP) sewer collection system. The project includes 31
miles of force main, including two pump stations and two main trunk lines. The project will be
constructed mostly within roadside right-of-way (Figure 1.0). To accommodate increased flows
the existing Creswell wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) (NPDES Permit NC0048861) will be
upgraded from 0.064 to 0.2 MGD using membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology to produce reuse
quality effluent. This project will enable abandonment of Creswell's three existing wastewater
lagoons. The new collection lines will transfer wastewater from Tyrrell County's Scuppernong
Township to the Town of Creswell's upgraded WWTP with discharge to the Scuppernong River in
Washington County.
The STEP system will primarily serve Scuppernong Township's existing 320 homes and
businesses, the Eastern 4-H Environmental Education Conference Center off Bulls Bay Road,
and limited future residential development all within Tyrrell County, replace inadequate or failing
existing septic and unconnected disposal systems, and upgrade effluent quality at the Creswell
treatment and disposal facility.
Included in the funding for wastewater system improvements is approximately 1.75 miles of 6-
inch waterline that will close a hydraulic loop for the Town of Creswell's water system (Figure
1.0). This waterline, from Alligood Road west along the north side of US 94, will provide better
water pressure and fire flows to existing users in the area and provide potable water for several
commercial and residential establishments on this segment of US 94. The waterline will be
constructed on the same side of the road and located between 11 and 20 feet from the proposed
sewerline. No additional impacts will result from the waterline construction except minimal
temporary impacts to land use and habitats, which have been included in the sewer impact
calculations and mitigation discussions.
1.2. Purpose and Need
The population in Tyrrell County in 2005 was 4,203, with approximately 673 persons in the
Scuppernong Township project area. Population growth in Tyrrell County between 1990 and
2000 was 7.1 %, compared to the 21.4% growth for the state overall. Unemployment in 2005
averaged 7.3% and the poverty rate in 2004 stood at 22.2% (US Census Bureau, 2007). The
North Carolina Department of Commerce (NCDC) classifies Tyrrell County as an economically
depressed Tier 1 county (NC Dept. of Commerce, 2007). Wastewater collection and disposal in
the Scuppernong Township project area is inadequate or non-existent, with wastewater straight -
piped to ditches and the use of outhouses and poorly functioning septic systems widespread. A
2003 survey conducted by the Martin -Washington -Tyrrell County Health Department revealed
that approximately 24% of systems had straight piping, 19% showed signs of surfacing effluent,
23% were constructed on inadequately -sized lots, and 33% were in threat of imminent failure.
The 4H Environmental Conference Center also owns and operates an onsite low pressure pipe
wastewater disposal system that is inadequately sized to treat projected wastewater flows.
The widening of US 64 to a four -lane road may increase residential and commercial
development, putting additional stress on natural systems. In the absence of public wastewater
collection and treatment, untreated wastewater would continue to be introduced to the
environment and adverse impacts to Tyrell County's natural systems will increase over time.
4

Creswell owns and operates the Creswell WWTP, that has a permitted flow of 64,000 gallons per
day (GPD) and discharges to the Scuppernong River. According to the September 2007 DWQ
Pasquotank River Basin Basinwide Water Quality Plan, the Creswell WWTP reported significant
non-compliance issues with biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and in January of 2007, received
civil penalty assessments and a Notice of Violation (NOV) for BOD violations (N.C. Division of
Water Quality, 2007a). To remedy the issues discussed above, and to accommodate flows from
the Scuppernong Township, the Creswell WWTP must expand and upgrade its operations.
The 23 square mile Scuppernong Township service area is unsewered. Residential and
commercial establishments dispose of wastes using pit toilets, straight piping, and septic
systems. A 2001 survey by The Wooten Company found 24% of 82 homes surveyed used
straight piping and 33% had poorly functioning septic systems close to failure. The results of this
survey are included as Appendix C. The predominant soils in the service area are severely
limited septic absorption fields due to wetness and slow percolation. The lack of topographic
relief with much of the project area less than 10 feet above mean sea level presents an additional
challenge to septic systems. A regional solution is needed to eliminate known and suspected
septic tank failures, outhouse pit -toilets, and straight -piping wastewater disposal in the
Scuppernong Township
2.0. Alternatives to the Proposed Action
2.1 Wastewater Treatment
Although not discussed in detail herein, Tyrrell County initially considered construction of its own
facilities, and merging with the adjacent Town of Columbia treatment system. Neither option was
considered viable for the County. Acquiring a new NPDES permit for the area, given its relatively
low service needs was determined to be both time and cost prohibitive. The Town of Columbia
declined the request to extend sewer service westward and northward of the Scuppernong River,
which it considers its natural service area boundary. Given these restrictions, four alternatives for
providing sewer service to Scuppernong Township are presented below: 1) No Action, 2)
Optimization of Existing Facilities, 3) Non -Discharge, and 4) Regionalization with Creswell's
WWTP.
2.1.1 No Action
Under the no -action alternative, the Scuppernong Township service area would continue
repairing and/or building onsite septic systems. Most existing septic systems in Scuppernong
Township are not maintained and either failing or in danger of failure. Straight piping of gray
water into ditches is common (Appendix C). These conditions impact both ground- and surface
water in the proposed service area and adjacent Albemarle Sound.
The Washington and Tyrell County Governments have come under pressure to address public
health concerns associated with inadequate wastewater treatment options. The existing three -
cell facultative lagoon treatment system in Creswell would continue to operate as is. This would
do nothing to accommodate projected growth in the Creswell area, or to remedy the severe on -
site wastewater disposal problems in the Scuppernong Township service area. Light commercial
and residential growth may follow the recent expansion of US 64 in the proposed service area to
a four lane highway, and area soils are inadequate to support on -site septic systems.
Additionally, the recently completed Eastern 4H Environmental Education and Conference
Center's existing low pressure pipe field system is inadequately sized, and incapable of providing
year-round treatment for the facility.
5

This alternative would do nothing to accommodate projected growth in the service area, remedy
existing straight -pipe discharges and failing septic system public health concerns, or provide
service to the area's new 4H facility, and was not considered further.
2.1.2 Optimization of Existing Facilities
The existing Creswell WWTP design offers limited operational flexibility to manage variations in
flow volume and influent pollutant loads. In the mid 1980s the plant functioned well under its
current design. This was a time of declining population and no demonstrated need from major
water consuming commercial or industrial users. However, solids build-up in the system has
resulted in sporadic violations of the Total Suspended Sediment (TSS) effluent limits.
Due to the relatively simple nature of the existing three -cell facultative lagoon system, no
significant operational changes can be made to adjust the treatment process. This alternative
would not achieve compliance with current effluent limits given the projected increase in users
and proposed service area expansion. This alternative was not considered further.
2.1.3 Non -Discharge (Land Application and Wastewater Reuse)
2.1.3.1. Land Application
The land application alternative would be to construct a non -discharge spray irrigation facility with
an onsite treatment/storage lagoon. Soil moisture limits for most soils in the study area for use as
spray irrigation facilities. Areas with prime farmland soils such as Altavista, Augusta, or Conetoe
series soils and little or no development would be the best application sites.
A hydraulic water balance indicates that a 33.1 million gallon storage and stabilization lagoon
would provide a detention time of 63 days. Approximately 110 acres (92-acre sprayfield, 8-acre
lagoon, and 10-acre buildings) would be needed for sprayfield construction. Estimated land
acquisition and construction costs are $3.5 million and annual operation and maintenance costs
are $100,000. Four potential sites were identified, but were later eliminated because of
inadequate size and soil conditions, interference with agricultural operations, or projected land
use changes near U.S. 64. Most suitable locations in this area contain multiple drainage ditches
which require buffers when associated with land application. These buffers substantially limit the
usable acreage on suitably -sized parcels. This alternative was determined to be both land- and
cost -prohibitive and was not considered further.
2.1.3.2. Wastewater Reuse
To be in compliance with North Carolina reuse water regulations, wastewater must be highly
treated. The existing three -cell facultative lagoon secondary treatment system is not sufficient to
provide these levels of treatment.
The lack of reuse customers in the area also render this alternative difficult to pursue as a
dedicated disposal method. NC Administrative Code 2T wastewater design rules stipulate 120
gallons per capita per day in the absence of site -specific information. The per capita water
consumption within the Tyrrell County Water and Sewer Districts is 50 gallons per day for most
users. This disparity is largely due to plentiful groundwater resources in the area. The
groundwater level is at or near the ground surface in much of the study area. Even during
growing season, depths to groundwater greater than six feet are rare. Under these
circumstances, reuse water has virtually no value to potential irrigation customers. Also, the
quality of local groundwater requires softening prior to human consumption. The softening
process produces water with a high sodium content that limits its usefulness for irrigation.
Irrigation with high sodium water creates the need for gypsum addition, meaning that a
knowledgeable prospective irrigation customer may request compensation to accept the water,
rather than pay to receive the reclaimed water.
6

Reuse is not a practical alternative for the Town of Creswell's treated wastewater, and for the
Tyrrell County Water and Sewer Districts. Producing and transporting reclaimed water would
increase operational costs. These costs would offset by additional sewer user charges, already
expected to be disproportionately high in comparison to median household incomes. This
alternative is cost prohibitive and not feasible in the project service area, and was not considered
further.
2.1.3. Regionalization with the Creswell WWTP (Preferred Alternative)
Under this alternative, wastewater collected in the Scuppernong Township service area of Tyrrell
County will be transported to the Town of Creswell's WWTP for treatment and disposal. Creswell
operates a 64,000 GPD lagoon system providing secondary treatment and discharges to the
Scuppernong River. The Town of Creswell will provide sewer service to development within and
beyond its corporate limits. However, the additional wastewater will require the Creswell WWTP
to upgrade and expand its capacity.
This alternative requires minimal land disturbance, and operation and maintenance costs would
be shared by Tyrrell County and the Town of Creswell. The anticipated cost for upgrading and
expanding Creswell's WWTP to provide 0.2 MGD of tertiary treatment is $4.47 million. The
treatment system under consideration is a state-of-the-art membrane bioreactor (MBR) system.
MBR systems are capable of producing effluents meeting state reuse quality criteria and can be
configured to provide nutrient removal capabilities. Creswell has an existing NPDES permit, and
because of the improved effluent quality expected from an upgraded MBR tertiary treatment
facility, it is expected that NC DWQ will permit the expansion.
Upgrade of the existing Creswell WWTP from a .064 MGD three -cell facultative lagoon secondary
treatment facility, to a 0.2 MGD MBR tertiary treatment facility discharging to Scuppernong River
is the preferred alternative for providing wastewater treatment in the service area. Conjunctive
reuse of effluent was explored (subsection 3, above), but was determined to not be feasible
because no reuse opportunities exist in the service area and the cost of transporting treated
wastewater is prohibitive.
2.2 Wastewater Collection
The proposed regional Town of Creswell WWTP would serve the Town of Creswell and Tyrrell
County Water and Sewer Districts. The Tyrrell County Water and Sewer Districts do not own or
operate any wastewater collection facilities within the proposed service area. The Town of
Creswell operates a low pressure septic tank effluent pump (STEP) system. Each customer
discharges wastewater via gravity to a septic tank which settles out solids and traps oil and
grease. The clarified effluent from the tank is then pumped via a low horsepower (0.4 hp) pump
through a series of small diameter force mains before discharging to the Creswell WWTP.
Creswell's STEP system was built in 1981 and serves approximately 185 residential, 30
commercial, and one institutional customers. The system is comprised of 30,700 linear feet of 2-
inch, 22,500 linear feet of 3-inch, 6,400 linear feet of 4-inch, and 900 linear feet of 6-inch poly-
vinyl chloride (PVC) main piping. Creswell is responsible for maintaining septic tanks and effluent
pumps. No upgrade to the Creswell WWTP's current service area is proposed.
2.2.1 Low -Pressure Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) System
Under this collection system alternative, a 31-mile network of small diameter (2-8 inch) force main
piping and individual septic tanks and effluent pumps would be installed to service Scuppernong
Township at a cost that Tyrrell County would provide, supplemented with outside financing.
To reduce collection line sizes and STEP pump horsepower, two intermediate lift stations would
be located near the 4H Center and Travis interchange to pump wastewater to Creswell. These lift
7

stations would allow for greater flexibility in long term operation and maintenance of the collection
system. Minimal land disturbance would occur as nearly all collection lines will be laid in road
rights -of -way at an excavation depth of three feet. New septic tanks would be located adjacent to
existing septic tanks on private properties
The Water and Sewer Districts would own and maintain the septic tanks and effluent pumps
which would lessen the burden on the homeowner. The homeowner would be responsible for
providing plumbing connection to the new tank and the monthly electrical costs associated with
operation of the effluent pump.
A low pressure sewer system is the most economically feasible means of providing sewer service
to residents of this rural area.
2.2.2 Gravity Collection System
A conventional gravity sewer is not feasible for this region. The combination of minimal surface
relief, high groundwater tables, necessary line sizes and excavation depths, and lack of user
density would drive the cost of such a system to levels that simply are not affordable. Because of
the usual high groundwater levels in this area, inflow and infiltration to the system would be a
substantial concern. The gravity collection system alternative was determined to be cost- and
functionally prohibitive, and was not considered further.
2.2.3 Vacuum Collection System
Vacuum systems are not feasible for such an expansive service area. At a minimum four central
vacuum stations would be required. These stations would drive the costs of system construction
and operation and maintenance beyond the financial capabilities of sewer users. High
groundwater levels and the increased potential for inflow and infiltration would also be of greater
concern with use of a vacuum system. The vacuum collection system alternative was determined
to be cost and functionally prohibitive, and was not considered.
2.3 Waterline
Included in the funding for the above wastewater system improvements is approximately 1.75
miles of 6-inch waterline that will close a hydraulic loop for the Town of Creswell's water system
(Figure 1.0). Construction of this waterline, from Alligood Road west along the north side of US
64, will provide better water pressure and fire flows to existing users in the area and provide
potable water for several commercial and residential establishments on this segment of US 64.
The waterline would be constructed on the same side of the road and located between 11 and 20
feet from the proposed sewerline. No additional impacts will result from the waterline
construction except minimal temporary impacts to land use and habitats, which have been
included in the sewer impact calculations and mitigation discussions.
2.3.1 No -Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would continue allowing residents and businesses located along
Highway 94 to use well water. No capital costs would be incurred by Creswell to pursue this
alternative, but no improvements to Creswell's water system would result from this course of
action.
2.4.1 Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative would be to loop Creswell's water system by connecting the existing
water main at Alligood Road to the existing water main at the Creswell Speedway along Highway
94. This alternative would provide redundancy, increase water pressure, improve water quality
and provide existing residents and businesses along this corridor a safe supply of potable water.
The estimated construction cost for the water line is $100,000.
8

3.0. Affected Environment and Project Impacts
3.1. Land Use
3.1.1. General Land Use
3.1.1.1. Affected Environment
The project area is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic region of North Carolina, at the
border of Washington and Tyrrell counties. Underlying materials date from the Quaternary period
and consist primarily of sedimentary rock created when the region was covered by the ocean
(N.C. Division of Land Resources, 1985). The Town of Creswell lies on the western boundary of
the service area, the Town of Columbia lies on the eastern boundary, and the Scuppernong River
forms the southern and eastern edge of the service area.
Much of the service area is at sea level. The highest elevation within the project area is 16 feet
above mean sea level (msl) and occurs at a 4-H camp close to Bull Bay, based on the USGS
mapping. Based on site survey data, elevations on the WWTP property range from 2 to 6 feet
above mean sea level. Based on USGS 7.5 minute mapping of the area, elevations at the
northernmost pump station are 4 to 5 feet above mean sea level, and the southernmost pump
station is located between 6 and 7 feet above mean sea level.
The predominant soils in the project area are Dorovan muck (22.3%) and Argent silt loam
(32.8%) (Figure 2, Table 1). Also present in the service area are Roanoke loam (8.20%),
Tomotley fine sandy loam (6.4%), Augusta silt loam (6.24%), Altavista loam fine sand (4.9%),
Wahee loam (4.1%), and Chowan silt loam (3.8%). All eight soils have severe limitations for
septic tank absorption fields due to wetness and slow percolation (Tant, 1988).
The area within the perimeter fence for the WWTP totals approximately 1.3 acres and includes
Altavista loamy fine sand (0.6 acre), Augusta fine sandy loam (0.2 acre), and Tomotley fine sandy
loam (0.4 acre). The northernmost pump station is located on Augusta fine sandy loam and the
southern pump station on Argent silt loam. Each pump station is typically 2,500 square feet.
The principle land use in the service area is agriculture. Major crops include corn, cotton,
soybeans, peanuts, and potatoes. Historically hog farming has been important, but few of the
hog farms are currently in operation (N.C. Division of Water Quality, 2006). Poultry farms and
pine plantations are also found throughout the area. Much of the currently undeveloped land is
swamp.
Low-lying swamp forests along the Scuppernong River and tributaries in the southern portion of
the service area are not developable. The swamp forests types in the area include cypress/gum
in the completely inundated areas and bottomland hardwoods in partially inundated areas
(Appendix A).
A small percentage of land is in residential or commercial use. The communities of Colonial
Beach on Albemarle Sound and Travis have the highest residential densities in the service area.
The widening of US 64 may bring more development. There are currently no zoning in Tyrrell
County.
3.1.1.2. Project Impacts
A small amount of fill will be required for construction of the pump stations and structures at the
WWTP. This area will total less than 0.5 acre and won't significantly affect topography at the
WWTP or in the service area.
9

All direct impacts of sewer line construction will be temporary and restricted to roadsides. The
effluent line will cross a previously disturbed cypress -gum swamp to discharge into the
Scuppernong River. During installation of the collection system, soil will be temporarily sidecast
and replaced to bury the new collection lines and pump stations. The existing effluent line from
the WWTP to Scuppernong River will be utilized.
All pre -construction contours will be restored. Any excess soil will be disposed of in non -wetland
locations. No contamination of soil resources in the area is expected to result from project
construction or operation.
Although the proposed sewerline will be installed 5 feet from the edge of pavement, temporary
impacts were calculated using a corridor extending 20 feet from the edge of pavement.
Temporary impacts within the construction corridor included impacts to maintained roadside,
agricultural lands and lawns, (93.2% of the corridor), swamp forest (2.3%), bottomland forest
(2.6%), pine/hardwood mixed forest (1.8%), and managed pine forest (0.07%). The existing
WWTP site is 1.3 acres of developed land. The northern pump station is also sited on developed
land while the southern pump station is located in pine/hardwood mix forest. Each pump station
is typically 2,500 square feet (0.06 acre).
Most upland soils in the service area have been disturbed and modified due to the history of
agriculture in the area. The very low population density and level topography should reduce the
pressure to impact undisturbed soils.
Indirect impacts to land use as may be mitigated through local government zoning and planning.
To date, the Tyrrell County has obtained sewer connection signups from 267 residential and 21
commercial customers. The County has purchased enough capacity in the Creswell WWTP
(0.11 MGD) to support approximately 500 future residential customers. Any future commercial or
industrial customers would lessen the number of future residential connections available. The
U.S. Census Bureau estimates that Washington County's population declined by 6.4% between
2000 and 2009; Tyrell's declined by 1.7% during that same time period (US Census, 2010).
However, new residential and commercial development is possible because of the recently
completed US64 four -lane highway, and controlled access bypass around the Town of Creswell.
3.1.1.3. Mitigation
No significant direct land use impacts are anticipated. Soil loss during construction will be
minimized by following the approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. The Plan was
submitted to the DENR Washington Regional Office and approved. The agency will be notified of
the date that land disturbing activity will begin.
Neither of the project sponsors have regulations that directly protect soils in their service areas.
The North Carolina Division of Land Resources must review plans for control of soil erosion and
sediment control, and permits issued for all activities that collectively impact one or more acres.
Approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plans will be included in contract documents.
Indirect impacts on land use will at least be partially mitigated by existing local ordinances. The
Tyrrell County Subdivision Ordinance has articles that protect floodprone areas, establish
minimum lot sizes, and set requirements for cluster and planned unit developments. All
developments that exceed one acre of disturbance, including roads and other improvements, are
required to secure approval from the NC Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ). Approval by the
NC DWQ shall be considered approval by Tyrrell County. Development activities disturbing less
than one acre are required to demonstrate that runoff leaving the site will not exceed the
10

predevelopment volume for the 10-year storm. Drainage swales are encouraged over traditional
ditches, and 6:1 side slopes are recommended. Ordinances are discussed in Section 4.0.
3.1.2. Important Farmlands
3.1.2.1. Affected Environment
Five designated prime farmland soils are found in the service area (Natural Resources
Conservation Service, 2000). Altavista loamy fine sand with 0 to 2 percent slopes (AaA) and
State loamy fine sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes (StB) are prime farmlands under all conditions.
Augusta fine sandy loam (At), Perquimans loam, rarely flooded (Pe), and Tomotley fine sandy
loam, rarely flooded (To) are prime farmlands only when drained. As shown in Table 1, none of
these soils is dominant in the service area. Combined, all these soils represent 24.1 % of the
service area. There are no unique farmland soils in Tyrrell or Washington counties (Natural
Resources Conservation Service, 2000).
3.1.2.2. Project Impacts
There are 3,262 acres of prime farmland in the service area. The proposed sewer lines will be
located along previously disturbed road shoulders. Those areas are not available for farming and
there will be no direct impacts to prime farmland. WWTP and northern pump station located on
already developed land (although underlying soils are listed as prime). The southern pump
station is located on Argent soils, which is not a prime farmland soil.
Secondary and cumulative impacts to prime farmlands may result from future growth. The
conversion of agricultural fields to other land uses may impact prime farmlands. There are no
unique farmlands in either county.
3.1.2.3. Mitigation
The Town of Creswell and Tyrrell County have no regulations to protect prime or unique farmland
soils. Soil impacts will be negligible and no mitigation is proposed.
During construction, consistency with the DENR-approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan,
submitted to the DENR Washington Regional Office will minimize soil loss.
3.1.3. Formally Classified Public Lands
3.1.3.1. Affected Environment
The Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge borders the southern bank of the Scuppernong River
just outside the service area. The refuge includes Lake Phelps, Pettigrew State Park, and Pungo
Lake and is well-known for its large winter migratory bird populations (Figure 6).
Two recreational areas (boat ramps) are adjacent to the project area. A boat ramp near
Columbia is the Wildlife Resources Commission - Columbia Access Area, allowing boat access to
the Scuppernong River where it opens into Albemarle Sound. A second boat ramp is located on
Spruill Bridge Road (SR 1142) just south of Creswell.
The only other large area of public land is the 4-H Environmental Education Conference Center in
the northwestern portion of the service area.
3.1.3.2. Project Impacts
All construction of sewer lines will be along existing road shoulders and pre -construction contours
will be restored. No impacts to public lands or scenic, recreational, or state natural areas are
anticipated (NC DPR, 2008).
11

The only operational impacts would be the impact of providing sewer service the 4-H EECC and
the impact of minor traffic congestion during construction while traveling to public or recreational
areas.
Secondary and cumulative impacts to public lands and scenic, recreational, and state natural
areas may result from future growth. Impacts may include conversion of lands not already
protected or degradation due to overuse. The low population density, remote location, and recent
population decline in these areas suggest that increased indirect impacts due to population
growth and development will be very gradual.
3.1.3.3. Mitigation
The Town of Creswell and Tyrrell County have no regulations to protect public lands, scenic,
recreational, or state natural areas. However, impacts to formally classified lands will be
negligible and no mitigation is proposed.
3.2. Floodplains
3.2.1. Affected Environment
Seventy-five percent of the service area is within the 100- or 500-year floodplains (Figure 4.0).
Portions of the WWTP property and all of the northern pump station are below the 500-year
floodplain elevation.
3.2.2. Project Impacts
Sixty-five percent of the project area is within the FEMA 100-year floodplain or Flood Hazard Area
and an additional 11 percent is within the 500-year floodplain (Figure 4). Approximately 27 miles of
the proposed lines lie within the 500-year floodplain. Lines will be buried and pre -construction
contours restored and the project is unlikely to affect flooding.
Portions of the WWTP property are below the 500-year floodplain elevation (Figure 4.1). The
floodplain extends into property from the east just north of the existing lagoons, and south of the
proposed WWTP. A portion of the new treatment facilities, toward the southwestern corner of the
proposed improvements extends approximately 5 feet south, into 100-year floodplain. These
areas will be elevated with clean fill material to protect the facility during the 500-year flood. The
southern pump station is 1000 feet outside the 500-year floodplain. The northern pump station is
inside the 500-year floodplain (Figure 2.1). Based on the Flood Insurance Study, the elevation of
the 500-year floodplain in this area is 6.5 feet above mean sea level (msl). The northern pump
station is designed to sit 1.5 feet above this elevation.
FEMA Form 81-93 (Standard Flood Hazard Determination) has been completed for each portion
of the project that includes above -grade structures and are included in Section 6.0 (Exhibits).
3.2.3. Mitigation
Tyrrell County floodplain regulations protect life and property from flood events. A floodplain
development permit is required prior to development of any lot that lies, in whole or part, within an
area designated as a Special Flood Hazard by FEMA. Applications must clearly show the
location of all proposed improvements along with elevations, the elevation and boundary of
Special Flood Hazard Areas, and the location of any existing and new watercourses.
Applications must also include the elevation to which new structures will be floodproofed or
elevated to minimize damage to property and risk to life from flood events.
12

No new development shall be allowed in the FEMA identified floodway, and replacements of
existing structures must be anchored to prevent collapse or floatation. Any encroachments into
Coastal High Hazard Areas or Areas of Environmental Concern are required to comply with all
applicable CAMA regulations.
3.3. Wetlands
3.3.1. Affected Environment
In July 2007, RJG&A biologists visited the project area to estimate the extent and location of
waters and wetlands in the construction corridor. Wetland resources in the project area include
cypress/gum and bottomland hardwood swamps, and roadside ditches that intersect the area's
shallow water table. The benefits of wetlands include wildlife habitat, water quality enhancement,
and flood damage abatement.
Many wetlands in the service area are overgrown roadside ditches 1 to 5 feet in width. Too
narrow and extensive to illustrate on a project maps, these wetland ditches occur throughout the
service area and along proposed collection line routes. The wetland ditches are commonly
dominated by cattails (Typha spp) and smartweed (Polygonum spp), with some common rush
(Juncus effusus) and bulrushes (Scirpus spp) and pennyworts (Hydrocotyle spp.). The larger
wooded wetlands are mapped (Figure 5) and include nine Cypress/gum swamps and eleven
bottomland hardwood swamp crossings. Cypress/gum swamps have a canopy of mostly bald
cypress (Taxodium distichum) and tupelo gums (Nyssa biflora and N. aquatica), while the mixed
hardwood swamps include swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia),
water oak (Quercus nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), and sweet
bay (Magnolia virginiana).
3.3.2. Project Impacts
RJG&A mapped 22 wetlands in the proposed sewer line construction corridors. Nine larger
swamps (numbers 9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, and 27 on Figure 4 and Table 2) will be
directionally drilled to avoid impacts to the aquatic environment and were not included estimated
impacts. All directionally -drilled areas have associated streams that also will be avoided. This
leaves potential direct impacts to 13 wetlands. Actual impacts to wetlands and streams were
documented by The Wooten Company in support of the PCN application. The PCN Impact
Tables are included after Table 2.0 in Section 6.0.
Although the proposed sewer line will be installed 5 feet from the edge of pavement where
possible, temporary impacts were calculated based on a corridor extending 20 feet from the edge
of pavement. Using the 20-foot wide temporary construction corridor, it is estimated that 0.80
acre of non -drainage ditch wetland may be temporarily impacted (0.58 acre of cypress/gum
swamp and 0.22 acre of bottomland hardwood) and 0.20 may be permanently impacted (0.17
acre of cypress/gum swamp, 0.03 acre of bottomland hardwood). By directional drilling under
larger stream/wetland complexes, wetland impacts were reduced by over one third.
Approximately 17 miles of roadside wetland ditches will be impacted by construction of the
proposed sewer. The average ditch width is about two feet, which totals approximately 4 acres of
temporary wetland impacts. Since these are man-made maintained areas, immediately after
construction these areas will revert to their present condition and result in no permanent impacts
from project construction.
The US Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 12 allows for up to 0.5 acre of wetland, and
300 linear feet of stream impacts with approved Pre -Construction Notification application. NC
DWQ's corresponding General Certification # 3699 (effective 01 November 2007) is also
13

required. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will be limited to conversion from forested to
herbaceous habitats. No loss of waters of the US are expected.
All lines in wetlands will be covered by existing soils. Any permanent wetland impacts will be
conversion of wetland type (from forested to herbaceous) and not due to fill or change in
hydrology.
Secondary and cumulative impacts to wetlands may result from future growth. The conversion of
upland agricultural areas to residential and commercial use would be expected to precede any
conversion of wetlands. Local ordinances may protect wetlands in the service area through
stormwater control requirements, impervious surface limitations, and erosion and sedimentation
control requirements.
3.3.3. Mitigation
Project engineers have selected alignments and construction methods to minimize the impacts of
project construction. All project alignments will utilize roadsides to avoid clearing new alignments
across streams, wetlands, floodplains, and upland habitats. Directional Drilling of most large
stream crossings and those with significant adjacent wetland areas is being utilized to the extent
practical.
Project engineers have secured permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers, NC Division of
Water Quality 401 Unit, and CAMA for surface water impacts and an erosion control permit from
the Division of Land Resources. Compliance with the conditions of these permits will ensure
direct impacts associated with project construction are minimized.
Tyrrell County Subdivision Ordinance may include requirements that protect wetlands. The
ordinance is discussed in Section 4.0. Tyrrell County's floodplain protection ordinance may help
reduce wetland losses if future urban development that does occur by restricting the quantity and
type of development that can be approved in floodplain areas. This ordinance is discussed in
Section 4.0.
3.4. Historic Properties
3.4.1. Affected Environment
A project description and map showing proposed construction areas was mailed to the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for review on 31 July 2007. Its 28 August 2007 response to
project scoping was "no comment", indicating they do not anticipate adverse impacts to
archaeological or historic resources (Appendix B).
According to the National Register of Historic Places, St. David's Church and the Creswell
Historic District are historic places inside the project area while the Davenport House and
Somerset Place are within 10 miles of the project area (Figure 3) (NPS, 2008).
3.4.2. Project Impacts
Based on the SHPO responses, and given that the proposed sewer and water line corridors are all
roadside, construction should not affect historic structures. Roadside areas are unlikely to contain
significant archaeological remains. The two documented historic sites in the service area are
depicted on Figure 6.0.
No direct impacts to archaeological or historical resources are expected from project construction.
Secondary and cumulative impacts to areas of archaeological or historical value may result from
14

future growth. Impacts to these areas may include conversion if they are no already protected,
or degradation due to overuse. The very low population density and remote location of most of
these areas imply that increased impacts to these areas will be very gradual.
3.4.3. Mitigation
No impact to archaeological or historic resources is anticipated, and no mitigation is proposed.
3.5. Biological Resources
3.5.1. Affected Environment
3.5.1.1. State and Federal Protected Species
RJG&A consulted with the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP), N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC), and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) for information on protected plant and
animal species and high quality natural communities known from or likely to occur in the project
area. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) has records of 36 rare species from Washington
County, of which 4 are federally endangered (E) or threatened (T) and 13 additional species are
state endangered, threatened, or special concern (SC). The remaining 19 species are federally
designated "species of concern" or state designated "significantly rare" or "candidate" species, and
not protected. The 17 protected species are listed with their corresponding federal and state
protection status and habitat requirements in Table 3. Known NHP element occurrences in the
area are documented on Figure 6.0.
NHP has records of 36 rare species from Tyrrell County, of which 4 are federally endangered (E) or
threatened (T) and 5 are state endangered, threatened, or special concern (SC). The remaining 26
species are federally designated "species of concern" or state designated "significantly rare" or
"candidate" species, and are not protected. The 9 protected species are listed with their
corresponding federal and state protection status and habitat requirements in Table 3.
NHP has current records for nine protected species in at least one of the four quadrangles
(Columbia West, Creswell, Creswell Southeast, and Leonards Point) that overlap the project area:
red wolf, Rafinesque's big -eared bat, bald eagle, red -cockaded woodpecker, least bittern, American
alligator, shortnose sturgeon, Carolina grasswort, and northern bladderwort. Additionally, NHP
indicates the entire service area is suitable habitat for red wolf, the wider portions of the
Scuppernong River suitable for American alligator, pockets of longleaf pine forests near the
southeastern portion of the service area be habitat for red -cockaded woodpecker, and much of Bull
Bay may be habitat for shortnose sturgeon.
Forested habitats in the service area include mostly swamp forests, with few managed pine
forests because the majority of uplands have been converted to agriculture. The swamp forests
include cypress/gum swamps in the completely inundated areas and mixed hardwoods in the
partially inundated areas. Cypress/gum swamps have a canopy of mostly bald cypress (Taxodium
distichum) and tupelo gums (Nyssa biflora and N. aquatica), while the mixed hardwood swamps
contain those as well as other hardwoods like swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), laurel oak
(Quercus laurifolia), water oak (Quercus nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple
(Acer rubrum), and sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana).
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) has identified four Significant Natural
Heritage Areas in the vicinity of the project area (Figure 8) (N.C. Natural Heritage Program,
2008). A cypress-blackgum swamp borders the Scuppernong River between SR 1142 and SR
1105. This wetland transitions into a nonriverine swamp forest that extends to the confluence
with Second Creek. Another nonriverine swamp forest is located near the intersection of US 64
15

and the Scuppernong. Within both nonriverine swamp forests lie smaller peatland Atlantic white
cedar forests. Finally, a small tidal cypress -gum swamp lies at the confluence on Bunton Creek
with Bulls Bay.
3.5.2. Project Impacts
3.5.2.1. Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat Impacts
Developed land, agriculture, and roadsides comprise 84.0 acres (93 percent) of land to be
temporarily impacted by project construction. Forest resources that may be impacted include: 2.1
acres (2.3 percent) of swamp forest; 2.3 acres (2.6 percent) of bottomland hardwood forest; 1.6
acres (1.8 percent) pine/hardwood upland forest; and 0.06 acre (0.07 percent) of managed pine.
Directional drilling will eliminate as much as 0.4 acres of impacts to forest resources.
No open burning of woody debris will be necessary. Contractors will be instructed to take
precautions to minimize damage to tree roots and trunks adjacent to the construction corridors by
avoiding accidental scraping of tree trunks, root exposure, placement of heavy materials, vehicles, or
excess soil over tree roots, and properly collecting and disposing of used vehicle fluids.
Future residential growth in the service area may displace areas of swamp forest. It is anticipated
that development will occur on upland farm fields, before impacting the forested swamp areas.
Where the projects traverse mowed lawns or maintained road shoulders, project construction will
have no habitat impact. Along segments with trees, removal of up to a 20-foot wide vegetation
corridor from the roadside should have negligible habitat impact.
The majority of the areas that will be directly affected by construction do not provide suitable
habitat for any wildlife because they are maintained developed land or road shoulder. Where
suitable wildlife habitat exists inside the construction areas, it is generally extends throughout a
large area adjacent to the construction area that will provide plenty of area for wildlife to relocate.
3.5.2.2. State and Federal Protected Species
RJG&A Biologist, Jessi O'Neal surveyed the proposed construction corridors for protected
species in July 2007 and found suitable habitat in the vicinity of the construction corridor for the
red wolf, bald eagle, American alligator, and northern bladderwort but found no individuals. Red
wolf, bald eagle, and American alligator require very large areas of forest, swamp, and/or open
water. The small potential impacts to the fringes of these large areas should not adversely
impact any of these protected animals. The northern bladderwort requires deep or shallow water
edge habitat, especially pond and lake shores. Small, modified, water edge habitat occurs in the
construction corridors and is abundant throughout the area. No ponds or lakes are within the
construction areas and no significant impacts are anticipated to northern bladderwort or its habitat
due to this project. Since the field visits occurred, a current record for the least bittern has been
added to the Washington list and there is a current record for the Creswell USGS topographic
quad. Suitable habitat (fresh or brackish marshes) are likely to occur in the project area, however
only minor impacts to such habitat are anticipated and the least bittern should not be adversely
affected. A current record for the Chowanoke crayfish has been added to the Washington list, but
this species is only found in the Chowan and Roanoke river basins, not in the Pasquotank River
Basin. No impacts to this species are anticipated.
3.5.3. Mitigation
The construction areas are previously disturbed roadsides and no impacts to habitats or
protected species are likely in these areas. Directional drilling of the larger streams and wetlands
will minimize impacts to any riverine species. To minimize the potential impact to aquatic species
16

and their habitat, erosion and sedimentation controls will be installed and maintained during
construction. Project engineers have already secured an Erosion Control Permit from the North
Carolina Division of Land Resources.
3.6. Water Resources
3.6.1 Affected Environment
3.6.1.1. Surface Waters and Usage Classifications
The entire area to be served by the proposed new sewer lines falls within the Pasquotank
subbasin 03-01-53, which includes a portion of the Albemarle Sound, Bull Bay, the Scuppernong
River, Kendrick Creek, and Phelps Lake.
Surface waters are classified by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) based on their
"existing or contemplated best usage." The primary classifications include C/SC (maintenance of
aquatic life, fishing, wildlife habitat, secondary recreation, and wastewater assimilation), B/SB
(primary recreational uses), SA (shellfish harvesting), and WS (water supply). Class C/SC uses
include DWQ has established minimum water quality standards that apply to surface waters of all
classifications. Class SA and SB waters carry additional standards to protect public health. One or
more supplementary classifications may be assigned by DWQ to waters of any primary
classification, including nutrient -sensitive waters (NSW), high quality waters (HQW), outstanding
resource waters (ORW), or swamp waters (Sw).
The Albemarle Sound and Bull Bay in the service area are designated as Class SB. The
Scuppernong River from the Albemarle Sound to Riders Creek is designated SC. The remainder of
Scuppernong River within the service area and Bunton Creek are classified as C Sw waters. There
are no municipal surface water intakes or protected water supply watersheds in or near the project
area (N.C. Division of Water Quality, 2006). The Scuppernong River is the receiving water for both
the Creswell WWTP and the Columbia WWTP.
3.6.1.2. Existing Surface Water Quality
DWQ and the N.C. Division of Environmental Health (DEH) monitor water quality using physical,
chemical, and biological sampling. DWQ rates each stream segment or estuarine area to
determine whether it is supporting, partially supporting, or not supporting its designated usage
classification, based on water chemistry, phytoplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish
community samples. DEH rates Class SA shellfishing waters as approved, conditionally approved,
restricted, or prohibited, based on chemical and microbiological samples of water and shellfish.
The portion of the Albemarle Sound located in 03-01-53 is listed as a 303(d) Impaired water for
Aquatic Life because of copper. This section of Albemarle is also Impaired (Category 4) for
Recreation due to fecal coliform. The Scuppernong River from its source to the mouth of Ryders
Creek is Impaired (Category 4) for Aquatic Life because of ecological/biological integrity benthos
and for Recreation because of fecal coliform (N.C. Division of Water Quality 2010). The Town of
Creswell's WWTP (Permit NC0048861) is located two miles upstream of the sampling site.
According to the September 2007 DWQ Pasquotank River Basin Basinwide Water Quality Plan,
the Creswell WWTP "reported significant non-compliance issues with biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD)" and in January of 2007, received Civil Penalty assessments and a Notice of
Violation (NOV), both for BOD violations. In general, issues with biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) and pH for are considered principal reasons for the problems throughout the river.
Agricultural runoff and runoff from surrounding swamp waters are mentioned as the most significant
factor affecting the river's water quality. DWQ and local agencies will continue to monitor water
quality and work with the Town of Creswell to bring the Creswell WWTP into compliance. Bull Bay
17

is currently Not Rated in the aquatic life category due to Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing
failures for the Tyrrell County Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant (Permit NC0086924).
DWQ will work with the County to address non-compliance problems (N.C. Division of Water
Quality, 2007a).
15A NCAC 03R .0115 identifies Bull Bay (mouth of Scuppernong River) as an anadromous fish
spawning area. All of the Bull Bay portion of Albemarle Sound and its upstream tributaries are
closed for shellfishing. Based on a 23 May 2008 telephone conversation with staff from the NC
Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality Section, this closure is because of a standard
downstream buffer from the Columbia Water Treatment Plant point discharge on Scuppernong
River. The area is not regularly sampled by DENR and must remain closed by protocol.
According the NC DWQ Draft Basinwide Assessment, the only shellfish found in this area are
Rangia clams, and no commercial shellfishing occurs. Salinity is generally 0.1 ppt in the
Scuppernong, except during times of drought. In August 2002 the salinity was recorded as 5.1
ppt.
3.6.1.3. Groundwater Resources
Thirty-three wells in the service area, including those owned by the towns of Creswell and
Columbia and Tyrrell County, provide water from the Yorktown aquifer. Several localities
throughout most of the northern coastal plain tap this aquifer and produce high yielding wells (15-
90 gallons per minute).
The Yorktown Aquifer is an important source of potable water in northeastern North Carolina. It
averages about 75 feet thick and is composed of fine sand, silty and clayey sand, shell beds, and
coarser sand beds (NC Division of Water Resources, 2007). The Aquifer lies immediately below
the Surficial Aquifer, and has less salty yields than those underlying it (Huffman, 1996). Based on
contour mapping provided by the NC Division of Water Resources, the depth to the top of the
aquifer ranges from 41 feet below sea level in the southeastern service area underlying the
Scuppernong River, to 101 feet below sea level in the northwestern portion of the service area
underlying Bull Bay. It ranges from between 4 and 709 feet thick, with an average of 75 feet (NC
DWR, 2007).
3.6.2. Project Impacts
All streams in the service area are unnamed tributaries of Bunton Creek or the Scuppernong
River. Farming throughout the service area has created extensive interconnected drainage
ditches and canals. There are 31 estimated stream crossings in this project (Table 2). Large
stream and swamp areas will be directionally drilled; 21 small streams will be crossed using open
trenches. Although this method may cause some increased erosion and suspended sediment in
the water column, it should be minimal due to the flat topography and slow flows in streams.
During operation, discharge from the WWTP into the Scuppernong River should be of high quality
and within all water quality standards.
During construction these streams may experience temporary, localized water quality impacts
including increased turbidity and sediment load, and potential exposure to construction vehicle
fluids and emissions. Potential impacts will be minimized by adherence to proper erosion control
and construction practices and to applicable conditions of ACOE Nationwide Permit 12 and NC-
DWQ GC 3699.
During installation of collection lines, soils will be side cast until the pipe is laid and then filled in.
Although the topography is very flat in this area, soil erosion and sedimentation is possible during
construction. Construction of the WWTP and pump stations will require filling and grading that
18

may also result in sedimentation and erosion. An approved erosion and sedimentation control
plan will be followed to minimize sedimentation.
New impervious surfaces constructed as a part of this project are less than 0.5 acre required for
structures at the pump stations and at the WWTP. Overall impervious surfaces may increase
throughout the service area due to new commercial and residential growth.
Groundwater quality will benefit from the elimination of septic tanks throughout the area.
Groundwater quantity should not be affected due to the small population of the area.
Future land development in the project areas may adversely affect surface and groundwater
quality and hydrology. Excess nutrients and pollutants (including eroded sediment, heavy metals,
pesticides, fertilizers, solvents, detergents, motor vehicle fluids, and coliform bacteria) in
stormwater runoff from new development may cause local eutrophication and sedimentation in
streams. Due to agricultural practices required by the low elevation of the area, drainage ditches
are already in place and should not further affect the hydrologic permanence of small streams or
affect stream flow. Residential/commercial development in the area is most likely to occur in
upland, currently agricultural fields, before directly impacting the forested swamplands and
streams. Most importantly, this project will eliminate straight piping of wastewater and
dependence on failing private septic systems, thus having an overall positive water quality
impact.
3.6.3. Mitigation
Project engineers have selected alignments and construction methods to minimize the impacts of
project construction. All project alignments will utilize roadsides to avoid clearing new alignments
across streams, wetlands, floodplains, and upland habitats. Directional Drilling of most large
stream crossings and those with significant wetland areas is also being pursued to the extent
practical.
Project engineers have secured permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers, NC Division of
Water Quality 401 Unit, and CAMA for surface water impacts and an erosion control permit from
the Division of Land Resources. Compliance with the conditions of these permits will ensure
direct impacts associated with project construction are minimized.
Contractors will be instructed to perform vehicle maintenance at least 200 feet from waters and
wetlands, and to collect and properly dispose of all used vehicle fluids and containers to minimize
soil and water contamination. Pre -construction contours will be restored and no permanent direct
impacts will accrue.
BMPs for construction in or near streams will be followed and impacts to water quality will be
negligible. After avoidance and minimization, these BMPs may include temporary stockpiling of soil
in upland areas, sediment fencing, infiltration and settling basins, or other measures as determined
by the NC Division of Land Resources during their review of the project's Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan. Other BMPs will be required by the Section 404/401 and CAMA
permitting processes and include the use of construction mats in wetland areas to minimize soil
disturbance, crossing streams at perpendicular angles, preservation of vegetation to stabilize banks
and minimize sediment reaching surface waters, etc. Oil, fuel, and emissions from construction
vehicles may create temporary, localized water quality impacts. Contractors will be instructed to
perform vehicle maintenance in areas away from waters and wetlands, and to collect and properly
dispose of all used vehicle fluids and containers. All applicable US -ACE and NC-DWQ 404/401
Permit conditions will be followed.
19

Development activities disturbing less than one acre are required to demonstrate that runoff
leaving the site will not exceed the predevelopment volume for the 10-year storm. Drainage
swales are encouraged over traditional ditches, and 6:1 side slopes are recommended (Article VII
§ 8 A. (8), as amended 16 January 2007).
In addition to an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, the project received a N.C. Linear
Stormwater Permit (for land disturbance greater than one acre in CAMA counties, or for any amount
of land disturbance within one mile upstream of HQW waters). Following construction and soil
stabilization, direct water quality impacts of the WWTP and collection system should be minimal. All
privately installed sewer lines and pump stations that connect to the Creswell system must be
approved by the Creswell Public Utilities Department and built to DENR standards to minimize
infiltration and exfiltration.
The Creswell WWTP will be capable of producing an effluent quality that meets or exceeds
reclaimed water standards. A tap for bulk loading can be considered to provide other water
sources for the area during drought conditions.
3.7. Coastal Resources
3.7.1. Affected Environment
The project is located in two of North Carolina's 20 coastal counties and is therefore regulated
under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), which is administered by the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management (DCM). CAMA permit must be obtained for projects that meet all
of the following conditions:
• it is in one of the 20 counties covered by CAMA;
• it is considered "development" under CAMA;
• it is in, or it affects, an AEC established by the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC);
• it doesn't qualify for an exemption.'
"Development" includes activities such as dredging or filling coastal wetlands or waters, and
construction of marinas, piers, docks, bulkheads, oceanfront structures and roads. Areas of
Environmental Concern (AECs) are areas of natural importance: It may be easily destroyed by
erosion or flooding; or it may have environmental, social, economic or aesthetic values that make
it valuable to our state. (NC DCM, 2010).
3.7.2. Project Impacts
The proposed project information and the documentation contained in this Environmental Report
prepared by Robert J Goldstein & Associates, Inc. for the applicant and USDA -Rural
Development for the proposed project serves as documentation for a Coastal Consistency
Review. Tyrrell County (in cooperation with the Town of Creswell in Washington County) has
applied to USDA — Rural Development for financial assistance to fund construction of the
proposed project through the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) (which falls under code 10.760 in the
2006 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance). The project as described in Section 1.0 of this
Section 103(5)(b) of the Coastal Area Management Act exempts the following activities from permitting requirements:
road maintenance within a public right-of-way; utility maintenance on projects that already have CAMA permits; energy
facilities covered by other laws or N.C. Utilities Commission rules; agricultural or forestry production that doesn't involve
the excavation or filling of estuarine or navigable waters or coastal marshland (Note: these activities are not exempt
from permitting requirements under the state's Dredge and Fill Law); agricultural or forestry ditches less than 6 feet
wide and 4 feet deep; emergency maintenance and repairs when life and property are in danger; the construction of an
accessory building usually found with an existing structure, if no filling of estuarine or navigable waters or coastal
marshland is involved.
20

Environmental Report involves development of a sewer collection system, improvements to the
existing Creswell Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the addition of approximately 1.75 miles of
water line in the Town of Creswell's water system. These improvements lie within Tyrrell and
Washington Counties (North Carolina Coastal Counties).
The project description and supporting information contained in this Environmental Report
indicate that that the project successfully avoids or mitigates and adverse impacts to any Areas of
Environmental Concern (AEC) through project design, through project placement, through
utilization of directional drilling technology, and complying with the conditions of the US Army
Corps of Engineers, State of NC, and CAMA permits.
The overall adverse impacts to coastal resources are minimal and insignificant at most. The
placement of the project and the proposed design and operation in addition to mitigation
measures described in Section 4.0 of this report successfully avoids significant adverse impacts
to protected coastal resources. The project was reviewed by Kelly Spivey with the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management. Mr. Spivey issued a CAMA permit (No. 54764-B) for the project
on 28 October 2009, indicating that the proposed project is consistent with the local CAMA Land
Use Plans. A copy of the permit can be found in Section 6.0 of this Report.
STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERAL CONSISTENCY: The applicant has applied for financial
assistance for the proposed project from USDA Rural Development through its Rural Utilities
Service (RUS) (CDFA 10.760). Through this environmental document, USDA — Rural
Development, in consideration of the public and other agency comments, should be able to
support a conclusion that there will be no significant adverse impacts to the human environment
(FONSI) including impacts to coastal resources as managed by the State's Coastal Management
Program . Based upon proposed plans, project design, plan of operation, mitigation measures,
and the avoidance of coastal areas of environmental concern that may be located within the
footprint of the project, and the local land use regulations, it has been determined that the
proposed project is consistent with Tyrrell and Washington Counties CAMA Land Use Plans and
the enforceable policies of the North Carolina Coastal Management Program including the
Coastal Zone Management Act.
3.7.3. Mitigation
Project construction impacts to an AEC will be minimal and compliance with the conditions of the
CAMA permit will ensure direct impacts associated with project construction are minimized.
Tyrrell County Subdivision Ordinance requires that a copy of all applications for minor and major
subdivisions be submitted to the appropriate CAMA representative for review and comments.
The location of any CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) should be included on any
plat submitted to the Tyrrell County Planning Board for approval (Article V, § 2 D and § 3 C).
Both preliminary and final plats are required to include an attached certificate from the CAMA
permit officer stating whether or not identified AECs are totally or partially within the proposed
subdivision (Article VI. § 2 A).
No new development shall be allowed in the FEMA identified floodway, and replacements of
existing structures must be anchored to prevent collapse or floatation. Any encroachments into
Coastal High Hazard Areas or Areas of Environmental Concern are required to comply with all
applicable CAMA regulations.
21

3.8. Socio-Economic and Environmental Justice
3.8.1. Affected Environment
According to the Civil Rights Impact Analysis (Appendix C) provided by Mr. John Nelson, USDA
Rural Development Specialist, the median household income for Tyrrell County was $25,684,
compared to $38,175 for the State of North Carolina. In 2000 56.5% of the county's citizens were
white, 39.4% were black, and 4.1% identified as some other racial group.
3.8.2. Project Impacts
According to the Civil Rights Impact Analysis, "...the service area has areas of poverty and low
incomes located throughout. However, with the proposed project to be constructed on existing
rights -of -way there should not be impacts to minorities, low income socio-economic groups, or
any specific group of people. The proposed installations of a wastewater collection system
should improve the lives of all the citizens of Tyrrell County and the surrounding area."
3.8.3. Mitigation
Because no adverse impacts to minority and low income populations are anticipated, no
mitigation is proposed.
3.9. Miscellaneous Issues
3.9.1. Air Quality
3.9.1.1. Affected Environment
Ambient air quality parameters monitored by the N.C. Division of Air Quality (DAQ) include total
suspended particulates (TSP), fine particulates (PM10 and PM25), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (N0 ), and ozone (03). The major sources of most of these
pollutants are emissions from fuel combustion (vehicles, heating, and power generation), industrial
processes, non -industrial solvent use, solid waste incineration, open burning, and land disturbance
(N.C. Division of Air Quality, 2010). Direct emissions of ozone are minor; the majority of this toxic
and reactive gas is created by the photochemical reaction of emitted air pollutants (primarily
nitrogen oxides) with ultraviolet sunlight. Since lead was banned as a gasoline additive lead levels
have fallen to low levels in North Carolina. Lead (Pb) is currently only monitored in the state as a
subset of the fine -particle pollution network.
DAQ air pollutant data and corresponding ambient air quality standards from monitoring stations in
the vicinity of Washington and Tyrrell Counties are summarized in Table 4. Ambient standards for
each pollutant are defined by hourly, daily, quarterly, or annual averages, depending on the
physical and chemical dynamics of the pollutant, health effects, and monitoring technology. Some
pollutants have multiple standards that correspond to different durations of exposure. Not all data
were available for the coastal plain in 2009. In such cases, data for the most recent year were
included in Table 3. Based on the data available, no air quality standards were exceeded. Tyrrell
and Washington Counties are NOT non -attainment areas for any parameter (Ozone, PM2.5, and
CO) (NC DAQ, 2008). DAQ and the N.C. Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) do not currently require
automobile exhaust emission testing in either Tyrrell or Washington Counties.
The project owners are not aware of any odor complaints that have been generated from the
existing treatment plant. The new treatment facility should not produce offensive odors if operated
and maintained properly. To minimize the potential of odor issues, the mechanical screens and
sludge stabilization/holding basins, which may have the highest potential to produce odor, have
been located away from existing residences to the extent practical.
22

3.9.1.2. Project Impacts
An increase in airborne particulates from construction activities and exhaust emissions from
construction vehicles will occur during project construction, but the public health impacts of these
emissions should be negligible. No open burning of woody debris will be necessary, as vegetation
removal will be minimal. Urban growth in the service area may cause an increase in air pollutant
emissions from vehicles, construction, and industrial activities.
After construction, direct air quality impacts of the system are expected to be negligible. Although,
minor releases of hydrogen sulfide and other nuisance odors from bacterial metabolism in the
wastewater through manholes are inevitable, odor control facilities will be added to the two pump
stations minimize nuisance odors. To minimize the potential of odor issues, the mechanical
screens and sludge stabilization/holding basins, which may have the highest potential to produce
odor, have been located away from existing residences to the extent practical.
3.9.1.3. Mitigation
Proper vehicle maintenance, frequent wetting of exposed soil, and prompt soil stabilization will
minimize impacts. Sewer vents, pumping stations, and the WWTP may emit some nuisance
odors produced by bacterial metabolism, but odor control mechanisms have been incorporated
into the design. To minimize the potential of odor issues, the mechanical screens and sludge
stabilization/holding basins, which may have the highest potential to produce odor, have been
located away from existing residences to the extent practical.
Transportation planning, growth management, industrial and vehicle emission controls, and other
programs will in part mitigate the potential adverse air quality impacts of increasing population and
traffic. Tyrrell County has no ordinances related to air quality.
3.9.2. Transportation
3.9.2.1. Affected Environment
Construction activities will occur in largely road shoulders. Adverse affects on traffic patterns will
be insignificant during project construction, and during operation and maintenance of the project.
3.9. 2.2. Project Impacts
No permanent impacts to traffic patterns will occur as a result of this project. Temporary impacts
to traffic patterns during construction will be minimal.
3.9.2.3. Mitigation
The project contractor will be responsible for managing traffic on public roads during construction.
No further mitigation is necessary.
3.9.3. Noise
3.9.3.1. Affected Environment
Noise is subject to the federal Noise Control Act of 1972 (PL-92-574) and Quiet Communities Act of
1978 (PL-95-6009), which require standards of compliance and recommend approaches to
abatement for stationary sources such as airports, highways, and industrial facilities.
There are no facilities in the Creswell area subject to federal or state noise regulation, and no
ambient noise monitoring data are available. There are no local noise ordinances (Carawan, 2007).
23

3.9.3.2. Project Impacts
Residents in the project area may experience nuisance noise during project construction. After
construction is complete, the project is not expected to generate nuisance noise. Construction
will be conducted during normal business hours and will not exceed 40 hours a week. Tyrrell
County has no local noise ordinances. Potential noise sources around the exterior of the plant
include the influent and effluent pump stations, grit removal system, mechanical screens, sludge
loading pump, air handling unit for administration building, and stand-by generator. The majority
of this equipment, with the exception of the generator, will contain low horsepower motors that
should not produce obtrusive noise. The generator shall include an acoustical enclosure around
the engine and a silencing muffler on the exhaust system. The generator should only operate
during a power outage or when the plant staff exercises it for routine operation and maintenance.
The influent and effluent pump stations will utilize submersible pumps with minimal noise
generation. All other equipment shall be housed inside of the treatment facility. Of this equipment,
the MBR and sludge positive displacement blowers could have the highest potential to generate
noise; however, these units will be provided with an acoustical enclosure capable of reducing
noise to 78 dBa in a free field.
3.9.3.3. Mitigation
Noise impacts are expected to be minimal and temporary. No permanent impacts are expected.
No mitigation for noise impacts is proposed.
4.0. Summary of Mitigation
This section discusses mitigative measures taken to avoid and minimize both direct and secondary
and cumulative impacts of the project as proposed. Measures to avoid and minimize direct impacts
of this project, primarily through sound engineering practices and design, are discussed in Section
4.1 below. Mitigative measures for indirect and cumulative impacts of future growth are
documented in the Tyrrell County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Section 4.2) and the
Tyrrell County Subdivision Ordinance (Section 4.3).
4.1. Measures to Avoid and Minimize Direct Impacts
Project engineers have selected alignments and construction methods to minimize the impacts of
project construction. All project alignments will utilize roadsides to avoid clearing new alignments
across streams, wetlands, floodplains, and upland habitats. Directional Drilling of most large
stream crossings and those with significant wetland areas is also being pursued to the extent
practical.
Project engineers have also secured a Linear Stormwater Permit from NC DWQ, Erosion Control
Permit from NC DLR, Sanitary Sewer Permit from NC DWQ Construction Grants and Loans, NC
DOT permits for easement encroachments, and permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers,
NC Division of Water Quality 401 Unit, and CAMA for surface water impacts. Compliance with
the conditions of these permits will ensure direct impacts associated with project construction are
minimized.
4.2. Tyrell County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
Tyrell County floodplain regulations are intended to protect life and property from flood events. A
floodplain development permit is required prior to development of any lot that lies, in whole or
part, within an area designated as a Special Flood Hazard by FEMA. Applications must clearly
show the location of all proposed improvements along with elevations, the elevation and
boundary of Special Flood Hazard Areas, and the location of any existing and new watercourses.
Applications must also include the elevation to which new structures will be floodproofed or
elevated to minimize damage to property and risk to life from flood events.
24

No new development shall be allowed in the FEMA identified floodway, and replacements of
existing structures must be anchored to prevent collapse or floatation. Any encroachments into
Coastal High Hazard Areas are required to comply with all applicable CAMA regulations.
4.3. Tyrrell County Subdivision Ordinance
Tyrrell County Subdivision Ordinance requires that a copy of all applications for minor and major
subdivisions be submitted to the appropriate CAMA representative for review and comments.
The location of any CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) should be included on any
plat submitted to the Tyrrell County Planning Board for approval (Article V, § 2 D and § 3 C).
Both preliminary and final plats are required to include an attached certificate from the CAMA
permit officer stating whether or not identified AECs are totally or partially within the proposed
subdivision (Article VI. § 2 A).
Tyrrell County allows for Planned Unit Developments, so long as they contain a minimum of 20
acres. Of that land, 15 acres shall be reserved for residential development, and the remaining
five acres reserved for commercial, open space, or recreational uses (Article VII § 5 (a)).
All developments that exceed one acre of disturbance, including roads and other improvements,
are required to secure approval from the NC Division of Water quality. Approval by the NC DWQ
shall be considered approval by the County. Development activities disturbing less than one acre
are required to demonstrate that runoff leaving the site will not exceed the predevelopment
volume for the 10-year storm. Drainage swales are encouraged over traditional ditches, and 6:1
side slopes are recommended (Article VII § 8 A. (8), as amended 16 January 2007).
Literature Cited
Adams, W.F., J.M. Alderman, R.G. Biggins, A.G. Gerberisch, E.P. Keferl, H.J. Porter, and A.S.
VanDevender. 1990. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina's freshwater and
terrestrial molluscan fauna. The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks,
Raleigh, N.C. 246 pp.
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation. N.C. Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 85 pp.
Barnhill, W.L. 1986. Soil survey of Brunswick County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Bolivia, N.C. 120 pp. + maps.
Carawan, William Mac, Tyrrell County Manager. Personal communication. July, 2007.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. 100 pp.
+ appendices.
Huffman, 1996. Ground Water in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. North Carolina Cooperative
Extension Service, Publication Number AG-450. Electronic Version March 1996. Available at:
http://www. bae. ncsu.edu/programs/extension/pu bl icat/wgwm/ag450. htm
Kral, Robert. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest -related vascular
plants of the south. Tech Bull. R8-TP2. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta,
Georgia.
25

Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr., and M.K. Clark. 1982. A distributional survey of North Carolina
mammals. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey, 1982-10. 70 pp.
LeGrand, H.E. Jr. and S.P. Hall, 1999. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal species of
North Carolina. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh. 91
pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III, 1980. Amphibians and reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. and A.L. Braswell. 1997. Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fauna of North
Carolina, Part IV: A Re-evaluation of the Freshwater Fishes. N.C. Museum of Natural
Sciences, Raleigh, N.C. 106 pp.
National Park Service, 2008. National Register of Historic Places. http://www.nr.nps.gov/
Neal, W.J., W.C. Blakeney, O.H. Pilkey Jr., and O.H. Pilkey Sr. 1984. Living with the South
Carolina Shore. Duke University Press, Durham, N.C. 205 pp.
N.C. Department of Commerce. 2007. County Profiles. 01 Aug 2007.
http://www.nccommerce.com/en/AboutDOC/PublicationsReports/CountyProfiles.htm
N. C. Division of Air Quality. 2010. 2009 Statewide Annual Air Quality Pollutant Concentration
Summary. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C. Accessed at
http://daq.state.nc.us/monitor/data on September 1, 2010.
N.C. Division of Coastal Management, 2008. CAMA Counties. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C. Website accessed 06 June 2008:
www.//dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/cama counties.htm.
N.C. Division of Land Resources. 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina. N.C. Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development - Geological Survey, Raleigh. 1 p.
N.C. Division of Parks and Receation (NC DPR). 2008. Visit a Park.
http://ils.unc.edu/parkprolect/main/visit.html
N.C. Division of Water Quality. 2006. Basinwide Assessment Report - Pasquotank River Basin.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C.
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/Basinwide/PASQUOTANK2006Final.pdf
N.C. Division of Water Quality. 2007a. Pasquotank River - Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/documents/Chapter4 014.pdf
N.C. Division of Water Quality. 2007b. NPDES Permitting and Compliance Programs. North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, N.C. 04 September 2007. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES
N.C. Division of Water Quality. 20010. Water Quality Assessment Data. 2010 Final 303(d) List.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, N.C. 29 November 2010. http://portal.ncdenr.orq/web/wq/ps/mtu/assessment
26

N.C. Division of Water Resources. 2007. North Carolina Aquifers. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C. 04 September 2007; last updated 21 December 2007.
http://www.ncwater.org/Education and Technical Assistance/Ground Water/AquiferCharact
eristics/
N.C. Natural Heritage Program. 2010. Heritage Data Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, N.C. Accessed 29 November 2010:
http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/heritagedata.html.
N.C. Natural Heritage Program. Significant Natural Heritage Areas [computer file] 2008. Raleigh,
NC: Available: http://www.nconemap.com/Default.aspx?tabid=286 [June3, 2008].
Palmer, W.E. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. The Reptiles of North Carolina. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 412 pp.
Parnell, J.F., W.D. Webster, and T.L. Quay. 1992. Birds and Mammals of the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore. UNC Sea Grant, N.C. State University, Raleigh. 96 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. University of North
Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, N.C. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell, 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C. 1,183 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina - Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, Raleigh, N.C. 325 pp.
Tant, Philip L. 1988. Soil Survey of Tyrrell County, North Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation
Service, Raleigh, N.C.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. State and County Quickfacts-Tyrrell County. 01 Aug 2007.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/37177.html
US Census Bureau. 2008. Census 2000. 06 June 2008.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_fang=en&_ts=230822623640&
_ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&_program=DEC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007 Enviromapper for Environmental Justice website.
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/ej/
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2000. Important Farmlands of North Carolina,
June 2000. 91 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C. 255 pp.
Wooten, 2008. Engineering Report for Regional Wastewater Collection and Treatment System:
Wastewater Collection System, Water and Sewer Districts 1&2 Tyrrell County, NC;
Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion, Town of Creswell, Washington
County, NC. The Wooten Company, February 2008. 38 pp + Appendices.
27

5.0. Correspondence
5.1. Scoping Materials Sent to USEPA, USACOE, FEMA, and USFWS 15 October 2010
28

1221 Corporation Parkway, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
e-mail: rgoldstein@a,RJGAcarolina.com
15 October 2010
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Since 1985
Ms. Dorothy Rayfield
USEPA Region 4, Water Management Division
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
Tel: [phone] or [phone]
Fax: [phone]
website: www.rjgacarolina.com
RE: Scoping for NEPA EID: Scuppernong Township Low Pressure Septic Tank Effluent Pump
(STEP) System, Tyrell County, NC.
Dear Ms. Rayfield:
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates (RJG&A) is in the process of performing an environmental
review (ER) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act for the Town of Creswell and
Tyrell County's Scuppernong Township Low Pressure STEP System. The lead agency is USDA
Rural Development (RD). Comments and concerns received during the scoping process will be
addressed and incorporated into the final version of the ER, which will become (upon acceptance
by RD) the agency official Environmental Assessment (EA). The completed EA will be
circulated for your consideration and one final comment period prior to issuance of a FONSI.
1.0 Project Description
The 23-square mile Scuppernong Township in Tyrrell County is unsewered. Residential and
commercial establishments dispose of wastes using pit toilets, straight piping, and septic
systems. A 2001 survey by The Wooten Company found 24% of homes surveyed used straight
piping and 33% had poorly functioning septic systems that were close to failure. The
predominant soils in the service area are poorly suited for septic absorption fields due to wetness
and slow percolation. The lack of topographic relief, much of the project area less than 10 feet
above mean sea level, presents an additional challenge to septic systems. A regional solution is
needed to eliminate known and suspected septic tank failures, outhouse pit -toilets, and straight -
piping wastewater disposal.
Scuppernong Township in cooperation with the Town of Creswell in Washington County,
proposes to replace its insufficient and failing wastewater disposal facilities with 31 miles of a
new low pressure septic tank effluent pump (STEP) sewer collection system force main,
including two pump stations and two main trunk lines that will be constructed mostly within
roadside right-of-way (Figure 1.0). To accommodate the increased load, the existing Creswell
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) (NPDES Permit NC0048861) will be upgraded from 0.064
to 0.2 MGD using membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology to produce reuse quality effluent.
This project will enable abandonment of Creswell's three existing wastewater lagoons. The new
collection lines will transfer wastewater from Tyrrell County's Scuppernong Township to the
NEPA & SEPA Environmental Assessments 3 Environmental Impact Studies 3 Jurisdictional Wetland & Stream Buffer Delineations 3 404 - 401 Permits
3 GIS/GPS Mapping 3 Water Quality Monitoring 3Stream & Wetland Mitigation and Restoration 3 Endangered Species Surveys & Monitoring
® Biological Assessments & Conservation Plans 3 Water Intakes & Reservoirs 3 Water Lines & Treatment Plants 3 Sewerlines & Wastewater
Treatment 3 Instream Flow Analyses 3 Interbasin Transfer Certificates 3 Lake Management & Watershed Modeling 3Archaeological Surveys and Testing
3 Solid Waste Landfills 3Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments.3 Parks & Greenways Planning 3 CWMTF Grant Applications

Rok a J. Qd%te 44.01A * fe / .
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Town of Creswell's upgraded WWTP with discharge to the Scuppernong River in Washington
County.
The STEP system will primarily serve Scuppernong Township's existing 320 homes and
businesses, the Eastern 4-H Environmental Education Conference Center off Bulls Bay Road,
and limited future residential development all within Tyrrell County. As part of the same
project, 1.75 miles of 6-inch waterline will be installed along the northern side of US 64 and US
94. This line will improve water pressure and fire flows to existing users in the area and provide
potable water for several commercial and residential establishments currently relying on wells.
1.1. Existing Environment and Impacts
The principle land use in the service area is agriculture, but much of the region is swampland.
Swamp forests types are predominantly cypress -gum and bottomland hardwoods. Sewer and
water lines associated with this project will all be installed along existing road shoulders. The
effluent line will cross a previously disturbed cypress -gum swamp to discharge into the
Scuppernong River. The WWTP and the northern pump station site are located on already
developed land. The southern pump station is located in a pine/hardwood mix forest. Each
pump station is expected to occupy 2,500 square feet (0.06 acres). During installation of the
lines, soil will be temporarily sidecast in upland areas and then used to bury the new lines.
Preconstruction contours will be restored and any excess soil will be disposed of in non -wetland
locations. No contamination of soil resources in the area is expected to result from project
construction or operation.
Five designated prime farmland soils are found in the service area (Natural Resources
Conservation Service, 2000). Because the proposed sewer lines will be located along road
shoulder, those areas not available for farming and there will be no direct impacts to prime
farmland. The WWTP and northern pump station located on already developed land and the
southern pump station site is not located on a prime farmland soil.
Approximately 27 miles of the proposed lines lie within the 500-year floodplain. Since the lines
will be buried and pre -construction contours restored, the project is unlikely to affect flood
hydrology. The northern pump station is below the 500-year floodplain elevation. Based on the
Flood Insurance Study, the elevation of the 500-year floodplain in this area is 6.5 feet above
mean sea level (msl). The pump station is designed to sit 1.5 feet above this elevation.
The Albemarle Sound and Bull Bay lie to the north of the service area and are designated as Class
SB waters. The Scuppernong River forms the eastern and southern boundary of the service area.
From the Albemarle Sound to Riders Creek, the Scuppernong River is designated as a SC water.
The remainder of Scuppernong River within the service area is classified as a C Sw water.
Sewerline construction will involve 31 stream crossings and impact two cypress -gum wetlands.
The larger stream crossings and both wetlands will be directionally drilled; smaller stream
crossings will be handled by open -trench construction. All impacts to wetlands and streams will
be minimal and temporary.
Page 2

,Q J. Cm 4fei. , 4.111 .r e /lie.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records indicate that there are 16 protected species
found in Washington and/or Tyrrell Counties (Table 1). There is suitable habitat in the vicinity of
the construction corridor for the red wolf, bald eagle, American alligator, least bittern,
Chowanoke crayfish, and northern bladderwort. However impacts to these habitats will be
minimal and temporary and should not adversely affect any of these protected species.
A State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) review of the project indicated that they do not
anticipate any adverse impacts to archaeological or historic resources. No impacts to public lands
or scenic, recreational, or state natural areas are anticipated (NC DPR, 2008).
Town of Creswell and Tyrell County's Scuppernong Township request that you review the
proposal and respond with any comments, questions, or recommendations within 30 days. If you
need any further information or wish to discuss the project, please call me at [phone].
Thank you for your consideration and comments regarding this important project.
Sincerely,
Sean Doig, Ecologist
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
sdoig@rj gacarolina. com
CC: Mr. David Lekson, Washington Field Office, US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Pete Benjamin, Raleigh Field Office, US Fish & Wildlife Service
Mr. Charles Beck, FEMA (per FEMA request, blanket comment letter included in EA)
Page 3

Figure 1.0 Project Location. Town of Cres:rell Wastewater
Treatment and Collection System and Watr Supply Line
Improvements. Washington and Tyrrell Conties, North Carolina.
B U L L
Sewerlines r
Project Areas ; 2" Forcemain 4' —
3" Forcemain 0 WVUfP
4" Forcemain 1 Service Areas I
1
6" Forcemain Pump station
8" Forcemain
Waterline N°s
Effluent line ;
0.5 1 2 I�
Miles
3GU'PP Elj'NON'G
met Bank
&
Ydd
Orr d
Washington
County
Albemarle Sound
Tyrrell
County

Table 1. Protected Species know to occur in Tyrrell and Washington Counties, based on NHP website (28 September 2010).
Protection Status
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat NC US County USGS Quad
MAMMALS
Canis rufus
Red wolf swamps, pocosins, extensive forests
CW; CSE; LP;
SR E Both C
Condylura cristata Star -nosed mole
wet woodlands, fields, seeps SC Wash none
Corynorhinus rafinesquii macrotis Rafinesque's big -eared bat abandoned bldgs, bridges, hollow trees near rivers T Both C
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
BIRDS
Bald eagle
Red -cockaded woodpecker
large trees near estuaries, rivers
extensive mature pine forests, open understory
T both LP; C
E E both CSE
REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator
ponds, rivers, fresh to brackish marshes
T T both CW
Crotalus horridus
Sistrurus miliarius
Timber rattlesnake
Pygmy rattlesnake
wetland forests in the Coastal Plain
pine woods, savannas, sandhills
SC both none
SC Tyrrell none
Acipenser brevirostrum
FISHES
Shortnose sturgeon estuaries and large rivers
E E both CW; LP
MOLLUSKS & CRUSTACEANS
Anodonta implicata Alewife floater
Chowan, Meherrin, lower Roanoke, and Pee Dee rivers T Wash none
Leptodea ochracea Tidewater mucket
freshwater often with a tidal influence T Wash none
Ligumia nasuta Eastern pondmussel
slow -moving freshwater streams, ponds, lakes T Wash none
PLANTS
Lilaeopsis carolinensis Carolina grasswort
Utricularia resupinata Northeastern bladderwort
tidal freshwater marshes
Shallow to deep waters; wet lake and pond shores
where sandy or mucky
Wash LP
Wash C
Status: E= endangered; T= threatened; SC= special concern
Quads: CW=Columbia West; CSE=Creswell SE; LP=Leonards Point; C=Creswell

1221 Corporation Parkway, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
e-mail: rgoldstein@n,RJGAcarolina.com
15 October 2010
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Since 1985
Mr. Charles Beck
Federal Emergency Management Agency
3003 Chamblee Tucker Road
Atlanta, GA 30341
Tel: [phone] or [phone]
Fax: [phone]
website: www.rjgacarolina.com
RE: Scoping for NEPA EID: Scuppernong Township Low Pressure Septic Tank Effluent Pump
(STEP) System, Tyrell County, NC.
Dear Mr. Beck:
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates (RJG&A) is in the process of performing an environmental
review (ER) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act for the Town of Creswell and
Tyrell County's Scuppernong Township Low Pressure STEP System. The lead agency is USDA
Rural Development (RD). Comments and concerns received during the scoping process will be
addressed and incorporated into the final version of the ER, which will become (upon acceptance
by RD) the agency official Environmental Assessment (EA). The completed EA will be
circulated for your consideration and one final comment period prior to issuance of a FONSI.
1.0 Project Description
The 23-square mile Scuppernong Township in Tyrrell County is unsewered. Residential and
commercial establishments dispose of wastes using pit toilets, straight piping, and septic
systems. A 2001 survey by The Wooten Company found 24% of homes surveyed used straight
piping and 33% had poorly functioning septic systems that were close to failure. The
predominant soils in the service area are poorly suited for septic absorption fields due to wetness
and slow percolation. The lack of topographic relief, much of the project area less than 10 feet
above mean sea level, presents an additional challenge to septic systems. A regional solution is
needed to eliminate known and suspected septic tank failures, outhouse pit -toilets, and straight -
piping wastewater disposal.
Scuppernong Township in cooperation with the Town of Creswell in Washington County,
proposes to replace its insufficient and failing wastewater disposal facilities with 31 miles of a
new low pressure septic tank effluent pump (STEP) sewer collection system force main,
including two pump stations and two main trunk lines that will be constructed mostly within
roadside right-of-way (Figure 1.0). To accommodate the increased load, the existing Creswell
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) (NPDES Permit NC0048861) will be upgraded from 0.064
to 0.2 MGD using membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology to produce reuse quality effluent.
This project will enable abandonment of Creswell's three existing wastewater lagoons. The new
collection lines will transfer wastewater from Tyrrell County's Scuppernong Township to the
Town of Creswell's upgraded WWTP with discharge to the Scuppernong River in Washington
County.
NEPA & SEPA Environmental Assessments 3 Environmental Impact Studies 3 Jurisdictional Wetland & Stream Buffer Delineations 3 404 - 401 Permits
3 GIS/GPS Mapping 3 Water Quality Monitoring 3Stream & Wetland Mitigation and Restoration 3 Endangered Species Surveys & Monitoring
® Biological Assessments & Conservation Plans 3 Water Intakes & Reservoirs 3 Water Lines & Treatment Plants 3 Sewerlines & Wastewater
Treatment 3 Instream Flow Analyses 3 Interbasin Transfer Certificates 3 Lake Management & Watershed Modeling 3Archaeological Surveys and Testing
3 Solid Waste Landfills 3Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments.3 Parks & Greenways Planning 3 CWMTF Grant Applications

Ald4J. Q0/0 44.01114ei, / .
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
The STEP system will primarily serve Scuppernong Township's existing 320 homes and
businesses, the Eastern 4-H Environmental Education Conference Center off Bulls Bay Road,
and limited future residential development all within Tyrrell County. As part of the same
project, 1.75 miles of 6-inch waterline will be installed along the northern side of US 64 and US
94. This line will improve water pressure and fire flows to existing users in the area and provide
potable water for several commercial and residential establishments currently relying on wells.
1.1. Existing Environment and Impacts
The principle land use in the service area is agriculture, but much of the region is swampland.
Swamp forests types are predominantly cypress -gum and bottomland hardwoods. Sewer and
water lines associated with this project will all be installed along existing road shoulders. The
effluent line will cross a previously disturbed cypress -gum swamp to discharge into the
Scuppernong River. The WWTP and the northern pump station site are located on already
developed land. The southern pump station is located in a pine/hardwood mix forest. Each
pump station is expected to occupy 2,500 square feet (0.06 acres). During installation of the
lines, soil will be temporarily sidecast in upland areas and then used to bury the new lines.
Preconstruction contours will be restored and any excess soil will be disposed of in non -wetland
locations. No contamination of soil resources in the area is expected to result from project
construction or operation.
Five designated prime farmland soils are found in the service area (Natural Resources
Conservation Service, 2000). Because the proposed sewer lines will be located along road
shoulder, those areas not available for farming and there will be no direct impacts to prime
farmland. The WWTP and northern pump station located on already developed land and the
southern pump station site is not located on a prime farmland soil.
Approximately 27 miles of the proposed lines lie within the 500-year floodplain. Since the lines
will be buried and pre -construction contours restored, the project is unlikely to affect flood
hydrology. The northern pump station is below the 500-year floodplain elevation. Based on the
Flood Insurance Study, the elevation of the 500-year floodplain in this area is 6.5 feet above
mean sea level (msl). The pump station is designed to sit 1.5 feet above this elevation.
The Albemarle Sound and Bull Bay lie to the north of the service area and are designated as Class
SB waters. The Scuppernong River forms the eastern and southern boundary of the service area.
From the Albemarle Sound to Riders Creek, the Scuppernong River is designated as a SC water.
The remainder of Scuppernong River within the service area is classified as a C Sw water.
Sewerline construction will involve 31 stream crossings and impact two cypress -gum wetlands.
The larger stream crossings and both wetlands will be directionally drilled; smaller stream
crossings will be handled by open -trench construction. All impacts to wetlands and streams will
be minimal and temporary.
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records indicate that there are 16 protected species
found in Washington and/or Tyrrell Counties (Table 1). There is suitable habitat in the vicinity of
the construction corridor for the red wolf, bald eagle, American alligator, least bittern,
Page 2

J Q0/0 44.014u 4ei, / .
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Chowanoke crayfish, and northern bladderwort. However impacts to these habitats will be
minimal and temporary and should not adversely affect any of these protected species.
A State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) review of the project indicated that they do not
anticipate any adverse impacts to archaeological or historic resources. No impacts to public lands
or scenic, recreational, or state natural areas are anticipated (NC DPR, 2008).
Town of Creswell and Tyrell County's Scuppernong Township request that you review the
proposal and respond with any comments, questions, or recommendations within 30 days. If you
need any further information or wish to discuss the project, please call me at [phone].
Thank you for your consideration and comments regarding this important project.
Sincerely,
Sean Doig, Ecologist
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
sdoig@rj gacarolina. com
CC: Mr. David Lekson, Washington Field Office, US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Pete Benjamin, Raleigh Field Office, US Fish & Wildlife Service
Ms. Dorothy Rayfield, USEPA Region 4, Water Management Division
Page 3

Figure 1.0 Project Location. Town of Cres:rell Wastewater
Treatment and Collection System and Watr Supply Line
Improvements. Washington and Tyrrell Conties, North Carolina.
B U L L
Sewerlines r
Project Areas ; 2" Forcemain 4' —
3" Forcemain 0 WVUfP
4" Forcemain 1 Service Areas I
1
6" Forcemain Pump station
8" Forcemain
Waterline N°s
Effluent line ;
0.5 1 2 I�
Miles
3GU'PP Elj'NON'G
met Bank
&
Ydd
Orr d
Washington
County
Albemarle Sound
Tyrrell
County

Table 1. Protected Species know to occur in Tyrrell and Washington Counties, based on NHP website (28 September 2010).
Protection Status
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat NC US County USGS Quad
MAMMALS
Canis rufus
Red wolf swamps, pocosins, extensive forests
CW; CSE; LP;
SR E Both C
Condylura cristata Star -nosed mole
wet woodlands, fields, seeps SC Wash none
Corynorhinus rafinesquii macrotis Rafinesque's big -eared bat abandoned bldgs, bridges, hollow trees near rivers T Both C
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
BIRDS
Bald eagle
Red -cockaded woodpecker
large trees near estuaries, rivers
extensive mature pine forests, open understory
T both LP; C
E E both CSE
REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator
ponds, rivers, fresh to brackish marshes
T T both CW
Crotalus horridus
Sistrurus miliarius
Timber rattlesnake
Pygmy rattlesnake
wetland forests in the Coastal Plain
pine woods, savannas, sandhills
SC both none
SC Tyrrell none
Acipenser brevirostrum
FISHES
Shortnose sturgeon estuaries and large rivers
E E both CW; LP
MOLLUSKS & CRUSTACEANS
Anodonta implicata Alewife floater
Chowan, Meherrin, lower Roanoke, and Pee Dee rivers T Wash none
Leptodea ochracea Tidewater mucket
freshwater often with a tidal influence T Wash none
Ligumia nasuta Eastern pondmussel
slow -moving freshwater streams, ponds, lakes T Wash none
PLANTS
Lilaeopsis carolinensis Carolina grasswort
Utricularia resupinata Northeastern bladderwort
tidal freshwater marshes
Shallow to deep waters; wet lake and pond shores
where sandy or mucky
Wash LP
Wash C
Status: E= endangered; T= threatened; SC= special concern
Quads: CW=Columbia West; CSE=Creswell SE; LP=Leonards Point; C=Creswell

1221 Corporation Parkway, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
e-mail: rgoldstein@a,RJGAcarolina.com
15 October 2010
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Since 1985
Mr. David Lekson
US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
USEPA Region 4, Water Management Division
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Tel: [phone] or [phone]
Fax: [phone]
website: www.rjgacarolina.com
RE: Scoping for NEPA EID: Scuppernong Township Low Pressure Septic Tank Effluent Pump
(STEP) System, Tyrell County, NC.
Dear Mr. Lekson:
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates (RJG&A) is in the process of performing an environmental
review (ER) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act for the Town of Creswell and
Tyrell County's Scuppernong Township Low Pressure STEP System. The lead agency is USDA
Rural Development (RD). Comments and concerns received during the scoping process will be
addressed and incorporated into the final version of the ER, which will become (upon acceptance
by RD) the agency official Environmental Assessment (EA). The completed EA will be
circulated for your consideration and one final comment period prior to issuance of a FONSI.
1.0 Project Description
The 23-square mile Scuppernong Township in Tyrrell County is unsewered. Residential and
commercial establishments dispose of wastes using pit toilets, straight piping, and septic
systems. A 2001 survey by The Wooten Company found 24% of homes surveyed used straight
piping and 33% had poorly functioning septic systems that were close to failure. The
predominant soils in the service area are poorly suited for septic absorption fields due to wetness
and slow percolation. The lack of topographic relief, much of the project area less than 10 feet
above mean sea level, presents an additional challenge to septic systems. A regional solution is
needed to eliminate known and suspected septic tank failures, outhouse pit -toilets, and straight -
piping wastewater disposal.
Scuppernong Township in cooperation with the Town of Creswell in Washington County,
proposes to replace its insufficient and failing wastewater disposal facilities with 31 miles of a
new low pressure septic tank effluent pump (STEP) sewer collection system force main,
including two pump stations and two main trunk lines that will be constructed mostly within
roadside right-of-way (Figure 1.0). To accommodate the increased load, the existing Creswell
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) (NPDES Permit NC0048861) will be upgraded from 0.064
to 0.2 MGD using membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology to produce reuse quality effluent.
This project will enable abandonment of Creswell's three existing wastewater lagoons. The new
collection lines will transfer wastewater from Tyrrell County's Scuppernong Township to the
NEPA & SEPA Environmental Assessments 3 Environmental Impact Studies 3 Jurisdictional Wetland & Stream Buffer Delineations 3 404 - 401 Permits
3 GIS/GPS Mapping 3 Water Quality Monitoring 3Stream & Wetland Mitigation and Restoration 3 Endangered Species Surveys & Monitoring
® Biological Assessments & Conservation Plans 3 Water Intakes & Reservoirs 3 Water Lines & Treatment Plants 3 Sewerlines & Wastewater
Treatment 3 Instream Flow Analyses 3 Interbasin Transfer Certificates 3 Lake Management & Watershed Modeling 3Archaeological Surveys and Testing
3 Solid Waste Landfills 3Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments.3 Parks & Greenways Planning 3 CWMTF Grant Applications

Rok a J. Qd%te 44.01A * fe / .
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Town of Creswell's upgraded WWTP with discharge to the Scuppernong River in Washington
County.
The STEP system will primarily serve Scuppernong Township's existing 320 homes and
businesses, the Eastern 4-H Environmental Education Conference Center off Bulls Bay Road,
and limited future residential development all within Tyrrell County. As part of the same
project, 1.75 miles of 6-inch waterline will be installed along the northern side of US 64 and US
94. This line will improve water pressure and fire flows to existing users in the area and provide
potable water for several commercial and residential establishments currently relying on wells.
1.1. Existing Environment and Impacts
The principle land use in the service area is agriculture, but much of the region is swampland.
Swamp forests types are predominantly cypress -gum and bottomland hardwoods. Sewer and
water lines associated with this project will all be installed along existing road shoulders. The
effluent line will cross a previously disturbed cypress -gum swamp to discharge into the
Scuppernong River. The WWTP and the northern pump station site are located on already
developed land. The southern pump station is located in a pine/hardwood mix forest. Each
pump station is expected to occupy 2,500 square feet (0.06 acres). During installation of the
lines, soil will be temporarily sidecast in upland areas and then used to bury the new lines.
Preconstruction contours will be restored and any excess soil will be disposed of in non -wetland
locations. No contamination of soil resources in the area is expected to result from project
construction or operation.
Five designated prime farmland soils are found in the service area (Natural Resources
Conservation Service, 2000). Because the proposed sewer lines will be located along road
shoulder, those areas not available for farming and there will be no direct impacts to prime
farmland. The WWTP and northern pump station located on already developed land and the
southern pump station site is not located on a prime farmland soil.
Approximately 27 miles of the proposed lines lie within the 500-year floodplain. Since the lines
will be buried and pre -construction contours restored, the project is unlikely to affect flood
hydrology. The northern pump station is below the 500-year floodplain elevation. Based on the
Flood Insurance Study, the elevation of the 500-year floodplain in this area is 6.5 feet above
mean sea level (msl). The pump station is designed to sit 1.5 feet above this elevation.
The Albemarle Sound and Bull Bay lie to the north of the service area and are designated as Class
SB waters. The Scuppernong River forms the eastern and southern boundary of the service area.
From the Albemarle Sound to Riders Creek, the Scuppernong River is designated as a SC water.
The remainder of Scuppernong River within the service area is classified as a C Sw water.
Sewerline construction will involve 31 stream crossings and impact two cypress -gum wetlands.
The larger stream crossings and both wetlands will be directionally drilled; smaller stream
crossings will be handled by open -trench construction. All impacts to wetlands and streams will
be minimal and temporary.
Page 2

,Q J. Cm 4fei. , 4.111 .r e /lie.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records indicate that there are 16 protected species
found in Washington and/or Tyrrell Counties (Table 1). There is suitable habitat in the vicinity of
the construction corridor for the red wolf, bald eagle, American alligator, least bittern,
Chowanoke crayfish, and northern bladderwort. However impacts to these habitats will be
minimal and temporary and should not adversely affect any of these protected species.
A State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) review of the project indicated that they do not
anticipate any adverse impacts to archaeological or historic resources. No impacts to public lands
or scenic, recreational, or state natural areas are anticipated (NC DPR, 2008).
Town of Creswell and Tyrell County's Scuppernong Township request that you review the
proposal and respond with any comments, questions, or recommendations within 30 days. If you
need any further information or wish to discuss the project, please call me at [phone].
Thank you for your consideration and comments regarding this important project.
Sincerely,
Sean Doig, Ecologist
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
sdoig@rj gacarolina. com
CC: Mr. Charles Beck, FEMA
Mr. Pete Benjamin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ms. Dorothy Rayfield, USEPA Region 4, Water Management Division
Page 3

Figure 1.0 Project Location. Town of Cres:rell Wastewater
Treatment and Collection System and Watr Supply Line
Improvements. Washington and Tyrrell Conties, North Carolina.
B U L L
Sewerlines r
Project Areas ; 2" Forcemain 4' —
3" Forcemain 0 WVUfP
4" Forcemain 1 Service Areas I
1
6" Forcemain Pump station
8" Forcemain
Waterline N°s
Effluent line ;
0.5 1 2 I�
Miles
3GU'PP Elj'NON'G
met Bank
&
Ydd
Orr d
Washington
County
Albemarle Sound
Tyrrell
County

Table 1. Protected Species know to occur in Tyrrell and Washington Counties, based on NHP website (28 September 2010).
Protection Status
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat NC US County USGS Quad
MAMMALS
Canis rufus
Red wolf swamps, pocosins, extensive forests
CW; CSE; LP;
SR E Both C
Condylura cristata Star -nosed mole
wet woodlands, fields, seeps SC Wash none
Corynorhinus rafinesquii macrotis Rafinesque's big -eared bat abandoned bldgs, bridges, hollow trees near rivers T Both C
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
BIRDS
Bald eagle
Red -cockaded woodpecker
large trees near estuaries, rivers
extensive mature pine forests, open understory
T both LP; C
E E both CSE
REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator
ponds, rivers, fresh to brackish marshes
T T both CW
Crotalus horridus
Sistrurus miliarius
Timber rattlesnake
Pygmy rattlesnake
wetland forests in the Coastal Plain
pine woods, savannas, sandhills
SC both none
SC Tyrrell none
Acipenser brevirostrum
FISHES
Shortnose sturgeon estuaries and large rivers
E E both CW; LP
MOLLUSKS & CRUSTACEANS
Anodonta implicata Alewife floater
Chowan, Meherrin, lower Roanoke, and Pee Dee rivers T Wash none
Leptodea ochracea Tidewater mucket
freshwater often with a tidal influence T Wash none
Ligumia nasuta Eastern pondmussel
slow -moving freshwater streams, ponds, lakes T Wash none
PLANTS
Lilaeopsis carolinensis Carolina grasswort
Utricularia resupinata Northeastern bladderwort
tidal freshwater marshes
Shallow to deep waters; wet lake and pond shores
where sandy or mucky
Wash LP
Wash C
Status: E= endangered; T= threatened; SC= special concern
Quads: CW=Columbia West; CSE=Creswell SE; LP=Leonards Point; C=Creswell

1221 Corporation Parkway, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
e-mail: rgoldstein@a,RJGAcarolina.com
15 October 2010
Mr. Pete Benjamin
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27636
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Since 1985
Tel: [phone] or [phone]
Fax: [phone]
website: www.rjgacarolina.com
RE: Scoping for NEPA EID: Scuppernong Township Low Pressure Septic Tank Effluent Pump
(STEP) System, Tyrell County, NC.
Dear Mr. Benjamin:
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates (RJG&A) is in the process of performing an environmental
review (ER) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act for the Town of Creswell and
Tyrell County's Scuppernong Township Low Pressure STEP System. The lead agency is USDA
Rural Development (RD). Comments and concerns received during the scoping process will be
addressed and incorporated into the final version of the ER, which will become (upon acceptance
by RD) the agency official Environmental Assessment (EA). The completed EA will be
circulated for your consideration and one final comment period prior to issuance of a FONSI.
1.0 Project Description
The 23-square mile Scuppernong Township in Tyrrell County is unsewered. Residential and
commercial establishments dispose of wastes using pit toilets, straight piping, and septic
systems. A 2001 survey by The Wooten Company found 24% of homes surveyed used straight
piping and 33% had poorly functioning septic systems that were close to failure. The
predominant soils in the service area are poorly suited for septic absorption fields due to wetness
and slow percolation. The lack of topographic relief, much of the project area less than 10 feet
above mean sea level, presents an additional challenge to septic systems. A regional solution is
needed to eliminate known and suspected septic tank failures, outhouse pit -toilets, and straight -
piping wastewater disposal.
Scuppernong Township in cooperation with the Town of Creswell in Washington County,
proposes to replace its insufficient and failing wastewater disposal facilities with 31 miles of a
new low pressure septic tank effluent pump (STEP) sewer collection system force main,
including two pump stations and two main trunk lines that will be constructed mostly within
roadside right-of-way (Figure 1.0). To accommodate the increased load, the existing Creswell
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) (NPDES Permit NC0048861) will be upgraded from 0.064
to 0.2 MGD using membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology to produce reuse quality effluent.
This project will enable abandonment of Creswell's three existing wastewater lagoons. The new
collection lines will transfer wastewater from Tyrrell County's Scuppernong Township to the
NEPA & SEPA Environmental Assessments 3 Environmental Impact Studies 3 Jurisdictional Wetland & Stream Buffer Delineations 3 404 - 401 Permits
3 GIS/GPS Mapping 3 Water Quality Monitoring 3Stream & Wetland Mitigation and Restoration 3 Endangered Species Surveys & Monitoring
® Biological Assessments & Conservation Plans 3 Water Intakes & Reservoirs 3 Water Lines & Treatment Plants 3 Sewerlines & Wastewater
Treatment 3 Instream Flow Analyses 3 Interbasin Transfer Certificates 3 Lake Management & Watershed Modeling 3Archaeological Surveys and Testing
3 Solid Waste Landfills 3Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments.3 Parks & Greenways Planning 3 CWMTF Grant Applications

Rok a J. Qd%te 44.01A * fe / .
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Town of Creswell's upgraded WWTP with discharge to the Scuppernong River in Washington
County.
The STEP system will primarily serve Scuppernong Township's existing 320 homes and
businesses, the Eastern 4-H Environmental Education Conference Center off Bulls Bay Road,
and limited future residential development all within Tyrrell County. As part of the same
project, 1.75 miles of 6-inch waterline will be installed along the northern side of US 64 and US
94. This line will improve water pressure and fire flows to existing users in the area and provide
potable water for several commercial and residential establishments currently relying on wells.
1.1. Existing Environment and Impacts
The principle land use in the service area is agriculture, but much of the region is swampland.
Swamp forests types are predominantly cypress -gum and bottomland hardwoods. Sewer and
water lines associated with this project will all be installed along existing road shoulders. The
effluent line will cross a previously disturbed cypress -gum swamp to discharge into the
Scuppernong River. The WWTP and the northern pump station site are located on already
developed land. The southern pump station is located in a pine/hardwood mix forest. Each
pump station is expected to occupy 2,500 square feet (0.06 acres). During installation of the
lines, soil will be temporarily sidecast in upland areas and then used to bury the new lines.
Preconstruction contours will be restored and any excess soil will be disposed of in non -wetland
locations. No contamination of soil resources in the area is expected to result from project
construction or operation.
Five designated prime farmland soils are found in the service area (Natural Resources
Conservation Service, 2000). Because the proposed sewer lines will be located along road
shoulder, those areas not available for farming and there will be no direct impacts to prime
farmland. The WWTP and northern pump station located on already developed land and the
southern pump station site is not located on a prime farmland soil.
Approximately 27 miles of the proposed lines lie within the 500-year floodplain. Since the lines
will be buried and pre -construction contours restored, the project is unlikely to affect flood
hydrology. The northern pump station is below the 500-year floodplain elevation. Based on the
Flood Insurance Study, the elevation of the 500-year floodplain in this area is 6.5 feet above
mean sea level (msl). The pump station is designed to sit 1.5 feet above this elevation.
The Albemarle Sound and Bull Bay lie to the north of the service area and are designated as Class
SB waters. The Scuppernong River forms the eastern and southern boundary of the service area.
From the Albemarle Sound to Riders Creek, the Scuppernong River is designated as a SC water.
The remainder of Scuppernong River within the service area is classified as a C Sw water.
Sewerline construction will involve 31 stream crossings and impact two cypress -gum wetlands.
The larger stream crossings and both wetlands will be directionally drilled; smaller stream
crossings will be handled by open -trench construction. All impacts to wetlands and streams will
be minimal and temporary.
Page 2

,Q J. Cm 4fei. , 4.111 .r e /lie.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records indicate that there are 16 protected species
found in Washington and/or Tyrrell Counties (Table 1). There is suitable habitat in the vicinity of
the construction corridor for the red wolf, bald eagle, American alligator, least bittern,
Chowanoke crayfish, and northern bladderwort. However impacts to these habitats will be
minimal and temporary and should not adversely affect any of these protected species.
A State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) review of the project indicated that they do not
anticipate any adverse impacts to archaeological or historic resources. No impacts to public lands
or scenic, recreational, or state natural areas are anticipated (NC DPR, 2008).
Town of Creswell and Tyrell County's Scuppernong Township request that you review the
proposal and respond with any comments, questions, or recommendations within 30 days. If you
need any further information or wish to discuss the project, please call me at [phone].
Thank you for your consideration and comments regarding this important project.
Sincerely,
Sean Doig, Ecologist
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
sdoig@rj gacarolina. com
CC: Mr. David Lekson, Washington Field Office, US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Charles Beck, FEMA
Ms. Dorothy Rayfield, USEPA Region 4, Water Management Division
Page 3

Figure 1.0 Project Location. Town of Cres:rell Wastewater
Treatment and Collection System and Watr Supply Line
Improvements. Washington and Tyrrell Conties, North Carolina.
B U L L
Sewerlines r
Project Areas ; 2" Forcemain 4' —
3" Forcemain 0 WVUfP
4" Forcemain 1 Service Areas I
1
6" Forcemain Pump station
8" Forcemain
Waterline N°s
Effluent line ;
0.5 1 2 I�
Miles
3GU'PP Elj'NON'G
met Bank
&
Ydd
Orr d
Washington
County
Albemarle Sound
Tyrrell
County

Table 1. Protected Species know to occur in Tyrrell and Washington Counties, based on NHP website (28 September 2010).
Protection Status
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat NC US County USGS Quad
MAMMALS
Canis rufus
Red wolf swamps, pocosins, extensive forests
CW; CSE; LP;
SR E Both C
Condylura cristata Star -nosed mole
wet woodlands, fields, seeps SC Wash none
Corynorhinus rafinesquii macrotis Rafinesque's big -eared bat abandoned bldgs, bridges, hollow trees near rivers T Both C
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
BIRDS
Bald eagle
Red -cockaded woodpecker
large trees near estuaries, rivers
extensive mature pine forests, open understory
T both LP; C
E E both CSE
REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator
ponds, rivers, fresh to brackish marshes
T T both CW
Crotalus horridus
Sistrurus miliarius
Timber rattlesnake
Pygmy rattlesnake
wetland forests in the Coastal Plain
pine woods, savannas, sandhills
SC both none
SC Tyrrell none
Acipenser brevirostrum
FISHES
Shortnose sturgeon estuaries and large rivers
E E both CW; LP
MOLLUSKS & CRUSTACEANS
Anodonta implicata Alewife floater
Chowan, Meherrin, lower Roanoke, and Pee Dee rivers T Wash none
Leptodea ochracea Tidewater mucket
freshwater often with a tidal influence T Wash none
Ligumia nasuta Eastern pondmussel
slow -moving freshwater streams, ponds, lakes T Wash none
PLANTS
Lilaeopsis carolinensis Carolina grasswort
Utricularia resupinata Northeastern bladderwort
tidal freshwater marshes
Shallow to deep waters; wet lake and pond shores
where sandy or mucky
Wash LP
Wash C
Status: E= endangered; T= threatened; SC= special concern
Quads: CW=Columbia West; CSE=Creswell SE; LP=Leonards Point; C=Creswell

5.2. Responses to Federal Scoping Received as of 30 November 2010
49

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
November 1, 2010
Sean Doig
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc.
1221 Corporation Parkway, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27610
Re: Scoping for NEPA EID: Scuppernong Township Low Pressure Septic Tank Effluent Pump
(STEP) System, Tyre11 County, NC
Dear Mr. Doig:
This letter is to inform you that a list of all federally -protected endangered and threatened species
with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Therefore, if you have projects that
occur within the Raleigh Field Office's area of responsibility (see attached county list), you no
longer need to contact the Raleigh Field Office for a list of federally -protected species.
Our web page contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened
species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a list of federal species of concern that are known to occur in
each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
The terrn "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species willeventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species, However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern.

If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regard to the above -referenced project, we offer the following remarks. Our comments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally -listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we
recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby down -gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining
natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary).
2

We hope you find our web. page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Mark Bowers of this office
at [phone] ext. 19.
Sincerely,
to Benjamin
Field Supervisor
3

List of Counties in the Service's Raleigh Field Office Area of Responsibility
Alamance Perquimans
Beaufort Person
Bertie Pitt
Bladen Randolph
Brunswick Richmond
Camden Robeson
Carteret Rockingham
Caswell Sampson
Chatham Scotland
Chowan Tyrrell
Columbus Vance
Craven Wake
Cumberland Warren
Currituck Washington
Dare Wayne
Duplin Wilson
Durham
Edgecombe
Franklin
Gates
Granville
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Johnston
Jones
Lee
Lenoir
Martin
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Onslow
Orange
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Pender

US Federal Emergency Management Agency Blanket Comments.
Obtained from the NC DENR PWS website, 31 July 2007.
FEMA has issued blanket comments to be included in environmental assessments performed
by the applicants. FEMA reviews the DRAFT EAs at the time of DENR internal review.
The procedures for obtaining FEMA clearance under these blanket comments are described
below.
The applicant can satisfy the comment requirement by submitting an addendum to the PER
(sealed by the PE) making the following statements:
a) If a proposed building site is in a floodplain, all new construction and substantial
improvements
i) are designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or
lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads,
including the effects of buoyancy,
ii) are constructed with materials resistant to flood damage,
iii) are constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damages, and
iv) are constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning
equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to
prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions
of flooding.
b) If a proposed water supply line is in a floodplain, it is designed to minimize or eliminate
infiltration of flood waters into the water supply system.
c) If a proposed water supply line crosses a watercourse, it does so in a manner that
maintains the flood carrying capacity of the watercourse.
d) If construction is to occur within the boundaries of a city or county that participates in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), all such construction complies with any
applicable ordinances promulgated locally to effectuate NFIP guidelines.

5.3 Response to Scoping Comments Submitted to Federal Agencies, 15 October 2010
Mr. Pete Benjamin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Office:
Comment:
Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally -listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we
recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby down -gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining
natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site.
Response:
During installation of collection lines, soils will be side cast until the pipe is laid and then filled in.
Additionally, the proposed sewer line construction will cross 21 small streams by open -trench.
Although the topography is very flat in this area, soil erosion and sedimentation is possible during
construction. To minimize the impact, erosion and sedimentation controls will be installed and
maintained during construction. Project engineers have already secured an Erosion Control
Permit from the North Carolina Division of Land Resources.
54

5.4. Summary of Environmental Review Comments 2007-2008
56

Summary of the Environmental Review Comments, Town of Creswell
Wastewater Treatment and Collection System and Water Supply Line
Improvements in Washington and Tyrell Counties
Original correspondence follows this summary
NC DENR Project Number: 1420
NC SHPO Project Number: ER 07-1623
NC DCM Project Number: 20070132
• Ms. Jennifer Haynie
NC Construction Grants and Loans
Comments Dated 12 May 2008
General Comments:
Comment: In all figures, show and label the Washington/Tyrrell County Line, major
roadways, and named water bodies. Include those features that are mentioned in the text.
Response: County lines, roadways and named water bodies have been added to all
figures.
Comment: Create an environmental feature figure that shows the location of
recreational areas, state natural heritage areas (SNHAs), historical resources, and
threatened and endangered (T&E) species (with no names attached to T&E species
locations).
Response: All recreational, public, historic, SNHAs, and NHP element occurrences that
had available GIS data, were included in Figure 8.
II. Section A — Proposed Project Description
Comment: In the second sentence of the third paragraph, NC 94 is mentioned. Is this
US 64, or is NC 94 correct? If NC 94 is correct, update Figure 1 accordingly.
Response: NC 94 and US 64 are not the same road. These two roads are almost parallel
as they pass through the project and service areas. The proposed sewer lines are located
in the road shoulder of NC 94. These roads have been added and both labeled in the
figures.
Comment: Differentiate between pipeline diameters via a legend or label on Figure 1.
Response: Pipe size has been included in Figure 1.
III. Section B- Purpose and Need for Proposed Project

Comment: Provide a reason why the information presented in the preceding sentence
will increase these adverse effects, as the way it is currently written is unclear.
Response: The statement has been changed to read, "In the absence of public
wastewater collection and treatment, untreated wastewater will continue to be introduced
to the environment and adverse impacts to Tyrell County's natural systems will increase
over time".
Comment: At the end of the second paragraph, add a sentence that describes the reason
why the Creswell Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) must expand and improve its
operations.
Response: The requested sentence has been added.
Comment: Add the survey mentioned in the third sentence of the third paragraph to an
appendix in the back of the Environmental Assessment (EA), and refer to it in the text.
Response: The survey has been obtained from the project engineer and included in the
EA as Appendix C. A reference to this information has been inserted.
Comment: Remove the last sentence of the third paragraph, as it is a statement of a
solution rather than a statement of the problem. Instead, provide a sentence that
summarizes why this project is needed for Scuppernong.
Response: The sentence has been changed to summarize Scuppernong Township's need.
IV. Section C- Alternatives Analysis
Wastewater Collection:
Comment: Add a description of the No -Action Alternative.
Response: The no -action alternative is discussed under `Wastewater Treatment'. As
regionalization with the Creswell WWTP was the preferred alternative, collection is
required to transport wastewater. The order was confusing. The Treatment alternatives
discussion has been moved to the beginning of this section.
Comment: For each alternative besides the No -Action Alternative, describe the
collection system (e.g. pipe diameter and length in linear feet of each diameter, project
cost) and provide a rationale as to why this alternative was accepted or rejected as the
preferred alternative.
Response: The requested information has been added to the Alternatives Analysis
section.
Wastewater Treatment:

Comment: The alternatives in the EA should parallel the alternatives in the Preliminary
Engineering Report (PER).
Response: The Alternatives Analysis has been modified to match those presented in the
PER.
Comment: In addition to the alternatives discussed in this section, the following should
also be described: (1) Creswell WWTP upgrade and conjunctive reuse, (2) optimization
of existing facilities, and (3) regionalization with the town of Columbia.
Response: The topics requested have been worked into the Alternatives Analysis
section. However, believing the Scuppernong River is its natural service boundary, the
Town of Columbia refused to provide Tyrrell County wastewater service. This
alternative was considered, but not explored in detail because it is not a viable alternative.
Transport to Creswell WWTP
Comment: Change the title of this section to: Regionalization with the Creswell WWTP.
At the end of the section, state that this is the preferred alternative and provide a rationale
for it being the preferred alternative.
Response: The section title has been changed, and a statement that this is the preferred
alternative included.
Comment: Since the water line is part of the project, provide an alternative analysis for
it. Describe the No -Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. Provide project
cost for this project component, along with why the No -Action Alternative was rejected
and the Preferred Alternative accepted.
Response: The No Action Alternative would be to continue allowing residents and
businesses located along Highway 94 to continue using well water. No capital costs
would be incurred by Creswell to pursue this alternative, but no improvements to
Creswell's water system would result from this course of action.
The Preferred Alternative would be to loop Creswell's water system by connecting the
existing water main at Aligood Road to the existing water main at the Creswell Speedway
along Highway 94. This alternative would provide redundancy, increase water pressure,
improve water quality and provide existing residents and businesses along this corridor a
safe supply of potable water. The estimated construction cost for the water line is
$100,000.
V. Section D- Existing Environmental Characteristics of the Project Area
Topography:
Comment: Provide the elevation of the Creswell WWTP and the two proposed pump
stations.

Response: Based on site survey data, Elevations on the WWTP property range from 2 to
8 feet above mean sea level. Based on USGS 7 5 minute mapping of the area, elevations
at the northernmost pump station are 4 to 5 feet (design shows bringing elevation up to 6-
7 feet), and the southernmost pump station is located between 6 and 7 feet (design shows
elevation at 7 feet).
Comment: Discuss whether the Creswell WWTP is in the 100-year floodplain.
Response: A discussion of the 100-year floodplain location relative to proposed
improvements on the WWTP property has been added to the EA text.
Figure 2.0- FEMA Floodplain:
Comment: It looks as if the northern pump station is in the floodplain, which contradicts
the text. If necessary, provide an additional figure showing it on a scale that will make
the location of the pump station clearer.
Response: The text has been updated to read that the northern pump station IS in the
100-year floodplain and Figure 2.1 has been added to more clearly show 100-year
floodplains around the WWTP and both pump stations.
Comment: Provide floodplain information for the project area that is outside the service
area, and clearly show the Creswell WWTP.
Response: Floodplain (and soils) information has been recalculated using the project
area, which includes the service area and all other construction areas. Figure 3 includes
soils for the Project Area and the location of the WWTP. Soils at the WWTP are
described in the text.
Figure 3.0- Soils:
Comment: Revise this figure to show the soils in the project area and not just in the
service area. Update the figure title and the soils table accordingly.
Response: Figures, tables, and calculations have been updated to show the overall
project area, which includes the service area as well as the project area beyond the service
area.
Comment: Overlay the project components (pipeline and Creswell WWTP) on top of
the soils so that it is clear which soils are in what part of the project area.
Response: Project components have been added to Figure 3.
Wetlands:
Comment: Discuss the quality of wetlands. Discuss the function and other factors that
describe the importance of the wetlands.
Response: This discussion has been added to the text.

Figure 4.0- Wetland Habitats and Stream Crossings:
Comment: In the index title, show the Creswell WWTP. Show and label the places
where the pipeline will impact wetlands.
Response: Impacts to estimated wetlands due to the construction corridor are too small
to be displayed easily on the maps. Instead, labels have been added that provide the
temporary and permanent impacts to each estimated wetland.
Table 2- Stream Crossings:
Comment: List wetlands impacted and key the list to figure 4.
Response: Potential temporary and permanent impacts to estimated wetlands have
included in Figures 4.1 — 4.11.
Comment: Show and quantify the impacts (permanent and temporary) to each wetland
and provide the total.
Response: Formal delineations were not completed for this project. Instead, wetland
extents were estimated based on roadside survey and aerial photography. Potential
temporary and permanent impacts to estimated wetlands have included in Figures 4.1 —
4.11 and the total is provided in section E, part 4.
Comment: List the diameter of the pipe installed at each stream crossing and wetland
impact, and the installation method.
Response: Pipe sizes and installation method have been included in Table 2.
Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Heritage Areas:
Comment: Add the reference regarding the SNHA in the References section.
Response: This section should not discuss the NC Natural Heritage Program's
"Significant Natural Heritage Areas" but NC Division of Parks and Recreation's "State
Natural Areas" (http://ils.unc.edu/parkproject/main/visit.html). Discussion of SNHAs
has been moved to section 13 and the reference added to the References section.
Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value:
Comment: Describe any historical and archaeological features in or near the project
area.
Response: According to the National Register of Historic Places, St. David's Church
and the Creswell Historic District are historic places inside the project area while the
Davenport House and Somerset Place are with 10 miles of the project area (NPS, 2008).
Air Quality:
Comment: Provide the air quality classification of Tyrrell and Washington Counties.

Response: Tyrrell and Washington Counties are NOT non -attainment areas for any
parameter (Ozone, PM2.5, and CO).
Comment: Discuss whether there have been any odor complaints related to the Creswell
WWTP.
Response: The project owners are aware of none. A statement to that effect has been
added to the EA text.
Noise Levels:
Comment: Describe any noise sources around the project area.
Response: A discussion of anticipated noise from construction and operation of the
project have been included in the EA text.
Surface and Groundwater Resources:
Surface Water Usage Classifications:
Comment: Add the reference in the third paragraph to the References section.
Response: This information has been added to the EA.
Figure 5.0- Surface Water Classification:
Comment: Overlay the entire project to illustrate how the project spatially relates to the
different water quality classifications.
Response: Proposed lines have been added to Figure 5.
Groundwater Resources:
Comment: Discuss the depth of the Yorktown Aquifer
Response: This information has been added to the EA.
Shellfish, Fish, and their Habitats:
Comment: Discuss whether there are any closed beds or spawning areas within or near
the project area.
Response: This information has been added to the EA.
Environmental Justice:
Figure 6.0- Percent Minority by Block
Comment: Use US Census shapefiles and overlay the project and service area over the
Census blocks. The dividing lines for percent minority should be set so that it is clear
which blocks have minority populations over 50 percent. Do the same for poverty levels.

Response: Figure 6 has been revised as recommended but data to revise Figure 7 in the
same way was not available.
Comment: Change the title of this document to Percent Poverty by Block Group, as
poverty data is not provided by Census block.
Response: Figure 7 title has been corrected.
VI. Section E- Predicted Environmental Effects of Projects
Comment: For each resource category, characterize the secondary and cumulative
impacts (SCI) as best as possible. The scope of analysis for all areas except air quality,
surface and groundwater quality, fish, shellfish, and their habitat should be the service
area of the collection system. The scope of analysis for air quality should be Washington
and Tyrrell Counties. The scope of analysis for groundwater quality should be the
Yorktown Aquifer. The scope of analysis for the remaining categories should be both the
service area and downstream of the discharge from the Creswell WWTP.
Response: Secondary and cumulative impacts (SCI) have been characterized as best as
possible.
Comment: Where possible (such as for prime and unique agricultural lands, wetlands,
forest resources, and natural vegetation), use GIS information to quantify the impacts.
Refer to the appropriate sections for mitigative measures.
Response: Impacts have been quantified wherever possible.
Topography:
Comment: Discuss whether the Creswell WWTP upgrade will impact the 100-year
floodplain.
Response: The requested discussion has been added to the EA text.
Comment: Discuss whether the project will impact the topography of the service area or
the area surrounding the Creswell WWTP.
Response: A small amount of fill may be required for construction of the pump stations
and structures at the WWTP. This area will total less than 0.5 acres and should not
greatly effect topography at the WWTP or in the service area.
Soils:
Comment: Discuss the impact of the Creswell WWTP on soils.
Response: The area within the perimeter fence for the WWTP totals approximately 1.3
acres and includes Altavista loamy fine sand (0.6 acre), Augusta fine sandy loam (0.2
acre), and Tomotley fine sandy loam (0.4 acre).

Comment: Characterize how the project will disturb the soil (e.g. installation method for
pipelines) and quantify the amount of soil disturbance.
Response: During installation of the collection system, soil will be temporarily sidecast
in upland areas, and replaced after placement of the new collection lines and pump
stations. Soil impacts will be temporary and pre -construction contours will be restored.
Any excess soil will be disposed of in non -wetland locations.
Comment: Discuss whether any contamination will occur and if so, the type of
contamination.
Response: No contamination of soil resources is expected to result from project
construction or operation. A statement to this effect has been added to the EA.
Comment: Discuss whether soil will be moved. If so, quantify the amount and describe
where it will be moved.
Response: All temporarily sidecast soils will be replaced after installation of collection
lines. No soil should be removed from the project area. Clean fill may be brought in for
construction of the WWTP and Pump stations.
Land Use:
Comment: In the second paragraph, please expand the discussion of SCI. Provide a
better characterization of the impacts.
Response: New residential and commercial development is expected in the area because
of the recently completed US64 four -lane highway, and controlled access bypass around
the Town of Creswell.
Comment: Describe whether Tyrrell County has a land use plan and/or zoning, in place,
to govern any potential growth (i.e. SCI) related to the installation of the project.
Response: Tyrrell does not have a Zoning Ordinance but it does have a CAMA Land
Use Plan. During the writing of this document this LUP was being updated and was not
available. Tyrrell County has a Subdivision Ordinance that limits lot development area
and controls development type (Section F, part 3).
Wetlands:
Comment: Discuss any permanent impacts to non -drainage ditch wetlands.
Response: Although wetland boundaries shown here are estimated and not formally
delineated, the potential permanent impacts (based on a 10-foot wide construction
corridor around the lines) for the estimated wetlands has been included in Section E, part
4 and in all Figure 4 maps.

Comment: Discuss whether any fill will be used.
Response: No fill will be used in wetlands.
Comment: State what type of permit may be required, based on the approximate amount
of impact.
Response: The US Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 12 allows for up to 0.5
acre of wetland, and 300 linear feet of stream impacts with approved Pre -Construction
Notification application. NC DWQ's corresponding General Certification # 3699
(effective 01 November 2007) will also be required. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
will be limited to conversion from forested to herbaceous habitats, and no loss of waters
of the US are expected. Several stream crossings that will not be directionally drilled,
and conversion impacts to jurisdictional wetlands require NWP 12 and NC GC3699
permits be approved prior to construction.
Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Heritage Areas:
Comment: Discuss whether the proposed project will have operational impact on the
SNHAs or recreational areas.
Response: The only operational impacts would be the impact of providing sewer service
the 4-H EECC and the impact of minor traffic congestion during construction while
traveling to public or recreational areas.
Noise Levels:
Comment: Describe the distance at which increased noise levels will be heard.
Response: The exact distance at which the increased noise levels will be heard is
unknown, but the noise should be minimal. Potential noise sources around the exterior of
the plant include the influent and effluent pump stations, grit removal system, mechanical
screens, sludge loading pump, air handling unit for administration building, and
generator. Except for the generator, all of these sources will contain low horsepower
motors that should not produce obtrusive noise. The generator, which will not often be
used, will include an acoustical enclosure around the engine and a silencing muffler on
the exhaust system. The influent and effluent pump stations will utilize submersible
pumps with minimal noise generation. All other equipment will be housed inside of the
treatment facility. Of all of this equipment, the MBR and sludge positive displacement
blowers could have the highest potential to generate noise; however, these units will be
provided with an acoustical enclosure capable of reducing noise to 78 dBa in a free field.
Comment: Describe when operational impact from the Creswell WWTP will be heard.
Response: The generator, which may produce some noise, will only operate during a
power outage or when the plant staff exercises it for routine operation and maintenance.
Surface and Groundwater Resources:

Comment: Discuss the direct construction and operational impacts on surface water
resources related to the project.
Response: Proposed sewer line construction will cross 21 small streams by open -trench.
Although this method may cause some increased erosion and suspended sediment in the
water column, it should be minimal due to the flat topography and slow flows in streams.
During operation, discharge from the WWTP into the Scuppernong River should be of
high quality and within all water quality standards.
Comment: Describe how the proposed project will impact impervious surfaces.
Response: The only new impervious surfaces constructed as a part of this project are
less than 0.5 acres of structures at the pump stations and at the WWTP. Overall
impervious surfaces may increase throughout the service area due to new commercial and
residential structures that will utilize the sewer service.
Comment: Describe how the project will impact stormwater runoff.
Response: Considering there will be minimal impervious surfaces and minimal fill
materials utilized, stormwater run-off should not be impacted due to the construction of
this project. Stormwater run-off may be more of an issue if certain areas that experience
high density development.
Comment: Discuss how the project will impact sedimentation, etc. during the
construction and operation of the project.
Response: During installation of collection lines, soils will be side cast until the pipe is
laid and then filled in. Although the topography is very flat in this area, soil erosion and
sedimentation is possible during construction. Construction of the WWTP and pump
stations will require filling and grading that may also result in sedimentation and erosion.
An approved erosion and sedimentation control plan will be followed to minimize
sedimentation.
Comment: Discuss how the project will impact groundwater quality and quantity.
Response: Groundwater quality should improve due to the elimination of septic tanks
throughout the area. Groundwater quantity should not be affected due to the small
population of the area.
Wildlife and Natural Resources:
Comment: Discuss whether surrounding areas provide similar habitat so that wildlife
may move to these new areas.
Response: The majority of the areas that will be directly impacted by construction do
not provide suitable habitat for any wildlife because they are maintained developed land
or road shoulder. Where suitable wildlife habitat exists inside the construction areas, it is

generally extends throughout a large area adjacent to the construction area that will
provide plenty of area for wildlife to relocate.
Comment: The first paragraph of this section duplicates the Forest Resources paragraph
on Page 11. Please modify this paragraph to specifically speak to natural vegetation, and
focus on the habitat of the T&E species, discussed on Pages 8 and 9.
Response: Discussion is modified to focus on natural vegetation and protected species
habitats.
Comment: In the third paragraph, describe whether the habitat for the T&E species will
be impacted.
Response: This information has been added to the EA.
Comment: Discuss whether any habitat for aquatic T&E species will be impacted.
Response: This information has been added to the EA.
Introduction of Toxic Substances
Comment: Discuss any regulations that are required to be followed.
Response: No toxic contamination requiring clean-up is known on the WWTP property
or along any of the force main corridor alternatives.
VII. Section F- Mitigative Measures
Comment: When discussing ordinances, cite where the regulation comes from and then
either provide a copy in the appendix or append it by reference, and include the
references in the Reference section.
Response: All mitigative ordinances provided during preparation of this Environmental
Assessment have been summarized in the EA Text. These documents have been attached
in their entirety in Appendix D.
Soils:
Comment: Discuss the fact that Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans will be
included in the contract documents.
Response: The requested discussion has been added to the EA.
Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands:
Comment: Discuss whether Tyrell County has any mechanism such as a land use plan
to protect prime farmlands.

Response: During the writing of this document the Tyrrell County CAMA Land Use
Plan was being updated and was not available. Land Use Plans do not include
regulations for the protection of any type of lands.
Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas:
Comment: Discuss whether Tyrrell County has any zoning or land use plans in place to
protect the SNHAs and recreational areas within the county that could potentially be
impacted by the project.
Response: During the writing of this document the Tyrrell County CAMA Land Use
Plan was being updated and was not available. Land Use Plans do not include
regulations for the protection of any type of lands. Tyrrell County does not have a
Zoning Ordinance.
Air Quality:
Comment: In the first paragraph, provide more detail about the odor control measures
that will be incorporated into the project design.
Response: The new treatment facility should not produce offensive odors if operated
and maintained properly. To minimize the potential of odor issues, the mechanical
screens and sludge stabilization/holding basins, which may have the highest potential to
produce odor, have been located away from existing residences to the extent practical.
Comment: In the second paragraph, provide more detail such as a transportation plan or
another type of plan in place to govern development and traffic increases.
Response: No transportation or other plans were provided during preparation of this
Environmental Assessment.
Noise Levels:
Comment: In the first paragraph, be more specific as to when project construction in
residential areas will occur. Describe both the hours and the days of the week.
Response: Project construction will occur during normal work hours Monday through
Friday and will not exceed 40 hours per week.
Comment: In the third sentence of the second paragraph, discuss whether there are land
use plans that would govern buffers, noise barriers, etc.
Response: During the writing of this document the Tyrrell County CAMA Land Use
Plan was being updated and was not available. Land Use Plans do not include
regulations for the protection of any type of lands. Tyrrell County does not have a Noise
Ordinance.
Surface and Groundwater Resources:
Comment: In the first paragraph, give some examples of BMPs.

Response: Several BMPs, including avoidance and minimization, that are expected to be
required during project construction have been added to the EA text.
Comment: The last sentence of the last paragraph states, "...must be approved by the
plant and built to DENR standards to minimize infiltration and exfiltration." Explain
why the plant and not the Utilities Department would have this authority.
Response: The word "plant" has been replaced with "Creswell Public Utilities
Departament".
Forest Resources:
Comment: Describe any mitigative measures that will protect forest resources from SCI.
Response: Mitigative measures provided during preparation of this Environmental
Assessment are summarized in the text, and have been included in their entirety as
Appendix D.
Shellfish, Fish, and their Habitats:
Comment: Describe mitigative measures that will be in place during construction to
protect shellfish, fish and their habitats from erosion.
Response: Mitigative measures provided during preparation of this Environmental
Assessment are summarized in the text, and have been included in their entirety as
Appendix D. During the writing of this document the Tyrrell County CAMA Land Use
Plan was being updated and was not available. Land Use Plans do not include
regulations for the protection of any type of lands.
Wildlife and Natural Vegetation:
Comment: Describe any mitigative measures that will be in place to protect T&E
species form SCI.
Response: Mitigative measures provided during preparation of this Environmental
Assessment are summarized in the text, and have been included in their entirety as
Appendix D.
Introduction of Toxic Substances
Comment: Update, as this paragraph is not consistent with what is stated in the impacts
section.
Response: The paragraph has been updated.
• Mr. J. Wayne Howard
Water Supply Planning Section
Division of Water Resources
Comments Dated 11 January 2008

Comment: In addition to the proposed Water Conservation and Education Program,
Creswell needs to submit to the DWR a Water Shortage Response Plan that complies
with the latest requirements.
Response: Included in Section 6.
• Mr. Peter Sandbeck
NC SHPO Department of Cultural Resources
Comments Dated 23 January 2008
Comment: No historic resources will be affected by this project.
• Ms. Maria T. Dunn
Habitat Conservation Program
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Comments Dated 19 February 2008
Comment: The Commission does not believe the project would have significant impacts
to wildlife and aquatic resources. However, we request crossings 14, 17, and 24 be
directionally bored to minimize impacts to aquatic resources.
Response: These crossings will be directionally bored if they cannot be installed in the
existing road shoulder.
• Mr. Stephen Ryans, AICP
Federal Consistency Coordinator
NC Division of Coastal Management
Comments Dated 4 January 2008
Comment: There is a possibility that the project may require a CAMA permit if any part
of this proposed project occurs in an AEC and qualifies as "development" under 113A-
103(5) of CAMA. Even if the project does not require a CAMA permit, it may require
DCM consistency review if any Federal permits are needed. This would most likely be
an Individual Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. Contact DCM prior to initiating construction.
Response: Included in Section 6.
Comment: If any of the funds to be used for this project are derived from Federal
sources, the funds cannot be released until the proposed project has undergone
consistency review, and DCM should be contacted. The "proposed project" in this case
is the release of Federal funding, not the construction of the actual facility. Even if no
Federal funding is involved, DCM recommends that any documentation prepared on this
project review this issue in writing to give proof that this issue was reviewed and found
not to be applicable.

Response: Included in Section 6.
• Mr. David May
Regional Aquifer Protection Supervisor- Washington
Comments Dated 28 December 2007
Comment: Although reuse of the wastewater is not considered feasible, it is
recommended that Creswell consider incorporating a mechanism (such as a water tap) to
allow for bulk distribution of treated wastewater if reclaimed water standards can be met.
Although surface water and groundwater may be abundant in the area, prolonged drought
conditions may result in the need for other water sources.
Response: The Creswell WWTP should be capable of producing an effluent quality that
meets or exceeds reclaimed water standards. A tap for bulk loading can be considered to
provide other water sources for the area during drought conditions.
Comment: If allowing for bulk distribution of reclaimed quality water is considered
feasible, a Non -Discharge permit shall be obtained from the Division of Water Quality.
Response: A non -discharge permit will be obtained if bulk distribution is considered.
• NC DENR Regional Office
Intergovernmental Review
Comments Dated 9 January 2008
Comment: Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment facilities, sewer system
extensions & sewer systems not discharging into state surface waters.
Response: Included in Section 6.
Comment: NPDES- permit to discharge into surface water and/or permit to operate and
construct wastewater facilities discharging into state surface waters.
Response: Included in Section 6.
Comment: Any open burning associated with subject proposal must be in compliance
with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900.
Response: Included in Section 6.
Comment: The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly
addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation control plan will
be required if one or more acres is to be disturbed.
Response: Included in Section 6.

• Mr. Jim McRight, and Mr. Fred Hill
NC Division of Environmental Health
Public Water Supply Section
Comments Dated 8 January 2008
Comment: Care must be taken during design and construction to maintain adequate
separation between potable water distribution piping and wastewater collection lines.
Response: Adequate separation will be maintained in most places (10 feet horizontally,
18 inches vertically). Where this separation is not achievable, the force mains will be
below the water lines and will be of ferrous material.
Comment: Contractors must be careful that heavy equipment doesn't cause undue
compaction and subsequent damage to existing potable water lines located within the
public right-of-way.
Response: The new sewer system is generally on the opposite side of the road from
water lines. Additionally, all water lines and other utilities will be marked prior to
construction to ensure no damage occurs.
Comment: If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans must
be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water Supply Section,
Technical Services Branch.
Response: No water lines will need to be relocated.

Environmental Review Comments
Regional Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Improvements
Tyrell County and Town of Creswell, Washington County
May 12, 2008
I. General - Figures:
1. In all figures, show and label the Washington/Tyrrell County Line, major roadways,
and named water bodies. Include those features that are mentioned in the text.
2. Create an environmental feature figure that shows the location of recreational areas,
state natural heritage areas (SNHAs), historical resources, and threatened and
endangered (T&E) species (with no names attached to T&E species locations).
II. Section A - Proposed Project Description
1. In the second sentence of the third paragraph, NC 94 is mentioned. Is this US 64, or
is NC 94 correct? If NC 94 is correct, update Figure 1 accordingly.
2. Figure 1: Differentiate between pipeline diameters via a legend or label.
III. Section B - Purpose and Need for Proposed Project
1. Provide a reason why the information presented in the preceding sentence will
increase these adverse effects, as the way it is currently written is unclear.
2. At the end of the second paragraph, add a sentence that describes the reason why the
Creswell Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) must expand and improve its
operations.
3. Add the survey mentioned in the third sentence of the third paragraph to an appendix
in the back of the Environmental Assessment (EA), and refer to it in the text.
4. Remove the last sentence of the third paragraph as it is a statement of a solution rather
than a statement of the problem (need). Instead, provide a sentence that summarizes
why this project is needed for Scuppernong.
Page 1 of 8

IV. Section C - Alternatives Analysis
1. Section A - Wastewater Collection:
a) Add a description of the No -Action Alternative.
b) For each alternative besides the No -Action Alternative, describe the collection
system (e.g. pipe diameter and length in linear feet of each diameter, project cost)
and provide a rationale as to why this alternative was accepted or rejected as the
preferred alternative.
2. Section B - Wastewater Treatment:
a) The alternatives in the EA should parallel the alternatives in the Preliminary
Engineering Report (PER). In addition to the alternatives discussed in this
section, the following should also be described: (1) Creswell WWTP upgrade and
conjunctive reuse, (2) optimization of existing facilities, and (3) regionalization
with the town of Columbia.
b) Transport to Creswell WWTP:
i. Change the title of this section to: Regionalization with the Creswell WWTP.
ii At the end of this section, state that this is the preferred alternative and
provide a rationale for it being the preferred alternative.
3. Since the water line is part of the project, provide an alternative analysis for it.
Describe the No -Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. Provide project
cost for this project component, along with why the No -Action Alternative was
rejected and the Preferred Alternative accepted.
V. Section D - Existing Environmental Characteristics of the Project Area
1. Topography:
a) Per Department of Administration (DOA) guidelines, provide the elevation of the
Creswell WWTP and the two proposed pump stations.
b) Per DOA guidelines, discuss whether the Creswell WWTP is in the 100-year
floodplain.
c) Figure 2.0 -1thMA Floodplain:
i. It looks as if the northern pump station is in the floodplain, which contradicts
the text. If necessary, provide an additional figure showing it on a scale that
will make the location of the pump station clearer.
Page 2 of 8

ii. Provide floodplain information for the project area that is outside of the service area,
and clearly show the Creswell WWTP.
2. Soils - Figure 3
Soils in the Service Area:
a) Revise this figure to show the soils in the project area and not just in the service area.
Update the figure title and soils table accordingly.
b) Overlay the project components (pipeline and Creswell WWTP) on top of the soils so
that it is clear which soils are in what part of the project area.
3. Wetlands:
a) Per DOA guidelines, discuss the quality of wetlands.
b) Per DOA guidelines, discuss the function and other factors that describe the importance
of the wetlands.
c) Figure 4.0 - Wetland Habitats and Stream Crossings:
i. In the index tile, show the Creswell WWTP.
ii. Show and label the places where the pipeline will impact wetlands.
d) Table 2 - Stream Crossings:
i. Per DOA guidelines, list wetlands impacted and key the list to Figure 4.
ii. Per DOA guidelines, show and quantify the impacts (permanent and temporary) to
each wetland and provide the total.
iii. Per DOA guidelines, list the diameter of the pipe installed at each stream crossing
and wetland impact, and the installation method.
4. Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Heritage Areas:
i. The reference regarding the SNHA is not in the References section. Please add this
reference.
5. Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value:
i. Per DOA guidelines, please describe any historical and archaeological features in, or near
the project area.
Page 3 of 8

6. Air Quality:
a) Per DOA guidelines, please provide the air quality classification of Tyrrell and
Washington Counties.
b) Per DOA guidelines, discuss whether there have been any odor complaints related to the
Creswell WWTP.
7. Noise Levels:
Per DOA guidelines, describe any noise sources around the project area.
8. Surface and Groundwater Resources
a) Surface Water Usage Classifications:
i. The reference in the third paragraph is not in the References section. Please add it.
ii. Figure 5.0 - Surface Water Classification:
Overlay the entire project so that it is clear how the project spatially relates to the
different water quality classifications.
b) Groundwater Resources:
i. Per DOA guidelines, discuss the depth of the Yorktown Aquifer.
9. Shellfish, Fish, and Their Habitats:
i. Per DOA guidelines, discuss whether there are any closed beds or spawning areas within,
or near the project area.
10. Environmental Justice
a) Figure 6.0 - Percent Minority by Block:
i. Use U.S. Census shapefiles and overlay the project and service area over the Census
blocks. The dividing lines for percent minority should be set so that it is clear which
blocks have minority populations over 50 percent.
b) Figure 6.0 - Percent Poverty by Block:
i. Change the title of this document to be Percent Poverty by Block Group, as poverty
data is not provided by Census block.
ii. See Comment V.10.a. as it relates to poverty and do the same for poverty levels.
Page 4 of 8

VI. Section E - Predicted Environmental Effects of Projects
1. For each resource category, characterize the secondary and cumulative impacts (SCI) as
best as possible. The scope of analysis for all areas except air quality, surface and
groundwater quality, fish, shellfish, and their habitat should be the service area of the
collection system. The scope of analysis for air quality should be Washington and
Tyrrell Counties. The scope of analysis for groundwater quality should be the
Yorktown Aquifer. The scope of analysis for the remaining categories should be both
the service area and downstream of the discharge from the Creswell WWTP. Where
possible (such as for prime and unique agricultural lands, wetlands, forest resources, and
natural vegetation), use GIS information to quantify the impacts. Refer to the
appropriate sections for mitigative measures.
2. Topography:
a) Per DOA guidelines, discuss whether the Creswell WWTP upgrade will impact the
100-year floodplain.
b) Per DOA guidelines, discuss whether the project will impact the topography of the
service area or the area surrounding the Creswell WWTP.
3. Soils:
a) Per DOA guidelines, discuss the impact of the Creswell WWTP on soils.
b) Per DOA guidelines, characterize how the project will disturb the soil (e.g.
installation method for pipelines) and quantify the amount of soil disturbance.
c) Per DOA guidelines, discuss whether any contamination will occur and, if so, the
type of contamination.
d) Per DOA guidelines, discuss whether soil will be moved. If so, quantify the amount
and describe where it will be moved.
4. Land Use:
a) In the second paragraph, please expand the discussion of SCI. Provide a better
characterization of the impacts.
b) Describe whether Tyrell County has a land use plan and/or zoning, in place, to
govern any potential growth (i.e. SCI) related to the installation of the project.
5. Wetlands:
a) Discuss any permanent impacts to non -drainage ditch wetlands.
b) Per DOA guidelines, discuss whether any fill will be used.
Page 5 of 8

c) Per DOA guidelines, state what type of permit may be required, based on the
approximate amount of impact.
6. Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Heritage Areas:
a) Per DOA guidelines, discuss whether the proposed project will have operational impact
on the SNHAs or recreational areas.
7. Noise Levels:
a) Per DOA guidelines, describe the distance at which increased noise levels will be heard.
b) Per DOA guidelines, describe when operational impact from the Creswell WWTP will
be heard.
8. Surface and Groundwater Resources:
a) Per DOA guidelines, discuss the direct construction and operational impacts on surface
water resources related to the project.
b) Per DOA guidelines, describe how the proposed project will impact impervious surfaces.
c) Per DOA guidelines, describe how the project will impact stormwater runoff.
d) Per DOA guidelines, discuss how the project will impact sedimentation, etc. during the
construction and operation of the project.
e) Per DOA guidelines, discuss how the project will impact groundwater quality and
quantity.
9. Wildlife and Natural Resources:
a) Per DOA guidelines, discuss whether surrounding areas provide similar habitat so that
wildlife may move to these new areas.
b) The first paragraph of this section duplicates the Forest Resources paragraph on Page 11.
Please modify this paragraph to specifically speak to natural vegetation, and focus on the
habitat of the T&E species, discussed on Pages 8 and 9.
c) In the third paragraph, describe whether the habitat for the T&E species will be
impacted.
d) Discuss whether any habitat for aquatic T&E species will be impacted.
10. Introduction of Toxic Substances:
a) Per DOA guidelines, discuss any regulations that are required to be followed.
Page 6 of 8

VII. Section F - Mitigative Measures
1. When discussing ordinances, cite where the regulation comes from and, then, either
provide a copy in the appendix or append it by reference, and include the reference in
the References section.
2. Soils:
a) Discuss the fact that Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans will be included in
the contract documents.
3. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands:
a) Please discuss whether Tyrell County has any mechanism such as a land use plan to
protect prime farmlands.
4. Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas:
a) Discuss whether Tyrrell County has any zoning or land use plans in place to protect
the SNHAs and recreational areas within the county that could potentially be
impacted by the project.
5. Air Quality:
a) In the first paragraph, provide more detail about the odor control measures that will
be incorporated into the project design.
b) In the second paragraph, provide more detail such as a transportation plan or
another type of plan, in place, to govern development and traffic increases.
6. Noise Levels:
a) In the first paragraph, be more specific as to when project construction in
residential areas will occur. Describe both the hours and the days of the week.
b) In the third sentence of the second paragraph, discuss whether there are land use
plans that would govern buffers, noise barriers, etc.
7. Surface and Groundwater Resources:
a) In the first paragraph, give some examples of BMPs.
b) The last sentence of the last paragraph states, "... must be approved by the plant and
built to DENR standards to minimize infiltration and exfiltration." Explain why the
plant and not the Utilities Department would have this authority.
Page 7 of 8

8. Forest Resources:
a) Describe any mitigative measures that will protect forest resources from SCI.
9. Shellfish, Fish, and Their Habitats:
a) Describe mitigative measures that will be in place during construction to protect
shellfish, fish, and their habitats from erosion.
10. Wildlife and Natural Vegetation:
a) Describe any mitigative measures that will be in place to protect T&E species from SCI.
11. Introduction of Toxic Substances:
a) Update, as this paragraph is not consistent with what is stated in the impacts section.
Page 8 of 8

kj((vt,frk Co4e
friG
I ass
CDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jennifer Haynie
Construction Grants and Loans
FROM: Melba McGee V
Project Review Coordinator
RE:
#1420 Long Range Wastewater Study and
Plan Prepared for the Town of Creswell,
and Collection System and Water Supply
Washington and Tyrrell Counties
DATE: February 22, 200B
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
RECEIVED
FEB 13 2008
4Mh7 r r UCTO1 Mai
LOAN SECTC44
Capital Improvements
Wastewater Treatment
Line Improvements in
The referenced project has been circulated among our internal
divisions.
The attached comments will need to be addressed and acknowledged in
the environmental document prior to State Clearinghouse review. A
memorandum should be provided to me after the applicant has satisfied
agency concerns and appropriate changes have been made
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
An Equal opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled \ 10 % Post Consumer Paper
One
NorthCarolina
Naturally

FEt;
Cameo �x ^r� to I
^^•��•••II Y
tLN
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission El
TO:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
FROM: Maria T. Dunn, Northeast Coastal Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 19, 2008
SUBJECT: Comments on Environmental Assessment for Wastewater Treatment and
Collection System and Water Supply Line Improvements, Washington and
Tyrrell Counties, North Carolina.
OLIA No. 1420
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Commission) reviewed the
environmental assessment (EA) with regard to impacts of the project on fish and wildlife resources. Our
comments are provided in accordance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. t 13A-I et
seq., as amended; I NCAC-25), provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and Coastal Area Management Act (G.S. 113A-100 through 113A-128).
The applicant proposes to construct a low pressure septic tank effluent pump (STEP) system to
treat area wastewater and send the waste to the Town of Creswell's membrane bioreactor (MBR) system.
Implementing this design would require the Creswell wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to upgrade and
expand its permitted capacity. An existing NPDES permit exists for the Creswell WWTP and it has been
stated by the NC Division of Water Quality that an expansion and upgrade of the WWTP could occur
provided wastewater pollutants discharged to the Succupernong River are not increased. Placement of
sewer lines would be within highway right-of-ways and include 31 stream and wetland crossings. All
crossings would be tributaries of Bunton Creek or the Scuppernong River. Eight of these 31 crossings are
proposed to be directionally bored.
The Commission has reviewed the proposed project and does not believe the project would have
significant impacts to wildlife and aquatic resources. Regionalization of wastewater services in areas of
failing septic systems would likely improve water quality conditions. However, we request several of the
non -directionally bored crossings be directionally bored, either due to their width or connectivity to
adjacent bottom land hardwood or cypress -gum swamps. The additional directionally bored crossings
should include sites 14, 17, and 24.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this EA. If you need further assistance
or additional information, please contact me at [phone].
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
11¢had F. Easley. Governor
Luberh C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffreyl. Crow, Deputy Secretary
January 23, 2008
\IEMORANDUiAI
TO: Daniel Blaisdell
NCDENR — Division of Water Quality
Construction Grants and Loans Section
FRO\L: Peter Sa
l�. SaM4ndra
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook. Director
SUBJECT: Engineering, Report. Low Pressure Wastewater Collection System. Town of Creswell &
Scuppernong Township, Tyrrell County, ER 07-1623
Thank you for your letter of December 18, 2007, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation .Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservarion's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified ar 36 CI-R
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6 79. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Lnc:mun
)failing dddrI(.de.e Si: T,.',. Telcpiion

.r..a.m
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
January 11, 2008
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative ark Intergovernmental Affairs
THROUGH: John Sutherland, P.E
FROM: J. Wayne Howar
Water Supply Planning Section
SUBJECT: Long Range Wastewater Study and Capital Improvements Plan prepared for the Town of
Creswell
Wastewater Treatment and Collection System and Water Supply Line Improvements
Washington and Tyrrell Counties
We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment for the Town of Creswell, Washington County, and
Tyrrell County's proposed wastewater treatment plant improvements. The Division of Water Resources
(DWR) comments about the proposed project are as follows:
(1)
Washington County, Tyrrell County and the Town of Creswell submitted a 2002 Local Water
Supply Plan (LWSP) update as required by North Carolina General Statute 143-355(1). These
updates are due every five years, or more frequently as information changes. The Water Shortage
Response Plan (WSRP), a required element of the 2002 LWSP, was not submitted for the Town of
Creswell. Washington County and Tyrrell County submitted WSRPs as a part of their 2002 LWSP.
In addition to the proposed Water Conservation and Education Program, Creswell needs to submit
to the DWR a WSRP that complies with latest requirements.
Information and guidelines to aid in the development of a WSRP can be found at the following
link:
http://www.ncwater.org/Water Supply_Planning/Local_Water_Supply_Plan/learn.php
(2) Please contact Wayne Howard, 919-715-5444, or e-mail <[e-mail]> if they have
questions about the comments.
cc: Ms. Jennifer Haynie, NC Construction Grants and Loans
Bill White, Mayor, Town of Creswell
Willie Mac Carawan, Manager, Tyrrell County
Gary D. Hartong, P.E.
Linwood Peele, NCDWR
1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.ncwater.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 110 % Post Consumer Paper
NorthCarolina
Natural!!

8) Not sure if any modeling is applicable. Recommend you check with Planning.
We hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions contact Ron Berry
phone [phone] x. 531 or email [e-mail].
Sincerely yours,
Cc: Gil Vinzani
Central File
NPDF9 File
Ron Beny
NPDES Group
Page 2 of 2

of watF/i, l�
� GeI\t
202
; ;'•: - March 12, 2008
4444IK2fen Coc.%fy Ir-fC
Michael FLEasley, Govemor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Jennifer Haynie
Environmental Assessment Coordinator
Construction Grants and Loans Section
Subject: Review of Engineering Report/Environmental Assessment
By Wooten Company - February 21, 2008
Proposed Creswell Waste Water Treatment Plant Expansion
NPDES Permit NC0048861
Dear Ms. Haynie:
As requested we reviewed the Wooten Company Engineering Report for the expansion
of the Creswell Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). We have the following observations
and comments:
1) In Section A page 18 the statement "NC Division of Water Quality is willing to permit
expansion and upgrade of this facility so long as the amount of wastewater pollutants
discharged to the Scuppernong River is not increased" cannot be used to justify or to
define discharge limits. NPDES limits are expected to reflect best available technology
and pollutant limits as defined by North Carolina statutes and federal EPA laws.
Appendix 2 has a copy of the Division 2004 response to provide a portion of the
applicable Speculative Limits. The Speculative Limits still apply. However, addition
limits wlll also be imposed for example Dissolved Oxygen.
2) The existing WWTP plant operation cannot support an increase in plant loading. The
report supports this fact (Section a page 6).
3) In section A page 6 the statement "treat wastewater to secondary standards" is not
completely in context. This WWTP is allowed to have "adjusted secondary standards"
in this case the Total Suspended Solids exceeds the recognized secondary standard by
a factor of 3. Any expansion or WWTP modification disallows the adjusted secondary
standard.
4) We have no comments on the alternative analysis. Costs are acceptable.
5) The Division supports replacement of the existing treatment technology at the Creswell
WWTP with a more efficient state of the art treatment system. We also expect the
treatment plant to strife for operational and/or design optimization that reduces the
impact or stress to the Scuppernong River. Currently the Scuppernong is on the
impaired water list.
6) Not sure what the discussion about high sodium water is to convey ( Section A page
19) since dedicated irrigation water would not be softened. Do not see any impact
other than if sufficient wastewater from a softener operation is introduced in the
WWTP influent there may be issues.
7) In Appendix 1 the Town of Creswell WTP NPDES permit and support documents have
been inserted, we assume in error since they bare no relevance. The Town of Creswell
WWTP NPDES permit is NC0048861 and was recently approved for renewal in
February 2008. The report acknowledges past violations by the current WWTP.
Page 1 of 2
Division of Water Quality, Point Source Branch Telephone [phone] (The
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 FAX [phone] N7torthCarolina
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 On the Internet at h(tp://h2o.enr.state.ncus/ Natural/✓
M Equal Opponunity/Affmialve Action Employer

Normal Process Time
(statutory time limit)
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES orREQUIREMENTS
❑
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
Geophysical Exploration Permit
File surety bond ofS5,000 with ENR running to State of NC conditional that
any well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged
according to ENR rules and regulations.
10 daysN/A
❑
Application filed with ENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit
Application by letter. No standard application form.
10 days
N/A
0
State Lakes Construction Pt
Application fees based on mutt ue size is charged Must include descriptions .
drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian
property.
15-20 dayPermit&
N/A
IN
401 Water Quality Certification
N/A
60 days
(130 days)
❑
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
S250.00 fee must accompany application
55 days
(150 days)
0
CAMA Permit for MINOR development
S50.00 fee roust accompany application
22 days
(25 days)
0
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area If any monument needs to be roved or destroyed, please notify:
PLC Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611
0
Abandonment of any wells. if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
0
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if 'orphan' underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
O
Compliance with 15ANCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Storenwater Rules) is required.
45 days
(N/A)
❑
Tar Pamlico or Reuse Riparian Buffer Rules required.
* Other comments (attach additional pages as neeessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
it see oti+c.rkgJ the into - 6,;I.s-o-r)
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
❑ Asheville Regional Office
2090 US Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778
[phone]
❑ Fayetteville Regional Office
225 North Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043
[phone]
❑ Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
❑ Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
❑ Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
❑ Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
❑ Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
[phone]

State roNorth Crolina 1. r�CJ `_
Department of Environment annvd Natural Resources Reviewing Office: `1 t' 1. l 41D !ei
• INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW- PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number I4av Due Date: ( 9 -0g
Aftcr review of this project it has been determined that the ERRpermit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project to comply with North
Carolina Law, Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form. All applications, information and guidelines
relative to these plans and pernhs arc available from the same Regional Office.
Normal Process Time
(statutory time limit)
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
mom construct & operate wastewater treatment
facilities, sewn. system extensions & sewer systems
not discharging into state surface waters.
Application 90 days before begin contmrction or award of construction
contracts. On -site inspection. Post -application technical conference usual.
30 days
(90 days)
DES -permit to discharge into surface water and/or
pemdtta operate and construct wastewater t4cilitia
discharging Into stale surface waters.
Application 180 days before begin activity. On -site inspection. Pre -application
conference usual.Additionally, obmhr permit to construct wazmwoter
treatment facility -granted eRerHPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of
plans or issue of NPDES permit -whichever is later.
90-120 days
(N/A)
❑
Water Use Permit
Pre -application technical conference usually necessary
30 days
(N/A)
❑
Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
installation ofawelL
days
(15 days)
❑
Dredge and Fill Yertnit
Application copy must be served an each adjacent riparian property owner.
On -site inspection Pre -application conference usual. Filling may requite
Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal
Dredge and Fill Permit
55 days
(90 days)
❑
Permit to construct &operate Air Pollution AbatementApplication
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per IS A NCAC
(2Q.0100 t ru 2Q.0300)
must be submitted and permit received prior to
construction and operation of the source. if a permit is required in an
area without local zoning, then them are additional requirements and
timelines (2Q.0113).
90 days
❑
Fit to construct & operate Transportation Facility as
par IS A NCAC (2D.0800, 2Q.O60t)
Application must be submitted at least 90 days prior to concoction or
modification of the source.
90 ds
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
NIA
60 days
(90 days)
❑
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15 A
NCAC20.1110 (a)(1) which requires notification and
removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control
Group919-707-5950.
O
Complex Source Permit required wider 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
ce,sedimention
That Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion et
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality
Section) At least 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of $65 for the fast acre or any part of an acre. An express review option is
available with additional fees.
20 days
(30 days)
❑
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOT's approved program. Particular attention should be given to
design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment tapping devices as well as stable stammerer conveyances and outlets.
(30 days)
s
0
Mining Permit
Onasire inspection usual Surety bond filed with ENR Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affected land, Any arc mined greater
than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received
before the permit can be issued.
30 days
(60 days)
❑
North Carolina Burning permit
On -site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days
1 day
(N/A)
❑
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils
On -site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than
five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be
requested at least ten days before actual bum isplanned."
I day
❑
Oil Rcfmiog Facilities
N/A
/) days
(N/A)
(N
❑
Dam Safety Permit
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction.
certify construction is according to ENR approved plans. May also require
permit under mosquito control program. And a 404 permit from Corps of
Engineers. An inspection of site is ner+amy to verify Hazard Classification. A
minimum fee of S200.00 must accompany die application. An additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required
uoon completion.
30 days
(60 days)

o Even if the proposed project does not require a CAMA permit, the project may require DCM
consistency review. Consistency review for this project would be required if any Federal
permits are required for this project. Most likely this would be an Individual Permit from
the Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Again Please
contact DCM prior to initiating any construction.
o The study notes that this proposed project would be funded, in part, by the North Carolina
Rural Economic Development Center. Unstated in the Study is whether any of the funds to
be used are derived from Federal sources. Should any of the funding for this proposed
project come from a Federal source the funds cannot be released to the applicant until the
proposed project has undergone consistency review. In this case the `proposed project" is
the release of the Federal funds to the applicant and not the construction of the actual
facility. Should the proposed project involve the release of Federal funding, please contact
DCM concerning how to make consistency submission. Even if no Federal funding is
involved, DCM recommends that any documentation prepared on this project review this
issue in writing to give proof that this issue was reviewed and found not to be applicable.
Thank you for your consideration of the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Stephen Rynas, AICP
Federal Consistency Coordinator
cc: Doug Huggett, Division of Coastal Management
Kelly Spivey, Division of Coastal Management
Page: 2

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor James H. Gregson, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
January 4, 2008
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & intergovernmental Affairs
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Main Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-0001
SUBJECT: Long Range Wastewater Study and Capital Improvements Program for the Town of
Creswell, Washington County, North Carolina (SCH#1420, and DCM#20070132)
Dear Ms. McGee:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Long Range Wastewater Study and Capital
Improvements Plan (Study) for the Town of Creswell. The Town of Creswell and Tyrell County
are jointly investigating long-term strategies for wastewater disposal in the area. Funding for this
proposed project, in part, is to come from the North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center
through Capacity Building Grant No. 02-55-34. The document under review is a conceptual study,
not an actual development proposal. As such the comments below by the Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) are related to issues that will need to be resolved by the time the actual
development proposal is formulated.
• The proposed project will be occurring in a coastal county. Consequently, the proposed
project will need to demonstrate conformance with the relevant enforceable policies of the
State's coastal management program.
• The Study states that treated effluent will be discharged into a receiving stream'. The name
of the stream is not mentioned. However, Section 7.3 states that the Creswell Plant
discharges into the Scuppernong River. Based on this information, there is a possibility that
the proposed project may require a CAMA permit if any part of this proposed project occurs
in an AEC and qualifies as "development" under §113A-103(5) of CAMA. Prior to
initiating any construction, the applicant will need to contact DCM to evaluate this issue.
Page 31 of the Study.
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

JAN C 7303
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter -Agency Project Review Response
Project Name: Town of Creswell-WWTP
Comments provided by:
Regional Program Person
Regional Supervisor for Public Water Supply Section
Central Office progr•„tj.erson
X
n
Type of Project:
Project : _
# 1420
aunty:
Washington &
Tyrrell
Proposal to provide regional
wastewater treatment
services for portions of
eastern Washington and
Tyrrell Counties.
Name: Fred Hill ,/ elephone #: [phone] Date Rec'd: 12/28/07
Date Rev'd: 01/07/08
Program within Division of Environmental Health:
X
1
Public Water Supply
Other, Name of Program
Response (check all applicable):
No objection to project as proposed
No comment
Insufficient information to complete review
Comments attached
See comments below
x
Plan Approval and Authorization to Construct must be received from NC Public Water Supply Section
prior to construction of 2" and larger water lines and appurtenances, and Final Approval must be issued
before being placed into service.
Care must be taken during design and construction to maintain adequate separation between potable
water distribution piping and wastewater collection lines.
Contractors must be careful that heavy equipment doesn't cause undue compaction and subsequent
damage to existing potable water lines located within the public right-of-way.
Return to :
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the
Division of Environmental Health

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter -Agency Project Review Response
Project Name Town of Creswell Type of Project
Project Number
#1420
County
Washington &
Tyrrell
Proposal to provide regional
waterwater treatment services
for portions of eastern.
Washington and Tyrrell
counties.
The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)
733-2321.
❑ This project will be classified as a non -community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
❑ If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of
adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
726-6827.
❑ The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone]:
❑ The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at
[phone].
❑ The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.
sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on -site waste disposal methods,
contact the On -Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
❑ The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone].
® For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form.
Jim McRight PWSS 12/21/07
Reviewer
Section/Branch Date

MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee — Environmental Coordinator — Office of Legislative &
Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David May— Regional Aquifer Protection Supervisor— Washington 01--ti"&
SUBJECT: Town of Creswell
Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Improvements
Project No. 1420
DATE: December 28, 2007
The above referenced project was reviewed and the following comments are offered:
1. The project scope includes upgrading the existing wastewater treatment plant to
produce a higher quality effluent and increased flow. Wastewater disposal is to
continue to be performed through a surface water discharge and the existing NPDES
permit. Land application and reuse of the wastewater was not considered a viable
altemative due to soil quality in the area, economic factors, and an effluent quality that
would have elevated sodium levels, which would negatively effect receiving soils/land.
Although reuse of the wastewater is not considered feasible, in part because of sodium
levels, it is recommended that Creswell consider incorporating a mechanism (such as a
water tap) to allow for bulk distribution of treated wastewater (if reclaimed water
standards can be met). Although surface water and groundwater may be abundant in
the area, prolonged drought conditions may result in the need for other water sources.
If allowing for bulk distribution of reclaimed quality water is considered feasible, a
Non -Discharge permit shall be obtained from the Division of Water Quality.
Please contact me at 252-948-3939 should you have any questions regarding this matter.

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Saedbeck, Admiadseramr
Mid.cl F. Easley. Govemnc
Lishcth C Evans, Secremry
f effrey J. eroer. Deputy Secretary
August 28, 2007
jessi O'Neal
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc.
1221 Corporation Parkway
Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27610
°lac of Archives and Hisrory
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: Scuppernong Township Low Pressure Septic Tank Effluent Pump System, Tyrrell County, ER 07-1623
Dear Ms. O'Neal:
Thank you far your letter of July 31, 2007, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763, ext. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Pa. sue► („,.,,.
Peter Sandbeck
Looaaoa >a us.g Addrear Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blou Sarver, Rakish NC 46 L7 9Ld set.ke Canto. RAW NC27699.4617 (919)733.47431733.61 i3
RESTORATION S15 N. Blount Struck Raleigh NC: 3617 Mail Senjrc Ceara, Ralcigh NC276994617 (91%7356547j115-4001
SURVEY & PLANNING S15 N. %mai Stever. Rakish. NC 4617 Sid Series [:enter, Ra1740 NC27699 4417 ry19}779-654517154601

6.0. Exhibits
94

Table 1.0 Project Area Soils
Project Area
Map Symbol Soil Acres Percent
AaA Altavista loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slope: 81.78 4.9
Ap Arapahoe fine sandy loam, rarely flooded 1.40 0.1
Ar Argent silt loam, rarely flooded 550.50 32.8
At Augusta fine sandy loam 87.04 5.2
Cf Cape Fear loam, rarely flooded 8.08 0.5
Ch Chowan silt loam, frequently flooded 64.08 3.8
CtA Conetoe loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopeE 22.42 1.3
DgA Dogue fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 7.74 0.5
Do Dorovan muck, frequently flooded 374.31 22.3
Ds Dragston loamy fine sand 1.10 0.1
Me Muckalee loam 17.20 1.0
Pe Perquimans loam, rarely flooded 31.41 1.9
Ro Roanoke loam, rarely flooded 108.19 6.4
StB State loamy fine sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes 46.22 2.8
To Tomotley fine sandy loam, rarely flooded 89.85 5.4
Ud Udorthents, loamy 1.06 0.1
W Water 115.18 6.9
WaA Wahee loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 69.31 4.1
Total 1676.87

Table 2.0 Wetland and Stream Impacts in the Project Construction Area
Stream
Number
Name
Width
(ft)
Type of
Crossing
Pipe
Size (in)
Wetland Temporary
Impacts Impact
Permanent
Impact
Figure
#
--
--
--
--
--
CG
0.077
0.005
4.1
1
UT Scuppernong River
4
DD
3
--
--
--
4.1
2
UT Scuppernong River
2
OT
6
--
--
--
4.2
3
UT Scuppernong River
2
OT
6
--
--
--
4.2
4
UT Scuppernong River
2
OT
6
--
--
--
4.2
5
UT Scuppernong River
2
OT
6
--
--
--
4.3
6
UT Scuppernong River
8
OT
6
--
--
--
4.3
--
--
--
--
--
BH
0.076
0.009
4.3
7
UT Scuppernong River
25
DD
3
--
--
--
4.3
8
UT Scuppernong River
3
OT
3
--
--
--
4.3
9
UT Scuppernong River
30
DD
3
--
--
--
4.4
--
--
--
--
--
BH
0.031
0.008
4.4
10
UT Scuppernong River
2
OT
3
--
--
--
4.4
11
UT Scuppernong River
2
OT
3
--
--
--
4.4
--
--
--
--
--
CG
0.083
0.026
4.4
12
UT Scuppernong River
8
OT
3
--
--
--
4.5
--
--
--
--
--
CG
0.007
0.002
4.5
13
UT Scuppernong River
10
OT
4
--
--
--
4.5
14
UT Scuppernong River
20
DD
3
--
--
--
4.5
--
--
--
--
--
CG
0.035
0.014
4.6
--
--
--
--
--
CG
0.313
0.101
4.6
15
UT Scuppernong River
12
OT
4
--
--
--
4.6
16
UT Scuppernong River
15
DD
3
--
--
--
4.7
17
UT Scuppernong River
12
DD
3
--
--
--
4.7
--
--
--
--
--
BH
0.056
0.002
4.8
18
UT Scuppernong River
30
DD
3
--
--
--
4.8
19
UT Scuppernong River
5
DD
2
--
--
--
4.8
20
UT Scuppernong River
2
OT
3
BH
0.05
0.011
4.8
--
--
--
--
--
BH
0.008
0
4.8
21
UT Scuppernong River
10
OT
4
--
--
--
4.9
22
UT of Bunton Creek
20
DD
6
--
--
--
4.9
23
UT Bunton Creek
12
Crossing Removed
NA
--
--
--
-- --
BH
0.009
0
4.1
24
UT Bunton Creek
12
DD 6
--
--
--
4.1
25
UT Bunton Creek
4
OT 6
--
--
--
4.1
26
UT Bunton Creek
3
OT 6
--
--
--
4.1
27
UT Bunton Creek
25
DD 6
--
--
--
4.1
28
UT Scuppernong River
3
OT 3
--
--
--
4.3
--
--
--
-- --
BH
0.076
0.009
4.3
29
UT Scuppernong River
10
OT 3
--
--
--
4.3
30
UT Scuppernong River
8
OT 2
--
--
--
4.4
31
UT Scuppernong River
6
OT 4
--
--
--
4.11
DD=directionally drill; OT=open trench; CG=cypress-gum; BH=bottomland hardwood

PCN Impact Tables provided by The Wooten Company
Date Verification Issued: 08/28/2008
Wetland
Impact Site
Number
(indicate on
map)
Type of Impact
Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested,
marsh,
herbaceous, bog,
etc.)
Located
within 100-
year
Floodplain
(yes/no)
Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet)
Area of
Impact
(acres)
WI
Temporary
Permanent
Forested
Yes
adjacent
0.0069
None
W2*
Temporary
Permanent
Forested
Yes
adjacent
None
None
W3*
Temporary
Permanent
Forested
Yes
adjacent
None
None
W4*
Temporary
Permanent
Forested
Yes
adjacent
None
None
Total Wetland Impact (acres)
Temp: 0.0069
Perm:0
*These wetlands will be Directionally Drilled.
Stream
Impact
Number
(indicate on
map)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent?
Average
Stream
Width
Before
Impact
Impact
Length
(linear feet)
Area of
Impact
(acres)
1-3
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
2
30
0.0014
2-4
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
2
30
0.0014
3-5
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
2
20
0.0009
4-6
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
8
30
0.0055
5-8
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
3
20
0.0014
6-10
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
2
10
0.0005
7-13
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
10
10
0.0023
8-14
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
20
10
0.0046
9-16
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
3
15
0.001
10-19
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
8
10
0.0018

Stream
Impact
Number
(indicate on
map)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent?
Average
Stream
Width
Before
Impact
Impact
Length
(linear feet)
Area of
Impact
(acres)
11-20
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
2
15
0.0007
12-22
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
8
10
0.0018
13-23
UT of Bunton Creek
Utility crossing
Perennial
12
10
0.0028
14-24
UT of Bunton Creek
Utility crossing
Perennial
12
10
0.0028
15-25
UT of Bunton Creek
Utility crossing
Perennial
4
15
0.0014
16-27
UT of Bunton Creek
Utility crossing
Perennial
3
10
0.0007
17-28
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
3
15
0.001
18-30
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
8
10
0.0018
19-31
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
6
60
0.0083
20-32
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
5
25
0.0029
21-33
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
7
25
0.004
22-34
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
3
50
0.0034
23-36
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
3
30
0.0021
24-37
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
10
10
0.0023
25-40
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
3
10
0.0007
26-1 *
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
4
0
0
27-7*
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
25
0
0
28-9*
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
30
0
0
29-18*
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
30
0
0
30-46*
UT of Scuppernong
River
Utility crossing
Perennial
5
0
0
31-47*
UT of Bunton Creek
Utility crossing
Perennial
20
0
0
32-48*
UT of Bunton Creek
Utility crossing
Perennial
25
0
0
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
490
0.0575
*These streams will be Directionally Drilled.

Table 3.0 Protected Species known to occur in Washington and Tyrrell Counties based on NHP website (28 September 2010).
Protection
Status
Scientific Name
Canis rufus
Condylura cristata
Corynorhinus rafinesquii
macrotis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Common Name
MAMMALS
BIRDS
Red wolf
Star -nosed mole
Rafinesque's big -eared bat
Bald eagle
Red -cockaded woodpecker
REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS
Alligator mississippiensis
Crotalus horridus
Sistrurus miliarius
Acipenser brevirostrum
American alligator
Timber rattlesnake
Pygmy rattlesnake
FISHES
Shortnose sturgeon
MOLLUSKS & CRUSTACEANS
Anodonta implicate
Leptodea ochracea
Ligumia nasuta
Alewife floater
Tidewater mucket
Eastern pondmussel
PLANTS
Habitat
swamps, pocosins, extensive forests
wet woodlands, fields, seeps
abandoned bldgs, bridges, hollow trees near
rivers
large trees near estuaries, rivers
extensive mature pine forests, open
understory
ponds, rivers, fresh to brackish marshes
wetland forests in the Coastal Plain
pine woods, savannas, sandhills
estuaries and large rivers
USGS
NC US County Quad
CW; CSE;
SR E Both LP; C
SC Wash none
T Both C
T both LP; C
E E both CSE
T T both CW
SC both none
SC Tyrrell none
E E both CW; LP
Chowan, Meherrin, lower Roanoke, and Pee
Dee rivers T Wash none
freshwater often with a tidal influence T Wash none
slow -moving freshwater streams, ponds, lakes T Wash none
Lilaeopsis carolinensis
Utricularia resupinata
Carolina grasswort
Northeastern bladderwort
Status: E= endangered; T= threatened; SC= special concern
tidal freshwater marshes
Shallow to deep waters; wet lake and pond
shores where sandy or mucky
Wash
Wash
Quads: CW=Columbia West; CSE=Creswell SE; LP=Leonards Point; C=Creswell
LP

Table 4.0 NC-DAQ 2006-2009 Air Quality Monitoring Data and Ambient Standards in the North Carolina Coastal Plain
Air Pollutant
Total Suspended Particulates
(TSP = 0 to 45 microns)
Particulate Matter, PM10
(0.0 to 10.0 microns)
Particulate Matter, PM2.5
(0.0 to 2.5 microns)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Number of
Samples/Site
N.C. Air Quality Standard
(and Period of Average)
60/a geom. mean 75 ug/m3
2nd maximum 150 ug/m3
8107/b
average arith. mean 50 ug/m3
ave. 99th percentile 150 ug/m3
117/c average arith. mean 15 ug/m3
ave. 98th percentile 65 ug/m3
4347/d
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 466/a
arithmetic. mean 0.053 ppm
annual arith. mean
24-hr 2nd maximum
3-hr 2nd maximum
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 4130/e 8-hr. 2nd maximum
1-hr. 2nd maximum
Ozone (03)
214/b 1-hr. exp 2nd max
213/b 8-hr mean 4th max
0.03 ppm
0.14 ppm
0.5 ppm
9 ppm
35 ppm
0.12 ppm
0.08 ppm
Site a = 37-117-0001: 1210 Hayes Street, Jamesville, Martin County (TSS 2006; SO2 2009)
Site b = 37-065-0099: 7589 NC Hwy 33-NW, Leggett, Edgecombe County (PM 10 2007; 03 2009)
Site c = 37-065-0004: 900 Springfield Road, Rocky Mount, Edgecombe County (2009)
Site d = 37-067-0022: 1300 Blk. Hattie Avenue, Winston-Salem, Forsyth County (2009)
Site e=37-183-0014: 3801 Spring Forest Rd., Raleigh, Wake County (2009)
Statistic Max. Value
Recorded Recorded
20.4
43.0 46.0 (24-hr)
12.7
26.7 14.0 (24-hr)
8.6
17.0 20.0 (24-hr)
0.013 0.058 (1-hr)
0.001
0.002 0.003 (24-hr)
0.006 0.006 (3-hr)
1.3 1.4 (8-hr)
2.1 2.7 (1-hr)
0.074 0.081 (1-hr)
0.068 0.071 (8-hr)

Figure 1.0 Project Location. Town of Cres:rell Wastewater
Treatment and Collection System and Watr Supply Line
Improvements. Washington and Tyrrell Conties, North Carolina.
B U L L
Sewerlines r
Project Areas ; 2" Forcemain 4' —
3" Forcemain 0 WVUfP
4" Forcemain 1 Service Areas I
1
6" Forcemain Pump station
8" Forcemain
Waterline N°s
Effluent line ;
0.5 1 2 I�
Miles
3GU'PP Elj'NON'G
met Bank
&
Ydd
Orr d
Washington
County
Albemarle Sound
Tyrrell
County

Figure 2.0. Soils in the Project Area (Tyrrell and Washington Counties). Low Pressure --
Town of Creswell WastewaterTreatment and Collection System and Water Supply
Line Improvements.Washington and Tyrrell Counties, North Carolina.
/.1
RJG&A
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
800107-0a89 www.RJGAcamlina.com
i441
Bull Bay
■
0
1 2
Miles
Scuppernon
er
Scaperhon � J
Soil Types
Altavista loamy fine sand
Arapahoe fine sandy loam
Argent silt loam
Augusta fine sandy loam
Cape Fear loam
Chowan silt loam
Conetoe loamy fine sand
Dogue fine sandy loam
Dorovan muck
Dorovan mucky silt loam
Sewer lines
WWTP
Dragston loamy fine sand
Muckalee loam
Perquimans loam
Roanoke loam
State loamy fine sand
Tomotley fine sandy loam
Udorthents, loamy
Wahee fine sandy loam
Wahee loam
'Rah.

Figure 3.0. FEMA Floodplain. Town of Creswell Wastewater
Treatment and Collection System and Water Supply Line
Improvements. Washington and Tyrrell Counties, North Carolina.
100-Year Floodplain
500-Year Floodplain
0 Proposed pump stations
Proposed Sewerlines
n Proposed WWTP site
0 0.5 1 2
1 Mil

Figure 3.1. FEMA Floodplains at Pump Station and WWTP locations.
Town of Creswell Wastewater Treatment and Collection System and Water
Supply Line Improvements. Washington and Tyrrell Counties, North Carolina.
100-Year Floodplain
500-Year Floodplain
0
500
Proposed Pump Station
Proposed Sewerlines
1,000
I —I I— I I— 1
Feet

Figure 4.9
Figure 4.0. Wetland Habitats and Stream Crossings. Town of Creswell
Wastewater Treatment and Collection System and Water Supply Line
Improvements. Washington and Tyrrell Counties, North Carolina.
Figure 4.8
Scuppernong River
Figure 4.7
Scuppernong River
Proposed Sewerlines
Stream Crossings
Estimated Wetlands
0 2,000 4,000 8,000
RJG&A
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
800-407-0889 www.RJGAcarolina.com
Feet
ter. ..:.

Figure 4.1. Wetland Habitats and Stream Crossings.
Town of Creswell Wastewater Treatment and Collection
System and Water Supply Line Improvements.
Washington and Tyrrell Counties, North Carolina.
Proposed Sewerlines
Stream Crossings
WWTP Site
Estimated Wetlands
Type
Cypress -Gum Swamp
Bottomland Hardwood
Potential Wetland Impacts in Acres
Temporary Impacts, Permanent Impacts]
0
375
750
1,500
u
Feet

Figure 4.2. Wetland Habitats and Stream Crossings.
Town of Creswell Wastewater Treatment and Collection
System and Water Supply Line Improvements.
Washington and Tyrrell Counties, North Carolina.
zz
77
7777
7777
77
77
0
Proposed Sewerlines
Stream Crossings
Estimated Wetlands
Type
375
Cypress -Gum Swamp
Bottomland Hardwood
750
JG&A
NVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
00-407-0889 NINNY . RJGAGarollna.wm
1,500
Feet
N

Figure 4.3. Wetland Habitats and Stream Crossings.
Town of Creswell Wastewater Treatment and Collection
System and Water Supply Line Improvements.
Washington and Tyrrell Counties, North Carolina.
Proposed Sewerlines
Stream Crossings
Estimated Wetlands
Type
Cypress -Gum Swamp
Bottomland Hardwood
Potential Wetland Impacts in Acres
Temporary Impacts, Permanent Impacts
RJ G &A
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
800-407-0889 www. RJGAcarollna corn

Figure 4.4. Wetland Habitats and Stream Crossings.
Town of Creswell Wastewater Treatment and Collection
System and Water Supply Line Improvements.
Washington and Tyrrell Counties, North Carolina.
t Directionally drilled
(no impact)
r
JO-
Proposed Sewerlines
Stream Crossings
Estimated Wetlands
Type
Cypress -Gum Swamp
Bottomland Hardwood
Potential Wetland Impacts in Acres
Temporary Impacts, Permanent Impacts
0 340 680
1,360
RJG&A
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
800-407-0889 www.RJGAcamfma.wm
Feet

Figure 4.5. Wetland Habitats and Stream Crossings.
Town of Creswell Wastewater Treatment and Collection
System and Water Supply Line Improvements.
Washington and Tyrrell Counties, North Carolina.
Directionally drilled
(no impact)
Proposed Sewerlines
Stream Crossings
Estimated Wetlands
Type
Cypress -Gum Swamp
Bottomland Hardwood
Potential Wetland Impacts in Acres
Temporary Impacts, Permanent Impacts
375 750 1,500
Feet
RJG&A
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
800-407-0889 www.RJGAcarolina.com

Figure 4.6. Wetland Habitats and Stream Crossings.
Town of Creswell Wastewater Treatment and Collection
System and Water Supply Line Improvements.
Washington and Tyrrell Counties, North Carolina.
Proposed Sewerlines
Stream Crossings
Cypress -Gum Swamp
Bottomland Hardwood
Potential Wetland Impacts in Acres
Temporary Impacts, Permanent Impacts
375
750
RJG&A
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
800-407-0889 www. RJGAcarolma com
1,500
Feet �\\1
N

Figure 4.7. Wetland Habitats and Stream Crossings.
Town of Creswell Wastewater Treatment and Collection
System and Water Supply Line Improvements.
Washington and Tyrrell Counties, North Carolina.
Directionally drilled
(no impact)
Proposed Sewerlines
Stream Crossings
Estimated Wetlands
Type
Cypress -Gum Swamp
Bottomland Hardwood
Potential Wetland Impacts in Acres
Temporary Impacts, Permanent Impacts
450 900 1,800
RJ G &A
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
800-407-0889 www.RJGAcarollna.cor

0.050, 0.011
Proposed Sewerlines
Stream Crossings
Estimated Wetlands
Type
Cypress -Gum Swamp
Bottomland Hardwood
Potential Wetland Impacts in Acres
Temporary Impacts, Permanent Impacts
445 890
RJ G &A
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
800-407-0889 www. RJGAcarolina com
1,780
Figure 4.8. Wetland Habitats and Stream Crossings.
Town of Creswell Wastewater Treatment and Collection
System and Water Supply Line Improvements.
Washington and Tyrrell Counties, North Carolina.
0.008, 0

Figure 4.9. Wetland Habitats and Stream Crossings.
Town of Creswell Wastewater Treatment and Collection
System and Water Supply Line Improvements.
Washington and Tyrrell Counties, North Carolina.
Directionally drilled
(no impact)
Proposed Sewerlines
Stream Crossings
Estimated Wetlands
Type
Cypress -Gum Swamp
Bottomland Hardwood
Potential Wetland Impacts in Acres
Temporary Impacts, Permanent Impacts
435 870 1,740
Fee
RJ G &A
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
800-407-0889 NAM RJGAcamllina.com

Figure 4.10. Wetland Habitats and Stream Crossings.
Town of Creswell Wastewater Treatment and Collection
System and Water Supply Line Improvements.
Washington and Tyrrell Counties, North Carolina.
Directionally drilled
(no impact)
0.009, 0
Directionally drilled
(no impact
Proposed Sewerlines
Stream Crossings
Estimated Wetlands
Type
Cypress -Gum Swamp
Bottomland Hardwood
Potential Wetland Impacts in Acres
Temporary Impacts, Permanent Impacts
425 850
RJ G &A
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
800-407-0889 www. RJGAcarollna corn

Figure 4.11. Wetland Habitats and Stream Crossings.
Town of Creswell Wastewater Treatment and Collection
System and Water Supply Line Improvements.
Washington and Tyrrell Counties, North Carolina.
Proposed Sewerlines
Proposed Waterlines
Stream Crossings
Estimated Wetlands
Type
Cypress -Gum Swamp
Bottomland Hardwood
375 750
NVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
00-407-0889 wum. RJGAcar8191amm

Figure 5.0. Surface Water Classification. Town of
Creswell Wastewater Treatment and Collection System
and Water Supply Line Improvements. Washington
and Tyrrell Counties, North Carolina.
eek
Dee
NVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
00-407-0889 vww.RJGAcarolina.com
Surface Water Classifications
c sw Sc
SB Unnamed Tributaries
Sewer Lines
ALBEMARLE SOUND
II( r$lv%i
Scuppernong River
WWTP
Service Districts
3,000 6,000
12,000
Feet

Figure 6.0. Recreational Areas, State Natural Heritage Areas, and Protected Species.
Town of Creswell Wastewater Treatment and Collection System and Water Supply Line
Improvements. Washington and Tyrrell Counties, North Carolina.
0 5,000
10,000
Feet
RJG&A
Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
WRC Scuppernong River Access Area
Cypress --gum swamp (blackwater subtype)
Nonriverine swamp forest
Peatland atlantic white cedar forest
70•0\
Tidal cypress --gum swamp
Creswell Service Districts

State and Federal Permits Required
• NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) review and concurrence with a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) is required.
• Non -discharge Permit from DWQ PERCs Unit is required for construction of
wastewater collection and pumping facilities.
• NPDES Permit from DWQ NPDES Unit is required for construction of wastewater
treatment facilities.
NPDES Stormwater Permit from DWQ Water Quality Section is required for
stormwater discharge from industrial facilities, including wastewater treatment
facilities.
N.C. Stormwater Permit from DWQ Water Quality Section is required for land
disturbance greater than one acre in CAMA counties, and for any amount of land
disturbance within one mile upstream of HQW waters.
• An Air Emissions Permit from DAQ may be required for emergency back-up
generators at pump stations, depending on fuel type and power rating.
• An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan must be approved by the DENR
Wilmington Regional Office, Land Quality Supervisor.
• Removal of abandoned underground storage tanks, if any, requires notification to the
DENR Wilmington Regional Office.
• Abandonment of wells, if any, must be in accordance with 15A NCAC 2C.0100.
• Any open burning associated with subject proposal must be in compliance with 15
A NCAC 2D.1900.
• NCDCM Consistency Review and CAMA permit if any part of this proposed
project occurs in an AEC and qualifies as "development" under 113A-103(5) of
CAMA.
• NC DWR a Water Shortage Response Plan

CAMA / ❑ DREDGE & FILL
GENERAL PERMIT
New ❑Modification ❑Complete Reissue ❑Partial Reissue
As authorized by the State of North Carolina, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and the Coastal Resources Commission in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 1 5A NCAC
Applicant Name T ` - .-tE !.L- € w
Address p tn. Sox /4-49
City (7 State/4e ZIP 2 7 'z <
Phone #(2Sz)1q(,-l'S-7I Fax#( )
Authorized Agent --rti-e
Affected
AEC(s):
❑ CW
❑ OEA
❑ PWS:
ORW: yes
❑ EW )PTA ❑ ES )PTS
❑HHF ❑IH ❑UBA/❑N/A
❑ FC:
PNA yes no Crit.Hab. yes / no
N° 54764 -$
Previous permit # I.j j Pt
Date previous permit issued r.1 1A
Project Location:
Rules attached.
County Loc)r.11-1
Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s) pr r
S'1z III S
Subdivision
City( 5wE L- /Loc.v�-1,15r.9
Phone # ( )
ZIP Z79 2 z -
River Basin aapy }fit
Adj. Wtr. Body t.i i& ...k
natyman /unkn)
Closest Maj. Wtr. Body SLr, P?atl-lem-1. t 1 �, v
Activity (- A 'VC-- 42"-4-G 6A-1+.)
Type of Project/ 12-067c .c --sa 1AfT t.>✓ 34
5 u to 0LA 4, IDtu.e-zst-43A-z ti,Z,t.u— 'ro,i._ A Vi's--.c,„L. Per .74o bil.1 AQ.(Scale: 1.4074Z )
Pier (dock) length - f-b'S
Platform(s)
Finger pier(s)
Groin length
number
Bulkhead/ Riprap length —
avg distance offshore -.
,Q.1/"LA
max distance offshore —
____';''Cr----
75
,.../
1
Basin, channel
i
cubic yards
Boat
ramp
Boathouse/ Boatlift
Beach Bulldozing .,
Other jam( ertc sjp -tr. 'Rj^,D ;_
3 r' 'Pv c- 4Y-t mA+t�
'
Shoreline Length 2-4'0
SAV: not sure no
yes
Sandbags: not sure yes no
Moratorium: n/a yes
Photos: yes no
Waiver Attached: no
yes
A building permit may be required by: Ty iZ t.+_ C...bvrl t c , See note on back regarding River Basin rules.
Notes/ Special Conditions A^T71416-v7 17ei-t t'S c_ Aarrt o $ L -1 #4 • 1 (0 o (iD )ap5
? i'T . t4G00,L)-4a(,1 5 73 N /35 K 37 is/.e. D. L- -'.� . .:!-.32 T ®-sF-sr--
i -+e A Cam
Age gt or Applicant Printed Name
Signature Please read compliance statement on back of permit
9d c 4J oco " t7 23zS
Check #
e itOffi • - ' Signature
2 5 Oc-zc-n Z %
Issuing Date
Age & 20 / /
Expiration Date
Application Fee(s)
--71112126-La. Cr, owy
Local Planningf urisdiction
Rover File Name

Statement of Compliance and Consistency
This permit is subject to compliance with this application, site drawing and attached general and specific conditions. Any
violation of these terms may subject the permittee to a fine or criminal or civil action; and may cause the permit to become
null and void.
This permit must be on the project site and accessible to the permit officer when the project is inspected for compliance. The
applicant certifies by signing this permit that I) prior to undertaking any activities authorized by this permit, the applicant will
confer with appropriate local authorities to confirm that this project is consistent with the local land use plan and all local
ordinances, and 2) a written statement or certified mail return receipt has been obtained from the adjacent riparian
landowner(s) .
The State of North Carolina and the Division of Coastal Management, in issuing this permit under the best available
information and belief, certify that this project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
River Basin Rules Applicable To Your Project:
Tar - Pamlico River Basin Buffer Rules n Other:
Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules
I
II
If indicated on front of permit, your project is subject to the Environmental Management Commission's Buffer Rules for the
River Basin checked above due to its location within that River Basin. These buffer rules are enforced by the NC Division of
Water Quality. Contact the Division of Water Quality at the Washington Regional Office (252-946-648 I ) or the Wilmington
Regional Office (9I 0-796-72I 5) for more information on how to comply with these buffer rules.
Division of Coastal Management Offices
Raleigh Office
Mailing Address:
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
Location:
2728 Capital Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-733-2293
Fax: [phone]
Morehead City Headquarters
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808/ I-888-4RCOAST
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Carteret, Craven, Onslow -above
New River Inlet- and Pamlico Counties)
Elizabeth City District
1367 U.S. 17 South
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
252-264-390I
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Camden, Chowan, Currituck,
Dare, Gates, Pasquotank and Perquimans
Counties)
Washington District
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
252-946-648I
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Beaufort, Bertie, Hertford, Hyde,
Tyrrell and Washington Counties)
Wilmington District
I27 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
910-796-7215
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Brunswick, New Hanover,
Onslow -below New River Inlet- and
Pender Counties)
Revised 08/09/06

SECTION .1600 - GENERAL PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AERIAL AND SUBAQUEOUS
UTILITY LINES WITH ATTENDANT STRUCTURES IN COASTAL WETLANDS: ESTUARINE WATERS:
PUBLIC TRUST WATERS AND ESTUARINE SHORELINES
15A NCAC 07H .1601 PURPOSE
A permit under this Section shall allow for the installation of utility lines both aerially and subaqueously in the coastal
wetland, estuarine water, public trust areas and estuarine and public trust shoreline AECs according to the authority provided
in Subchapter 7J .1100 and according rules in this Section. This general permit shall not apply to the ocean hazard AECs.
History Note: Authority G.S. 113-229(cl); 113A-107(a)(b); 113A-113(b); 113A-118.1;
Eff March 1, 1985:
Amended Eff. August 1, 2000; August 1, 1998.
15A NCAC 07H .1602 APPROVAL PROCEDURES
(a) The applicant must contact the Division of Coastal Management and complete an application form requesting approval for
development. The applicant shall provide information on site location, dimensions of the project area, and his name and
address.
(b) The applicant must provide:
(1) confirmation that a written statement has been obtained signed by the adjacent riparian property owners
indicating that they have no objections to the proposed work; or
(2) confirmation that the adjacent riparian property owners have been notified by certified mail of the proposed
work. Such notice should instruct adjacent property owners to provide any comments on the proposed
development in writing for consideration by permitting officials to the Division of Coastal Management
within ten days of receipt of the notice, and, indicate that no response will be interpreted as no objection.
DCM staff will review all comments and determine, based on their relevance to the potential impacts of the
proposed project, if the proposed project can be approved by a General Permit. If DCM staff finds that the
comments are worthy of more in-depth review, the applicant will be notified that he must submit an
application for a major development permit.
(c) No work shall begin until an on -site meeting is held with the applicant and appropriate Division of Coastal Management
representative so that the utility line alignment can be appropriately marked. Written authorization to proceed with the
proposed development will be issued during this visit. Construction on the utility line must begin within twelve months of
this visit or the general authorization expires.
History Note: Authority G.S. 113A-107(a)(b); 113A-113(b); 113A-118.1; 113A-229(c1);
Eff. March 1, 1985;
Amended Eff. January 1, 1990.
15A NCAC 07H .1603 PERMIT FEE
The applicant shall pay a permit fee of four hundred dollars ($400.00) by check or money order payable to the Department.
History Note: Authority G.S. 113-229(cl); 113A-107; 113A-113(b); 113A-118.1; 113A-119; 113A-119.1;
Eff. March 1, 1985;
Amended Eff September 1, 2006; August 1, 2000; March 1, 1991.
15A NCAC 07H .1604 GENERAL CONDITIONS
(a) Utility lines for the purpose of this general permit or any pipes or pipelines for the transportation of potable water,
domestic sanitary sewage, natural gas, and any cable, line, or wire for the transmission, for any purpose, of electrical energy,
telephone and telegraph messages, and radio and television communication.
(b) There must be no resultant change in preconstruction bottom contours. Authorized fill includes only that necessary to
backfill or bed the utility line. Any excess material must be removed to an upland disposal area.
(c) The utility line crossing will not adversely affect a public water supply intake.

(d) The utility line route or construction method will not disrupt the movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to
the waterbody.
(e) Individuals shall allow authorized representatives of the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources to
make periodic inspections at any time necessary to ensure that the activity being performed under authority of this general
permit is in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed herein.
(f) This general permit will not be applicable to proposed construction where the Department has determined, based on an
initial review of the application, that notice and review pursuant to G.S. 113A-119 is necessary because there are unresolved
questions concerning the proposed activity=s impact on adjoining properties or on water quality; air quality; coastal wetlands;
cultural or historic sites; wildlife; fisheries resources; or public trust rights.
(g) This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any other required state, local, or federal authorization, nor, to abide by
regulations adopted by any federal or other state agency.
(h) Development carried out under this permit must be consistent with all local requirements, AEC guidelines, and local Land
Use Plans current at the time of authorization.
History Note:
Authority G.S. 113-229(c1); 113A-107(a)(b); 113A-113(b); 113A-118.1;
Eff. March 1, 1985;
Amended Eff. May 1, 1990;
RRC Objection due to ambiguity Eff. May 19, 1994;
Amended Eff August 1, 1998; July 1, 1994.
15A NCAC 07H .1605 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
Proposed utility line installations must meet each of the following specific conditions to be eligible for authorization by this
general permit:
(1) All domestic sanitary sewer fine requests must be accompanied by a statement of prior approval from the
NC Division Water Quality.
(2) All spoils which are permanently removed must be placed on a high ground disposal site and stabilized so
as not to return to waters, marsh or other wetlands.
(3) Any additional backfill material required must be clean sand or rock free of organic matter.
(4) Cuts through wetlands must be minimized.
(5) Finished grades or subaqueous or wetland crossing must be returned to preproject contours.
(6) There can be no work within any productive shellfish beds.
(7) No excavation or filling activities will be permitted between April and September 30 of any year within
any designated primary nursery area.
(8) Subaqueous lines must be placed at a depth of six feet below the project depth of federal projects. In other
areas they will be installed at a minimum depth of two feet below the bottom contour.
(9) The minimum clearance for aerial communication lines or any lines no;transmitting electricity will be 10'
above the clearance required for bridges in the vicinity.
(10) The minimum clearance for aerial electrical transmission lines shall be consistent with those established by
the US Army Corps of Engineers and US Coast Guard.
(11) The installation of a utility line on pipe bents or otherwise above the elevation of mean high or mean
ordinary water must be of sufficient height to allow for traditional navigation in the water body.
Additionally the utility line must not interfere with the waterflow of normal or flood waters.
(12) Natural gas lines must not exceed 11 inches in diameter.
History Note:
Authority G.S. 113-229(cl); 113A-107(a)(b); 113A-113(b); 113A-118.1;
Eff. March 1, 1985;
Amended Eff August 1, 1998.

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
STANDARD FLOOD HAZARD DETERMINATION
See the Attached
Instructions
O.M.B. No. 3067-0264
Expires April 30, 1998
SECTION I LOAN INFORMATION
1. LENDER NAME AND ADDRESS
USDA - Rural Development
Pitt County Office Complex
403 Government Circle, Suite 3
Greenville, NC 27834
2. COLLATERAL(auliding/Mobilo Homo/PononalPmpody PROPERTY ADDRESS
(Legal Description may be attochod)
4H - Pump Station
DB 192 P6 284
Off Albemarle Church Road
T01701010 - Map ID #
(no street address available)
3. LENDER ID. NO.
USDA-RD
4. LOAN IDENTIFIER
5. AMOUNT OF FLOOD INSURANCE REQUIRED
s
SECTION II
A. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM NFIP) COMMUNITY JURISDICTION
NFIP Community
Name
County(ies)
State
NFIP Community
Number
Tyrrell County
Tyrrell
NC
370232
B. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) DATA AFFECTING BUILDING/MOBILE
HOME
NFIP Map Number or Community Panel Number
(Community name, if not the same as "A")
NFIP Map Panel Effective/
Revised Date
LOMA/LOMR
FLOOD ZONE
No NFIP
Map
370232-7880K
1/16/2004
AE
— —
Yes Date
C. FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE AVAILABILITY (Check all that apply)
is available (community particpates in NFIP)
is not available because community is not in the NFIP
is in a Coastal Barrier Resources Area (CBRA), Federal
date:
® Regula Program ❑ Emergency program of NFIP
Flood insurance may not be available.
%i Federal Flood Insurance
❑ Federal Flood Insurance
❑ Building/Mobile Home
CBRA designation
D. DETERMINATION
IS BUILDING/MOBILE HOME IN SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA
(ZONES BEGINNING WITH LETTERS "A" OR "V")? al YES ❑ NO
If yes, flood insurance is required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.
If no, flood insurance is not required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.
E. COMMENTS (Optional)
Site will be raised above AE flood elevation.
This determination is based on examining the NFIP map, any Federal Emergency Management Agency revisions to it, and any other
information needed to locate the building/mobile home on the NFIP map.
F. PREPARER'S INFORMATION
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER (if other than Lender)
The Wooten Company
120 N. Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
DATE OF DETERMINATION
8/3/2011
FEMA Form 81-93, JUN 95
This form may be locally reproduced

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
STANDARD FLOOD HAZARD DETERMINATION
See the Attached
Instructions
O.M.B. No. 3067-0264
Expires April 30, 1998
SECTION I LOAN INFORMATION
1. LENDER NAME AND ADDRESS
USDA - Rural Development
Pitt County Office Complex
403 Government Circle, Suite 3
Greenville, NC 27834
2 COLLATERAL
(sadmyn1abre Homo/Pomona; Pmnony PROPERTY ADDRESS
may be attached)
Road Pump Station
P6 764
94 N
NC 27925
(L°9al0asupllon
Travis School
DB 187
4280 Hwy.
Columbia,
3. LENDER ID. NO.
USDA-RD
4. LOAN IDENTIFIER
5. AMOUNT OF FLOOD INSURANCE REQUIRED
$
SECTION II
A. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) COMMUNITY JURISDICTION
NFIP Community
Name
County(ies)
State
NFIP Community
Number
Tyrrell County
Tyrrell
NC
370232
B. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) DATA AFFECTING BUILDING/MOBILE
HOME
NFIP Map Number or Community Panel Number
(Community name, if not the same as "A")
NFIP Map Panel Effective/
Revised Date
LOMA/LOMR
FLOOD ZONE
No NFIP
Map
370232-788K
9/19/2007
—
X
—
Yes Date
C. FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE AVAILABILITY (Check all that apply)
® Federal Flood Insurance
❑ Federal Flood Insurance
❑ Building/Mobile Home
CBRA designation
is available (communityparticpetes in NFIP)
is not available because community is not in the NFIP
is in a Coastal Barrier Resources Area (CBRA), Federal
date:
© Regula
Program ❑ Emergency program of NFIP
may not be available.
Flood insurance
D. DETERMINATION
IS BUILDING/MOBILE HOME IN SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA
(ZONES BEGINNING WITH LETTERS "A" OR "V")? ❑ YES ® NO
If yes, flood insurance is required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.
If no, flood insurance is not required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.
E. COMMENTS (Optional)
This determination is based on examining the NFIP map, any Federal Emergency Management Agency revisions to it, and any other
information needed to locate the building/mobile home on the NFIP map.
F. PREPARER'S INFORMATION
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER (if other than Lender)
The Wooten Company
120 N. Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
DATE OF DETERMINATION
8/3/2011
FEMA Form 81-93, JUN 95
This form may be locally reproduced

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
STANDARD FLOOD HAZARD DETERMINATION
See the Attached
Instructions
O.M.B. No. 3067-0264
Expires April 30, 1998
SECTION I LOAN INFORMATION
1. LENDER NAME AND ADDRESS
USDA - Rural Development
Pitt County Office
403 Government
Greenville, NC
3
1. COLLATERAL (9ulldingimoblio HomoPononolPropony) PROPERTY ADDRESS
(Legal Description may be attached)
Deed .Book No. 284
Page No. 36
NC PIN - 7777197258
Parcel - 3602
Complex
Circle, Suite
27834
3. LENDER ID. NO.
USDA-RD
4. LOAN IDENTIFIER
5. AMOUNT OF FLOOD INSURANCE REQUIRED
$
SECTION II
A. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
(NFIP) COMMUNITY JURISDICTION
NFIP Community
Name
County(ies)
State
NFIP Community
Number
Town of Creswell
Washington
NC
370443
B. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) DATA AFFECTING BUILDING/MOBILE
HOME
NFIP Map Number or Community Panel Number
(Community name, if not the same as "A")
NFIP Map Panel Effective/
Revised Date
LOMA/LOMR
FLOOD ZONE
No NFIP
Map
3720777700L
3/18/2008
AE
Yes Date
C. FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE AVAILABILITY (Check all that apply)
® Federal Flood Insurance
is available (communityparticpate in NFIP)
is not available because communi y is not in the NFIP
in a Coastal Barrier Resources Area (CBRA), Federal
date:
El Regula
Flood insurance
Program III
Emergency program
of NFIP
may not be available.
1111 Federal Flood Insurance
❑ Building/Mobile Home is
CBRA designation
D. DETERMINATION
IS BUILDING/MOBILE HOME IN SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA
(ZONES BEGINNING WITH LETTERS "A" OR "V")? f� YES ❑ NO
If yes, flood insurance is required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.
If no, flood insurance is not required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.
E. COMMENTS (Optional)
Site to be raised above AE flood elevation.
This determination is based on examining the NFIP map, any Federal Emergency Management Agency revisions to it, and any other
information needed to locate the building/mobile home on the NFIP map.
F. PREPARER'S INFORMATION
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER (if other than Lender)
The Wooten Company
120 N. Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
DATE OF DETERMINATION
8/3/2011
FEMA Form 81.93, JUN 95
This form may be locally reproduced

7.0. List of Preparers
Robert J. Goldstein, Ph.D. is the project manager. Dr. Goldstein established RJG&A in 1985,
and has managed all environmental studies, negotiations and implementation of mitigation plans.
He has provided expert witness testimony and he has prepared environmental documents
assessing impacts of construction projects on inland and coastal waters and wetlands, fisheries,
and sea turtles as mandated by Sections 316, 401, and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and by the
federal Endangered Species Act. He has conducted Phase I environmental site assessment
(hazardous waste) investigations subject to RCRA, CERCLA, and the N.C. Petroleum Act, and
prepared environmental documents following Fannie Mae, RTC, and ASTM guidelines. He
served on the Habitat and Environmental Protection Advisory Panel of the South Atlantic
Fisheries Management Council as Chairman of the North Carolina delegation.
Sean P. Doig, M.Sc. is a project manager and GIS/GPS specialist at RJG&A. He is proficient in
GIS mapping, data compilation, delineation of wetlands, streams, riparian buffers, and habitats.
He has managed a number of NEPA/SEPA Environmental Assessments and contributed to
numerous others. Mr. Doig also manages collection and analysis of stream and riparian buffer
restoration vegetation and geomorphic data using the EEP protocols and leads field data
collection and analysis for all RJG&A stream, wetland, and riparian buffer restoration projects.
Christopher Hopper, B.Sc. has 13 years experience with environmental analyses. He has
conducted environmental field studies and preparing documents, mapping, mitigation plans, and
permit applications for a variety of public and private projects. Mr. Hopper has prepared dozens of
NEPA and SEPA Environmental Assessments, all of which have received Findings of No
Significant Impact. He has prepared USF&WS Biological Assessments for the bald eagle, red -
cockaded woodpecker, and over 20 federally protected species in Carteret and Craven counties.
He negotiates with State and Federal resource agencies, and local government officials and
representatives of the public to adequately and equitably mitigate for secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with economic development.
Jessi O'Neal, M.Sc. is a stream and wetland ecologist, with a particular focus on the North
Carolina coastal plain. Ms. O'Neal has years of field experience in wetland delineation, stream
assessment, and protected species surveys and has managed over 10 NEPA/SEPA
Environmental Assessments and contributed to numerous others. Additionally, she is trained in
HEC-RAS 4.0, statistical programs, and Microsoft Office. Additionally, Ms. O'Neal manages all
aspects of ecological restoration projects at RJG&A including site selections using remote
sensing, preliminary soil/ hydrologic investigations, riparian buffer design and plantings,
vegetative and geomorphologic data collection and analysis, training and supervising staff, and
authoring mitigation and monitoring reports. She is proficient in RiverMorph and ArcGIS 9.2,
and operating Total Stations, Trimble sub -meter GPS, and automatic level.
119

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A.
APPENDIX B.
APPENDIX C.
APPENDIX D.
Vegetation and Wildlife Communities in the Project Area
Protected Species Descriptions, Habitat Requirements, and Potential Impacts
Civil Rights Impact Analysis Certification
Tyrrell County Septic System Survey
120

APPENDIX A. Vegetation and Wildlife Communities in the Project Area.
Predominant plants species in these habitats are described below, based on field
observations and literature (Lee et al., 1982; Martof et al., 1980; Palmer and Braswell, 1995; Potter
et al., 1980; Schafale and Weakley, 1990; Webster et al., 1985). Other natural vegetation
communities in the service area, but not near the proposed construction areas, include bottomland
hardwood scrub/marsh. Natural community types recognized by NHP (Schafale and Weakley,
1990) are capitalized in this report to distinguish them from informal or more general descriptive
names used to identify both natural and altered habitats in the project area.
Developed areas
Developed areas, also including agricultural lands and lawns, are either unvegetated, a managed
monoculture, or dominated by non-native turf grasses and landscape plants with a few widely
spaced native trees. Agricultural lands are extensively ditched and crops include soybeans,
peanuts, corn, cotton, and potatoes. Trees in lawns include mainly loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), water
oak (Quercus nigra), and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Most of these areas were probably
upland pine and pine/oak forests prior to development.
Swamp Forest
Swamp forests in the project vicinity occur along most drainages in the service area. These areas
have a canopy dominated by bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and tupelo gums (Nyssa biflora
and N. aquatica), with some loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), and
American elm (Ulmus americana). The sparse understory may include water oak (Quercus nigra),
redbay (Persea borbonia), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), hollies (Ilex
spp.), blueberries (Vaccinium spp.), and fetterbush (Lyonia spp.). Where present, herbaceous
groundcover is rarely present in this habitat type but includes mostly grasses (Poaceae) and sedges
(Cyperaceae). NHP classifies these areas as Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp or Cypress -Gum
Swamp (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
Bottomland Forests
In the project area, bottomland hardwood forests occurred on the outer edges of swamp forests.
These areas are drier and allow for a more diverse array of species and a much more dense
understory. Dominant trees are red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
hackberry (Celtis laevigata), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus americana),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra), boxelder (Acer negundo), musclewood
(Carpinus caroliniana), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). The areas of this forest type that
are closer to the inundated swamp forest will contain these trees plus swamp blackgum (Nyssa
biflora), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), willow oak (Quercus phellos), swamp chestnut oak
(Quercus michauxii), and black walnut (Juglans cinerea). Common shrubs include spicebush
(Lindera benzoin), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), and silky
dogwood (Corpus amomum). The groundcover layer includes sedges (Carex spp.), Nepalese grass
(Microstegium vimineum), netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata), false nettle (Boehmeria
cylindrica), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), goldenrods
(Solidago spp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), rose (Rosa multiflora), and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans).
121

Pine/hardwood Mixed Forests
Although rare and fragmented, pine/oak forests occur in the project vicinity. Those in the drier areas,
have an open canopy dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and a fairly open understory
including oaks (Quercus falcata, nigra, laevis, incana, marilandica, and other spp.), black gum
(Nyssa sylvatica), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), and persimmon (Diospyros virginana).
Groundcover vegetation is generally sparse. Pine/oak forests on wetter soils have a generally
more dense pine canopy and fewer oaks. They contain many of the same species found in dry
pine/oak forests, plus pond pine (Pinus serotina), inkberry (Ilex glabra), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera),
sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia),
greenbriers (Smilax spp.), grapes (Vitis spp.), sand myrtle (Leiophyllum buxifolium), creeping
blueberry (Vaccinium crassifolium), huckleberries (Gaylussacia spp.), cane (Arundinaria gigantea),
bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), and pyxie moss (Pyxidanthera barbulata). NHP classifies these
areas as Wet Pine Flatwoods and Pond Pine Woodlands. Managed loblolly pine monocultures
occur in the service area, as well.
122

APPENDIX B. Protected Species Descriptions, Habitat Requirements, and Potential
Impacts.
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) has records of 36 rare species from Washington County,
of which 4 are federally endangered (E) or threatened (T) and 13 additional species are state
endangered, threatened, or special concern (SC). The remaining 19 species are federally
designated "species of concern" or state designated "significantly rare" or "candidate" species, and
not protected. The 17 protected species are listed with their corresponding federal and state
protection status and habitat requirements in Table 3.
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) has records of 36 rare species from Tyrrell County, of
which 4 are federally endangered (E) or threatened (T) and 5 are state endangered, threatened, or
special concern (SC). The remaining 26 species are federally designated "species of concern" or
state designated "significantly rare" or "candidate" species, and are not protected. The 9 protected
species are listed with their corresponding federal and state protection status and habitat
requirements in Table 3.
Portions of the following USGS quadrangles lie inside the service area: Creswell, Creswell
Southeast, Columbia West, and Leonard's Point.
Red Wolf (Canis rufus)
The red wolf's preferred habitats are large upland and swamp forests with thick cover.
Additionally there must be adequate food and water. In 1980, the red wolf was declared officially
extinct in the wild. In 1986, an experimental population was introduced into the Alligator River
National Wildlife Refuge, in Dare County, North Carolina. NHP indicates that there have been
red wolf sightings on all of the USGS quadrangles that overlap or are adjacent to the service
area.
No individuals were found during field surveys and given the roadside location of the proposed
line, this project should not directly affect the red wolf.
Star -nosed Mole (Condylura cristata)
Star -nosed moles occur in the mountains and Coastal Plain of North Carolina. The Coastal Plain
population occurs in wet fields, freshwater marshes, seeps, and wet woodlands (Webster et al.,
1985). Star -nosed moles construct both underground tunnels and surface runways where they
forage year-round for worms and arthropods, and spend more time above ground than do common
moles (Scalopus aquaticus).
This animal is usually detected either by trapping (not conducted for this project), accidentally
during ground disturbing activities, or when caught by domestic cats or dogs. There are no current
occurrences of the star -nosed mole in the USGS quadrangles that overlap the service area. There
is appropriate habitat for the star -nosed mole in the service area, but no individuals were found.
Since all of the proposed sewerlines are located in previously disturbed roadside, no impacts to this
species are anticipated.
Rafinesque's Big -eared Bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii)
Rafinesque's big -eared bats roost in dark corners of abandoned buildings or hollow trees in or
adjacent to large tracts of mature forest near rivers, lakes, or estuaries (Webster et al, 1985; Clark,
123

1987). They occur year-round in North Carolina, and apparently hibernate during winter. During
spring and summer, males are generally solitary, while females gather in maternity colonies.
Bats are usually captured for identification by mist netting, which was not conducted for this project.
This species is listed by NHP only on Creswell USGS quadrangle. As the project alignment is
along roadsides, and the adjacent land use is primarily agriculture, there are no hollow trees or
abandoned buildings in the vicinity of the proposed roadside construction corridors. Although
hollow trees may exist further into the swamp areas, no individuals were found and no direct
impacts to bats or their roosting sites are likely.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Bald eagles roost and nest at the tops of tall trees near the edges of large lakes, rivers, and
estuaries, and feed primarily on fish and dead animals. Bald eagles have been reported as current
on the Creswell and Leonard's Point USGS quads (NHP records). Although suitable habitat may
occur in the service areas, no suitable habitat occurs in the vicinity of the construction corridors. No
eagle was seen during the field reconnaissance and no impacts are likely.
Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis)
Least bitterns live in fresh or brackish marshes. Prefers dense emergent vegetation for nesting.
The NHP database indicates there are current records for this species in both Washington and
Tyrrell counties and in the Creswell USGS quad. Suitable habitat probably occurs in the service
areas, but since the construction corridors are primarily along roadsides, no impacts are
anticipated.
Red -cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Red -cockaded woodpeckers live in large tracts (100 acres (40.47 ha) or more) of contiguous pine
or mixed pine/hardwood forest. Cavities for nesting and roosting are constructed in live pines 60
years or older (preferably long -leaf pines), and are occupied year-round for many years. Because
cavities require a year or more to complete, each colony typically has several new cavities under
construction at all times. Old cavities may become unsuitable when a tree dies, sap flow
decreases, or encroaching understory vegetation makes the cavity vulnerable to predators and
competitors. Suitable foraging habitat contains pines at least 30 years old. Each red -cockaded
woodpecker colony (one breeding pair plus one or more offspring from previous broods) requires
foraging habitat containing at least 8,490 square feet of pine basal area, with at least 6,350 trees 10
inches dbh or larger, and within 0.5 mile of the cavity tree cluster (Henry, 1989).
NHP records indicate a current element occurrence for the Red -cockaded woodpecker on the
Creswell SE quad and has identified appropriate red -cockaded woodpecker habitat along the
Scuppernong River, just outside the service area. Given that the sewerline is entirely along
roadside, though, no direct impact is expected to the red -cockaded woodpecker. There is no
habitat for this species in the areas adjacent to the construction corridor and it is unlikely that any
roadside pines will have to be removed due to construction.
American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)
American alligators may be found in fresh to slightly brackish lakes, ponds, rivers, and marshes.
Nesting occurs in marshes or the margins of lakes or rivers. NHP records indicate there are
current sightings of this reptile on the Columbia West quad. No sightings were made during the
124

field survey and no suitable habitat was identified along the construction corridor. No direct
impact to the species is expected.
Snakes of Upland Woods (2 Species)
The two protected species of snakes (timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) and pygmy
rattlesnake (Sistrurus miliarius)) occur in mesic to dry woodlands, including mesic pine flatwoods
and pine/oak sandhi!! communities. These species are usually found in sparsely developed areas
with large tracts of dry upland habitat (Palmer and Braswell, 1995). Neither the timber snake nor
the pygmy rattlesnake has been reported in any of the USGS quads that overlap or are adjacent
to the service area (NHP records). There is limited suitable habitat in the service area and the
proposed construction corridors are roadside and do not contain suitable habitat for these
snakes. No individuals were located and no impacts to this species are expected.
Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)
Shortnose sturgeons have been reported in the Columbia West and Leonards Point quadrangles.
They are found in estuaries and large rivers and they feed on insects, crustaceans, mollusks,
worms, small fishes, and plants (Menhinick and Braswell, 1997). They migrate upriver in spring to
scatter their adhesive eggs on gravel and rocky substrata in areas of strong current. Juveniles may
remain in fresh water for a few years, whereas adults move between fresh and brackish waters.
They do not ascend small streams such as those in the construction areas. The project is unlikely
to affect these fish or their habitat.
River Mussels (3 Species)
Three protected river mussels are known from Washington County. The alewife floater (Anodonta
implicata) is found in a substrates ranging from silt to gravel in streams, rivers and pools where its
host fish, the alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus, is found. The tidewater mucket (Leptodea
ochracea) is found in fresh water, often in areas with a tidal influence. It has been typically found
in pristine rivers. The eastern pondmussel (Ligumia nasuta) is found in silty or sandy substrata in
ponds, lakes, and slow -moving areas of freshwater streams (Adams et al., 1990). No current
sightings of any of these three mussels are on record for any of the quadrangles that overlap or are
adjacent to the service area (NHP records). No suitable habitat occurs in the project construction
areas and no adverse impacts to this species are expected.
Chowanoke Crayfish (Orconectes virginiensis)
The Chowanoke crayfish is found in the Chowan River Basin and the lower Roanoke River Basin
in slow -moving streams or swamps with sand or gravel bottoms. NHP indicates that this species
is found in Washington County, however it is not found in the Pasquotank River Basin and no
impacts are anticipated.
Carolina Grasswort (Lilaeopsis carolinensis).
Carolina grasswort grows in open mud flats of tidal freshwater to slightly brackish marshes and
pools (Amoroso, 1999). It flowers from May to June, but can be located and identified from foliage
alone during other seasons. This plant has been reported as current in Washington County and
has been recently found in the Leonards Point quad (NHP records). Although tidal marshes occur in
the service area, no suitable habitat occurs in the project construction areas and no impact to this
plant is likely to occur.
125

Northeastern Bladderwort (Utricularia resupinata)
Northeastern bladderwort is a submersed aquatic plant that occurs shallow to deep waters or along
sandy or mucky lake and pond margins. The plant's flowering period is July to August. This plant
has been listed as current on the Creswell quad (NHP records). Although, appropriate habitat for
this species does exist adjacent to the roadside construction corridors, no individuals of this species
were identified during field surveys, and no impacts to this species are anticipated.
126

APPENDIX B. Protected Species Descriptions, Habitat Requirements, and Potential
Impacts
Thirty-nine rare species have been recorded from Martin County, and nine of these enjoy state
protection. None of these species is federally protected. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), tidewater mucket (Leptodea ochracea), eastern pondmussel (Ligumia nasuta),
and magnolia vine (Schisandra glabra) are North Carolina threatened. Rafinesque's big -eared
bat (coastal plain subspecies) (Corynorhinus rafinesquii macrotis), southeastern myotis (Myotis
austroriparius), eastern Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii susurrans), cerulean warbler
(Dendroica cerulea), and Chowanoke crayfish (Orconectes virginiensis) are all protected as North
Carolina Special Concern species. They are also all listed as Federal Species of Concern. The
American eel (Anguilla rostrata) has no North Carolina designation, but is a Federal Species of
Concern. The 10 protected species for Martin County are listed with their corresponding federal
and state protection status and habitat requirements in Table 3.
B.1. Rafinesque's Big -eared Bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii)
Rafinesque's big -eared bats roost in dark corners of abandoned buildings or hollow trees in or
adjacent to large tracts of mature forest near rivers, lakes, or estuaries (Webster et al, 1985;
Clark, 1987). They occur year-round in North Carolina, and apparently hibernate during winter.
During spring and summer, males are generally solitary, while females gather in maternity
colonies (don't these maternity colonies usually occur near bodies of water?).
Bats are usually captured for identification by mist netting, which was not conducted for this
project. As the project alignment is along roadsides, and the adjacent land use is primarily
agriculture, there are no hollow trees or abandoned buildings in the vicinity of the proposed
roadside construction corridors. Although hollow trees may exist in the interior of swamp areas,
none were observed in construction corridors. No individuals were found and no direct impacts to
bats or their roosting sites are expected.
B.2. Southeastern Myotis (Myotis austroriparius)
Southeastern myotis roost in caves, buildings, mines, under bridges, and hollow trees (especially
water tupelo, black gum, and bald cypress). They forage over lakes, ponds, wooded wetlands, or
floodplain forests (NatureServe 2009).
Mist netting was not conducted for this project. However, since the project alignment is along
primarily along roadsides, and the adjacent land use is primarily agriculture, there are no hollow
trees or abandoned buildings in the vicinity of the proposed roadside construction corridors.
Although hollow trees may exist further into the swamp areas, no individuals were found and no
direct impacts to bats or their roosting sites are likely.
B.3 Eastern Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii).
This migratory bird winters in eastern North Carolina. It prefers fields with dense, unmowed
grasses or other herbaceous vegetation, often with adjacent pine or second -growth forests. They
have been identified in upland areas, wet meadows, and the drier areas of saltmarshes
(NatureServe 2009).
No eastern henslow sparrows were observed during field surveys. Roadside construction should
not affect this bird's habitat and land use conversion at the WTP may increase habitat for this
bird.
127

B.4. Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea)
The cerulean warbler prefers mature, hardwood forests with a closed canopy. They build nests in
the upper portions of large trees and these nests are often difficult to see from the ground. Lynch
(1981) found that in North Carolina, cerulean warblers were found in mature floodplain forests
along natural levees close to the Roanoke River. These forests were dominated by sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and sugarberry (Celtis laevigata)
(Lynch 1981, cited in NatureServe 2009).
The cerulean warbler was not observed during field surveys. Roadside construction should not
adversely affect this bird's habitat. Most of the proposed WTP site is already in agriculture, so
impacts to the bird's habitat should be minimal.
B.S. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Bald eagles roost and nest at the tops of tall trees near the edges of large lakes, rivers, and
estuaries, and feed primarily on fish and dead animals. Bald eagle habitat occurs close to the
construction corridor, particularly along the Roanoke River. However, no eagle was seen during
the field reconnaissance and no trees are expected to be removed during construction.
B.6. American Eel (Anguilla rostrata)
The American eel spawns in the Sargasso Sea and make their way to estuaries and fresh water
as they mature. Post -larval eels live on river bottoms, hiding in burrows, snags, or undisturbed
bottom sediments. Adults return to the Sargasso Sea to breed (NatureServe 2009).
Habitat for the American eel occurs in the project area in the Roanoke River. Assuming that
water is withdrawn from the Roanoke River using RBI, there will be no conventional intake and
there should be no impact to species that live in the river, including the American eel.
B.7. River Mussels (Two Species
The tidewater mucket (Leptodea ochracea) is found in fresh water, often in areas with a tidal
influence. It has been typically found in pristine rivers. The eastern pondmussel (Ligumia
nasuta) is found in silty or sandy substrata in ponds, lakes, and slow -moving areas of freshwater
streams (Adams et al., 1990). Assuming that water is withdrawn from the Roanoke River using
RBI, there will be no conventional intake and there should be no impact to species that live in the
river
B.B. Chowanoke Crayfish (Orconectes virginiensis)
The Chowanoke crayfish is found in the Chowan River Basin and the lower Roanoke River Basin
in slow -moving streams or swamps with sand or gravel bottoms. Assuming that water is
withdrawn from the Roanoke River using RBI, there will be no conventional intake and there
should be no impact to species that live in the river.
B.9. Magnolia Vine (Schisandra glabra)
The magnolia vine is a twining vine that covers understory trees and shrubs in mesic forests or
bottomlands along creeks and rivers (NatureServe 2009). No magnolia vines were observed
during field surveys. Land cover along roadside construction areas is not appropriate for this
species and no impacts should occur due to transmission line installation. Most of the proposed
WTP site is already in agriculture, so impacts to unknown specimens of this vine should be
minimal.
128

APPENDIX C. Civil Rights Impact Analysis Certification
129

Form RD 2006-38
(Rev. 07-07)
Rural Development
Environmental Justice (EJ) and Civil Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA)
Certification
1 . Applicant's name and proposed project description: Tyrrell County proposes to construct a
wastewater collection system to serve Districts I and II.
2. Rural Developments loan/grant program/guarantee or other Agency action: Water and Waste
3. ✓ Attach a map of the proposal's area of effect identifying location or EJ populations, location of the proposal,
area of impact or
Attach results of EJ analysis from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPAs) EnviroMapper with
proposed project location and impact footprint delineated.
4. Does the applicant's proposal or Agency action directly, indirectly or cumulatively affect the quality and/or level of
services provided to the community?
Yes I I No N/A
✓1
5. Is the applicants proposal or Agency action likely to result in a change in the current land use patterns (types of land
use, development densities, etc)?
Yes No I N/A
11
6. Does a demographic analysis indicate the applicant's proposal or Agency's action may disproportionately affect a
significant minority and/or low-income populations?
Yes ✓ I No I N/A
If answer is no, skip to item 12. If answer is yes, continue with items 7 through 12.
7. Identify, describe, and provide location of EJ population
8. If a disproportionate adverse affect is expected to impact an EJ population, identify type/level of public outreach
implemented.
9. Identify disproportionately high and adverse impacts on EJ populations.
10. Are adverse impacts appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse impacts expected on non-
minority/low-income populations?
11
Yes
No
N/A
11. Are alternatives and/or mitigation required to avoid impacts to EJ populations?
Yes No N/A
If yes, describe 1. 0000
12.1 certify that I have reviewed the appropriate documentation and have determined that:
No major EJ or civil rights impact is likely to result if the proposal is implemented.
A major EJ or civil rights impact is likely to result if the proposal is implemented.
tle o
Certifying Official Date

TYRRELL COUNTY
RD 2006-38
CIVIL RIGHTS IMPACT ANALYSIS
ATTACHMENT
1. Tyrrell County proposes to construct a wastewater collection system which will serve
customers located in Tyrrell County Water and Sewer Districts 1 and 2. The proposed
sewer collection system will utilize a septic tank -effluent pump (STEP) low pressure
sewer system. All wastewater will be treated by the Town of Creswell. The Town of
Creswell is in the process of upgrading their existing wastewater treatment plant. The
proposed project will involve installing 23 sanitary sewer and air release valve
manholes, 2 duplex submersible pump stations, 590 linear feet of 8" gravity sanitary
sewer, 157,400 linear feet of 2", 3", 4", and 6" PVC force main, 1,350 linear feet of 2",
3", 4", and 6" ductile iron force main, 937 linear feet of 2", 3", 4", and 6" PVC force main
by dry bore and jacking, 2,106 linear feet of 3", 6", and 8" HDPE by horizontal directional
drilling, 54 in -line and terminal cleanout assemblies, 260 residential service STEP
assemblies, and 22 commercial service STEP assemblies. The proposed project will
address existing health and sanitation issues created by the current onsite septic
systems.
2. The installation of the proposed wastewater collection system will be on existing DOT
right of ways which are previously disturbed areas. There are no long term effects
expected with this proposed project. No adverse impact on any group of citizens is
expected with this project. The environmental impact should also be minimal with
sedimentation and erosion control measures being implemented.
3. All public notifications will be made in accordance with USDA Rural Development
requirements.
4. The primary beneficiaries of the proposed project will be the citizens of Water and
Sewer Districts 1 and 2 as well as all the citizens of Tyrrell County and the surrounding
environment. The median household income for Tyrrell County according to the 2000
census is $25,684.00 compared to the median household income for the State of North
Carolina of $38,175.00. The 2000 census indicates 56.5% of the citizens are white,
39.4% are black and 4.1% are classified as other.

5. The maps indicate the service area has areas of poverty and low incomes located
throughout. However, with the proposed project to be constructed on existing right of
ways there should be not impacts to minorities, low income socio-economic groups, or
any specific group of people. The proposed installations of a wastewater collection
system should improve the lives of all the citizens of Tyrrell County and the surrounding
area. There will be no direct or indirect impact to land use in the proposed installation
area.
6. The applicant will sign documents obligating them to comply with the Civil Rights Act of
1964, Title VI, Title IX of the Education Act Amendment of 1972 and various other laws
protecting individual rights. The applicant will sign the required forms specifically
related to the protection of individual's rights.

Tyrrell County, North Carolina - Fact Sheet - American FactFinder
Page 1 of 2
FACT SHEET
Tyrrell County, North Carolina
View a Fact Sheet for a race, ethnic, or ancestry group
Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights:
General Characteristics - show more » Number Percent U.S.
Total population 4,149 map brief
Male 2,211 53.3 49.1% map brief
Female 1,938 46.7 50.9% map brief
Median age (years) 38.7 (X) 35.3 map brief
Under 5 years 204 4.9 6.8% map
18 years and over 3,209 77.3 74.3%
65 years and over 668 16.1 12.4% map brief
One race 4,103 98.9 97.6%
White 2,343 56.5 75.1% map brief
Black or African American 1,636 39.4 12.3% map brief
American Indian and Alaska Native 8 0.2 0.9% map brief
Asian 31 0.7 3.6% map brief
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0.1% map brief
Some other race 85 2.0 5.5% map
Two or more races 46 1.1 2.4% map brief
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 150 3.6 12.5% map brief
Household population 3,712 89.5 97.2% map brief
Group quarters population 437 10.5 2.8% map
Average household size 2.42 (X) 2.59 map brief
Average family size 2.95 (X) 3.14 map
Total housing units 2,032 map
Occupied housing units 1,537 75.6 91.0% brief
Owner -occupied housing units 1,151 74.9 66.2% map
Renter -occupied housing units 386 25.1 33.8% map brief
Vacant housing units 495 24.4 9.0% map
Social Characteristics - show more »
Population 25 years and over
High school graduate or higher
Bachelor's degree or higher
Civilian veterans (civilian population 18 years and
over)
Disability status (population 5 years and over)
Foreign born
Male, Now married, except separated (population 15
years and over)
Female, Now married, except separated (population
15 years and over)
Speak a language other than English at home
(population 5 years and over)
Number Percent U.S.
2,828
1,875 66.3 80.4% map brief
300 10.6 24.4% map
409 12.7 12.7% map brief
1,077 30.5 19.3% map brief
167 4.0 11.1% map brief
1,005 55.0 56.7% brief
796 51.0 52.1 % brief
226 5.7 17.9% map brief
Economic Characteristics - show more » Number Percent U.S.
In labor force (population 16 years and over) 1,673 50.3 63.9% brief
Mean travel time to work in minutes (workers 16 years 32.5 (X) 25.5 map brief
and over)
Median household income in 1999 (dollars) 25,684 (X) 41,994 map
Median family income in 1999 (dollars) 32,468 (X) 50,046 map
Per capita income in 1999 (dollars) 13,326 (X) 21,587 map
Families below poverty level 206 19.1 9.2% map brief
Individuals below poverty level 867 23.3 12.4% map
Housing Characteristics - show more »
Number Percent U.S.
mhtml:file://C:ADocuments%20and%20Settings\Jessi%200'Neal\Local%20Settings\Tem... 11/30/2010

Tyrrell County, North Carolina - Fact Sheet - American FactFinder Page 2 of 2
Single-family owner -occupied homes 643 brief
Median value (dollars) 59,000 (X) 119,600 map brief
Median of selected monthly owner costs (X) (X) brief
With a mortgage (dollars) 742 (X) 1,088 map
Not mortgaged (dollars) 254 (X) 295
(X) Not applicable.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3)
The letters PDF or symbol indicate a document is in the Portable Document Format (PDF). To view the file you will
need the Adobe® Acrobat® Reader, which is available for free from the Adobe web site.
mhtml:file://C:ADocuments%20and%20Settings\Jessi%20O'Neal\Local%20Settings\Tem... 11/30/2010

Tyrrell County, North Carolina by 5-Digit ZIP Code Tabulation Area - TM-P063. Median... Page 1 of 1
U.S. Census Bureau
American FactFinder ,
TM-P063. Median Household Income in 1999: 2000
Universe: Households
Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data
Tyrrell County, North Carolina by 5-Digit ZIP Code Tabulation Area
NOTE: Data based on a s
nonsampling error, definiti
Legend
Data Classes
Dollars
0-0
25094 - 25094
280L5 - 28015
32148 - 32148
Features
/ Hajmr Road
Stream/Waterbody
j+/ Stream/Waterbody
Items ingraytext
are not visible
at this zoom level
e`254.
Approx. 65 miles across,
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrix P53.
mhtml:file://D:\Sean\Creswe112010\%20Median%20Household%20lncome%20in%201... 11/30/2010

Tyrrell County, North Carolina by 5-Digit ZIP Code Tabulation Area - TM-P069. Percent... Page 1 of 1
U.S. Census Bureau
American FactFinder ,
TM-P069. Percent of Families Below the Poverty Level in 1999: 2000
Universe: Families
Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data
Tyrrell County, North Carolina by 5-Digit ZIP Code Tabulation Area
NOTE: Data based on a s
nonsampling error, definiti
Legend
Data Classes
Percent
8.3 - 8.3
15.7 - 15.7
19.9 - 19.9
Features
/✓ Major Road
Stream/Waterbody
Stream/Waterbody
Items ingrEytext
are not visible
Et this zoom level
f541
Approx. 55 miles across,
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrix P90.
mhtml: file://D:\Sean\Creswe112010\Families%20Below%20the%20Poverty%20Leve1%2... 11 /30/2010

Appendix D
Tyrrell County Septic System Survey

Map No.
Address
Disposal by
Pit Privy
Straight
Piping to
Open Ditch
Surfacing Effluent
from Inadequate
Soils
Surfacing Effluent
from Inadequate
Sys. Const.
Inadequately
Sized Lot for
Onsite Repairs
Septic System in
Imminent Threat
of Failure
Septic System
Constructed
w/o Permit*
Septic System
Appears to
Function Properly
1
2
113 Albemarle Ch. Rd.
X
X
4683 Albemarle Ch. Rd.
X
X
3
Albemarle Ch. Rd.
X
X
4
4449 Albemarle Ch. Rd.
X
X
X
X
5
4497 Albemarle Ch. Rd.
X
X
X
6
4404 Albemarle Ch. Rd.
X
X
7
3097 Albemarle Ch. Rd.
X
8
3077 Albemarle Ch. Rd.
X
9
3047 Albemarle Ch. Rd.
X
10
3019 Albemarle Ch. Rd.
X
11
2139 Albemarle Ch. Rd.
X
12
405 Davenport Rd.
X
13
429 Davenport Rd.
X
14
437 Davenport Rd.
X
15
690 Albemarle Ch. Rd.
X
16
2025 Bay Post Off. Rd.
X
X
X
17
1510 Bay Post Off. Rd.
X
18
101 Woodley Rd.
X
19
103 Woodley Rd.
X
20
105 Woodley Rd.
X
21
165 Woodley Rd.
X
22
182 Travis Rd.
X
23
160 Travis Rd.
X
24
144 Travis Rd.
X
25
Travis Rd.
X
26
Travis Rd.
X
27
64 Travis Rd.
X
28
40 Travis Rd.
X
29
100 Ramp Rd.
X
X
30
BP Gas Station - Hwy 64
X
31
1251 Travis Rd.
X
32
1285 Travis Rd.
X
33
1325 Travis Rd.
X
X
34
Travis Rd.
X
X
35
595 Chapel Hill Rd.
X
36
613 Chapel Hill Rd.
X
37
Chapel Hill Rd.
X

Map No.
Address
Disposal by
Pit Privy
Straight
Piping to
Open Ditch
Surfacing Effluent
from Inadequate
Soils
Surfacing Effluent
from Inadequate
Sys. Const.
Inadequately
Sized Lot for
Onsite Repairs
Septic System in
Imminent Threat
of Failure
Septic System
Constructed
w/o Permit*
Septic System
Appears to
Function Properly
38
39
449 Chapel Hill Rd.
X
X
681 Chapel Hill Rd.
X
40
713 Chapel Hill Rd.
X
41
773 Chapel Hill Rd.
X
42
810 Chapel Hill Rd.
X
43
1173 Chapel Hill Rd.
X
44
1183 Chapel Hill Rd.
X
45
1193 Chapel Hill Rd.
X
46
1220 Chapel Hill Rd.
X
47
3927 Woodley Sta. Rd.
X
X
48
3969 Woodley Sta. Rd.
X
49
4032 Woodley Sta. Rd.
X
50
4027 Woodley Sta. Rd.
X
X
51
4070 Woodley Sta. Rd.
X
52
4113 Woodley Sta. Rd.
X
53
Woodley Sta. Rd.
X
X
54
4355 Woodley Sta. Rd.
X
55
4485 Woodley Sta. Rd.
X
56
776 Bulls Bay Dr.
X
X
57
784 Bulls Bay Dr.
X
X
58
800 Bulls Bay Dr.
X
X
59
811 Bulls Bay Dr.
X
X
60
828 Bulls Bay Dr.
X
X
61
840 Bulls Bay Dr.
X
X
62
852 Bulls Bay Dr.
X
X
63
855 Bulls Bay Dr.
X
X
64
300 Old Beachhouse Rd.
X
65
280 Old Beachhouse Rd.
X
66
250 Old Beachhouse Rd.
X
67
220 Old Beachhouse Rd.
X
68
173 Old Beachhouse Rd.
X
69
172 Old Beachhouse Rd.
X
70
170 Old Beachhouse Rd.
X
71
1510 Bay Post Off. Rd.
X
72
1605 Bay Post Off. Rd.
X
X
73
1607 Bay Post Off. Rd.
X
X
X
74
1619 Bay Post Off. Rd.
X
X
X

Map No.
Address
Disposal by
Pit Privy
Straight
Piping to
Open Ditch
Surfacing Effluent
from Inadequate
Soils
Surfacing Effluent
from Inadequate
Sys. Const.
Inadequately
Sized Lot for
Onsite Repairs
Septic System in
Imminent Threat
of Failure
Septic System
Constructed
w/o Permit*
Septic System
Appears to
Function Properly
75
76
1621 Bay Post Off. Rd.
X
X
4033 Albemarle Ch. Rd.
X
77
4H Construct. Rd. Ent.
X
78
Box 97 Albemarle Ch. Rd.
X
79
71 Bulls Bay Dr.
X
X
80
3900 Albemarle Ch. Rd.
X
X
81
2511 Albemarle Ch. Rd.
X
82
2531 Albemarle Ch. Rd.
X
X
SUM
0
20
14
2
19
27
0
35
TOTAL # SURVEYED
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
% OF TOTAL
0%
24%
17%
2%
23%
33%
0%
43%
*
Please refer to enclosed letter from Health Dept. regarding Septic Systems Constructed w/o Permit.