Waterfront Master Plan-2001

1 � � : �, �. Fa ice. t 1. •�
II,
e ,
,►tom � =. , - �: ' -_ '���, '"``
Q Y
w i r T,.
. In � R jr rl ri f`� � i r e ■ .t� � � i
it LP FA,
i
Elizabeth City -Waterfront Master Plan
The City of Elizabeth City
Allison Platt & Associates
June, 2001

Elizabeth City
Waterfront Master Plan
Prepared for
The City of Elizabeth City
Planning and Development
PO Box 347, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
252-337-6673
by
Allison Platt & Associates
Urban Design Landscape Architecture
2818 Westfield Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21214
410-426-7164
June, 2001

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................. 3
LIST OF FIGURES.....................................................................................................
3
SECTION ONE: Need and Purpose......................................................5
1.1 Study Area........................................................................................................
5
1.2 The Charette Process.......................................................................................
5
1.3 Acknowledgements...........................................................................................6
SECTION TWO: Inventory and Analysis..............................................7
2.1 Waterfront Strengths.........................................................................................7
2.2 Waterfront Issues..............................................................................................
8
2.3 Existing Land Use.............................................................................................
9
2.4 Pedestrian vs. Vehicular Land Use.................................................................
10
2.5 Summary Analysis..........................................................................................
12
SECTION THREE: The Waterfront Master Plan.................................13
3.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................
13
3.2 Elements of the Plan.......................................................................................
13
3.3 Private Development Opportunities................................................................
16
3.4 Public Improvement Recommendations.........................................................
21
SECTION FOUR: Implementation Strategies.....................................27
4.1 Administrative Actions Needed.......................................................................
27
4.2 Funding Strategies..........................................................................................
28
4.3 Project Implementation Priorities....................................................................
28
3

List of Figures
SECTION TWO: Inventory and Analysis..............................................7
2.1
Downtown Elizabeth Clty..................................................................................
7
2.2
The Water Works..............................................................................................
7
2.3
Power lines on Water Street.............................................................................
8
2.4
Parking on Water Street....................................................................................
8
2.5
Existing Land Use.............................................................................................
9
2.6
Pedestrian vs. Vehicular Land Use.................................................................
10
2.7
Summary Analysis..........................................................................................
11
2.8
Public waterfront access denied.....................................................................
12
SECTION
THREE: The Waterfront Master Plan
................................ 13
3.1
Elizabeth City Waterfront Master Plan...........................................................
14
3.2
Existing site plan, Site #1..............................................................................
16
3.3
Proposed site plan, Site #1............................................................................
16
3.4
Concept sketch, Site #1.................................................................................
16
3.5
Existing site plan, Site #2...............................................................................
17
3.6
Proposed site plan, Site #2............................................................................
17
3.7
Concept sketch, Site #2.................................................................................
17
3.8
Proposed cross-section of canal....................................................................
18
3.9
The Riverwalk in San Antonio........................................................................
18
3.10
Proposal for the marina property...................................................................
19
3.11
Building renovation example, "before"...........................................................
20
3.12
Building renovation example, "after"..............................................................
20
3.13
Streetscape design concept...........................................................................
21
3.14
Streetscape renovation example, "before" .....................................................
22
3.15
Streetscape renovation example, "after"........................................................
22
3.16
Waterfront public space improvements..........................................................
23
3.17
"Gateway" park..............................................................................................
24
3.18
Mariners' Wharf recommended improvements ..............................................
24
3.19
Southern waterfront park...............................................................................
25
3.20
Canal park.....................................................................................................
25
Page 4

1.0 Introduction: Need and Purpose
In February of 2001, Allison Platt & Associates was hired by the Department of Planning and
Community Development of the City of Elizabeth City to prepare a Waterfront Master Plan. The
work was funded by a CAMA grant for the purpose of producing a plan that would guide
waterfront development for the next decade. At the present time, there are many vacant and
underutilized properties along the waterfront adjacent to Water Street and Riverside Avenue,
and no clear vision exists for what the waterfront is now or should become in the future. The
purpose of this plan is to provide a framework for redevelopment of the waterfront over the next
5-10 years.
1.1 Study Area
For the purposes of this study, the area to be examined includes Water Street from the backs
of buildings on the west side of Water Street to the river, and from the Camden Causeway bridge
to the intersection of Water Street with Riverside Avenue/Shepard Street, then east from there
along both sides of Riverside Avenue to the end of the marina property.
1.2 The Charrette Process
Because of time limitations (the report had to be completed by the end of June, 2001), it was
decided that the most efficient way to complete the plan would be by holding a design charrette.
A charrette is defined as in intense design effort completed within a compressed time period.
After the completion of the charrette, graphics and a PowerPoint presentation were refined and
this final report was prepared documenting the process and findings of the study.
We conducted analysis and inventory fieldwork during an initial visit in February of 2001. The
design charrette was scheduled for April 24-26, 2001. On the evening of April 24th the analysis
was presented and discussed, and the design team asked for input from the community on their
ideas, goals and objectives for the study area. On the 25th and during the day on the 261h, the
design team worked in an available storefront in the arcade of the Virginia Dare building. We
were visited throughout both days by city and state agency representatives, elected officials,
property owners and interested citizens who provided valuable feedback and information that
assisted in the design process.
Page 5

At the conclusion of the second day, we presented the results of our work, including the plan,
two sketches of possible development sites, and a preliminary PowerPoint presentation. We
discussed the reasons for our design decisions, and possible strategies to implement elements
of the plan. This document presents that material in more detail.
1.3 Acknowledgments
Our thanks to Bernadette Stafford of the Department of Planning and Community Development
for contacting Allison Platt & Associates to prepare the plan and for arranging the charrette;
John Thayer, District Planner for the Division of Coastal Management, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources; to the citizens of Elizabeth City for their
interest and input; and especially to Peggy Langley of Elizabeth City Downtown for making
arrangements for work space and making our work easier with ready assistance and hospitality.
Charrette design team members were:
Allison Platt, Allison Platt & Associates
Project Management, design, preparation of PowerPoint presentations and final report
Paul Voos, Ekisticus, Inc.
Design
Eric Hyne, Encore Arts
Sketches

Figure 2.1 and 2.2: Elizabeth Clty has an
attractive historic downtown and the Water
Works mixed -use project on the waterfront.
2.0 Inventory and Analysis
2.1 Waterfront Strengths
The waterfront of Elizabeth City has several key strengths upon which to build:
• A reputation among the East Coast boating community for being "the Harbor of Hospitality."
The Rose Buddies of Elizabeth City are famous for greeting those who dock at Elizabeth
City's complementary slips at Mariners' Wharf with southern hospitality, a rose, and a bottle
of wine.
• A beautiful harbor on the Pasquotank River easily accessible from the Intracoastal
Waterway.
• A successful mixed -use (office, retail, restaurant and residential) development known as
"The Water Works," adjacent to Mariners' Wharf.
• An attractive and historic downtown in the process of revitalization.
• The Museum of the Albemarle now under construction at the southwest corner of
Ehringhaus Road and Water Street. It is hoped that the museum, scheduled to open in
r1

Figure 2.3: The large number of overhead
utility lines on Water Street are not only
unattractive, but they have hindered im-
provements to Water Street.
late 2001, will bring new visitors to downtown Elizabeth City. The imminent opening of this
facility makes it important to provide additional facilities on the waterfront in order to entice
visitors to stay longer.
2.2 Waterfront Issues
There are a number of problems and constraints that prevent the waterfront from achieving
success as a visitor attraction:
• A pedestrian -unfriendly environment along Water Street and the waterfront, including
such elements as:
• The predominance of parking lots and paved areas within and adjacent to Water Street;
• The predominance of overhead utility lines on Water Street;
• The width of Water Street;
• The lack of trees;
• The lack of quality street furniture and lighting, and the absence of benches in all but
a few locations;
• Few choices for dining or shopping on the waterfront besides the Water Works;
• No waterfront hotel;
• A predominance of uses that do not add to the life of the waterfront, including ground
Figure 2.4: Over 50%
of all land fronting on
Water Street within the
study area is taken up
by parking.

IMSIM. LA%D LKA
'rj - u:��ja '� i7 � 41761rot.ullt,lrU.�111�11
'� �� ' - umlcti.uue�ierxY li'YIN1741 � �1
+ , �� -oal+llvrcnMVlaHuetiuii
r� F) I ��
RAF�M11xAIRuI
rfStn+,q MpG1�IG
o �� � `" ��i4,,,,�; I ►Ianwl+�+KlrclRanrano
_1 Y� 1 , rnnlvrlucltl�er+acl
HUM %1141 MINE LMIS
� '- F"`�.,cnKWKlurul�tt�lbt
r
ELIZABETH CITY
r WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN
IIIYCM II11A•I I H t 111. 4 FMI 111AACX 1♦'.
� 11� r.IItit IH1�.r
`i p tt'—
+ lIN
A it p•
Figure 2.5: Exising Land Use
floor office and residential and service
uses such as the mattress store;
• Few water -oriented activities to interest
or attract visitors;
• Weak pedestrian links between the wa-
terfront and the downtown.
2.3 Existing Land Use
An examination of the Existing Land Use
drawing reveals that the mix of uses within
the study area is far from ideal if the goal is
to animate the waterfront. If we measure the
amount of frontage on the ground level on
each side of Water Street, and calculate the
percentages devoted to each land use as
shown in the Existing Land Use drawing, the
following results are obtained:
• 31.9% of the land along Water Street is
devoted to parking;
• 19.5% is devoted to open space with
parking between the sidewalk and the
park;
• 14% is devoted to the Museum of the
Albemarle, including adjacent open space;
• 9.8% is vacant buildings or land;
• 7.4% is devoted to service or other non -
visitor oriented uses (banks, dry clean
ers, mattress store);
• 7.0% is retail;
• 5.3% is office;
• 3.6% is open space without parking
between the sidewalk and the park;
• 1.5% is devoted to residential use.
Page 9

BI-
1[IlEti1R154 1III14 14�11
L NE) LNI
YI I U %. 11 %% a YI aw.0 l
WIa11%V""all a+
t �I eeu ruse+
1t11�"ltr.�♦NVI�, bl�1!uclY"
1.I�fr w.l hll firl N
�� 1 I /\III III nu nw [ I v4l!11► vfwlflri l u
LLILAHLill C 11Y
WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN'
1 I1� IM r111A11, I III IIh, wlkfN / ARIg1A�t
Ill r•I A f� I/ I � Y•u.1111� 1 ��y1111v1,+
•/MI Is��
If you combine these figures they present
some interesting facts. Parking space com-
bined with open space that has parking along
the street comprises more than 50% of the
total frontage on Water Street. By compari-
son, the museum and all retail uses, which are
the critical uses for attracting visitors, com-
prise only 20% of the total. Plus, the 20%
visitor -related uses means that 80% of the
Water Street frontage does not help to attract
visitors or residents to the waterfront.
2.4 Pedestrian vs. Vehicular
Land Use
Another way to look at the waterfront is to
study what amount of land is devoted to
pedestrians versus vehicles. The drawing
entitled Pedestrian vs. Vehicular Land Use
illustrates this point. In order for pedestrians
to feel comfortable, they need an environ-
ment that is devoted to their needs. Elements
that contribute to a comfortable environment
include ample sidewalks, safe, well -marked
crosswalks, traffic moving at a reasonable
Figure 2.6: Pedestrian vs. Vehicular Land Use. speed, shade, seating, attractive landscap-
ing, adequate lighting, cleanliness, and as
much as possible, a continuous "street wall"
of interesting destinations, shops and activities. This drawing illustrates that a disproportion-
ate amount of space has been devoted to moving and storing vehicles. Along Water Street,
sidewalks are generally without amenities, even when they are wide enough to comfortably
include them. In many locations, pedestrians walk between moving traffic and parked cars with
no shade and no destinations to make the walk worthwhile.
The red and black bar in the drawing illustrates pedestrian waterfront access. The red bar
shows areas where there is improved public access, such as Mariners' Wharf. The dashed
Page 10

Nunn
ij
. .
■
[]I'PC]ifnl�fflHdlCf}Iy�T11,+1M�11�
'� � its IYI+Ir'4�, H;It I?RQY�INLLkN�Y
some f41l411i1 MAILtlI(lhl hYLN iY
ass MrJPVMpw■+Isos IR/u11111M'AM
1sppf IIII %fat tit MI
14J IHH'LM AA
too NHK.I.tAlIMIY.ItldilYtArt
Mlle
1 IR47LDrApa - Iv11AM'44%1 on4m 1A1111 4
f dROMlltl111 HAUDIM
! 4,",1t141 IIMII!4M14
W4141r lttro
0 CAf7NAL1414
E L IZA BETH CITY
WATERFRONT MASIER PLAN
ry 1 ly 14 •111 4111, 1,111 ,,4tr aflFsf Yrrk ati,a
areas show portions of the waterfront with
potential or actual access, but which are
unimproved or have limited access because
of private ownership. The solid black bar
indicates those areas where public access is
blocked. Only about 48% of the waterfront
has clear public access, primarily at Mariners'
Wharf and the waterfront park to the south of
the Waterworks. And although this seems
like an adequate amount of public access, it
is interesting to note that there are no activi-
ties or attractions within these areas to inter-
est the visitor for more than a quick walk-
through. In fact, with the exception of the
Water Works, there is no public or even
private access along the entire waterfront that
offers any interesting activities or attractions.
Where there is public access, the walkways
are discontinuous and of varying designs.
Further, there are no attractive connections to
the waterfront from the sidewalks along Wa-
ter Street or the east -west streets that inter-
sect Water Street. The connections that do
exist are usually just a continuation of the
street to the west, with most of the space
devoted to the roadway and parking. If a
Figure 2.7: Summary Analysis --Opportunities and Constraints pedestrian does venture down these roads in
search of the waterfront, they often find few or
no accommodations for pedestrians when they reach the water. Mariners' Wharf has a
pleasant brick walkway and railing along the water, and there is a wood deck and some
benches at the foot of Main Street, but these two locations have no design relation to each
other, so it may be difficult for the visitor to differentiate public from private space. Further, the
areas where pedestrian access along the water's edge is blocked are often handled somewhat
awkwardly, making the pedestrian feel unwelcome. See Figure 2.8, next page, for an example.
11

2.5 Summary Analysis
Several strategies for revitalization of the waterfront were suggested by a review of the
inventory and analysis drawings, as shown in the Summary Analysis drawing.
• Current development and property ownership patterns make it impossible to create a
continuous waterfront promenade. Therefore, Water Street should be improved to
become the principal waterfront pathway;
• Waterfront walkways should be extended to the maximum extent possible, and future
opportunities to acquire rights -of -way should be pursued;
• Gateways should be installed at the intersections of Water Street with Ehringhaus and
Elizabeth Streets;
• Walkways from Water Street to the water should be improved to bring people to the water's
edge;
• All vacant and underutilized properties (parking, vacant land and buildings, and underutilized
buildings shown in the drawing as orange stripes) should be considered as potential sites
for new development that will add to the life of the waterfront.
Figure 2.8: At several locations along
the waterfront, public access is blocked.
A more attractive and uniform design
for such areas is needed.
Page 12

3.0 The Waterfront Master Plan
3.1 Introduction
The remainder of this report explains the elements of the waterfront master plan developed
during the April 24-261h charrette, as presented to the community on the evening of the 26t'
It is important to understand that a master plan is not a literal document, but a representation
of possibilities. It is unlikely that the plan will be implemented exactly as shown, but it is
important to have general goals that the community agrees upon and supports in order to move
from the present conditions to a more successful waterfront.
A variety of private development opportunities are shown in this plan, including two in which
the city has at least partial ownership. These two projects, if implemented, would be a major
boost to the downtown economy and inspire further revitalization projects in the waterfront and
the downtown.
The public improvements depicted in this plan are meant to set the stage for development that
will increase the tax base and create jobs. They are not merely beautification projects that will
cost the city money and provide few benefits other than aesthetic ones. Without them, it is
unlikely the private sector will invest in any significant way. When an area is struggling, it is
often necessary for the public sector to demonstrate its commitment to positive change by
investing in improvements to the appearance of the area. This is done in order to inspire
confidence in the development community, not simply for its own sake.
3.2 Elements of the Plan
After the initial meeting, our design team took the comments of the community and the
summary analysis as a starting point and developed the waterfront master plan. Highlights
of the plan are listed below and discussed in more detail in the rest of this section.
Two sites in particular are recommended for development. Site #1 is in the center of the
waterfront immediately south of Main Street. The plan recommends a mixed -use project
for this site including retail, restaurant, and residential. Site #2 includes the municipal
parking lots on the northwest corner of Ehringhaus and Water Streets, across from the new
museum. On the southern portion of this site we recommend a conference center/hotel
13

ELIZABETH CITY
i • . , r:MASTER PLAN
44
WATERFRONT
14 `
- v� 4-��♦t ' iw+V iij ��� i!M � -i,r•ri: ■ .i�r�,,r4� .1'7 •�'�-� �e`��,;.�
_�— — — — _ ,.' 1�' � '�'I' '� � ' •'? +dal'= � ar ,'ea � •� 11j ��' � G .�Rr� i •r, ro 1� rI +r
Vow
e! r . L �• �A ''ii�—'"�� ►Yfi• Y.'ye • i > /1r' :i• p 1 �e r�.e- .■�■„�
.& .fie• ~ e -'� ■ �� a h 1l��r t14 Y!1 �'�. rr `• '_ ,`'4 i °1gr�^r,(iy: �4.+rI) ,.:!, f,� R`�Y rat. 6 ",, " {}
�4 e. -i i .11 K y r? a ;� e r •:' i if �� 1 ..
±d . rC °"�►.r y+{..jl''4+�.J �•''Y'r r►�i•►,
■

and open space. The northern portion of the site could become a mixed use project
including retail and restaurants on the ground floor and office or residential above. Each
of these sites was chosen because of its key location and also because the city controls
a significant portion of the properties involved, making redevelopment easier to manage.
• Site #2 includes the use of a canal to solve an ongoing flooding problem. This canal would
be designed to become an open space amenity.
• Other sites along Water Street and the marina site on Riverside Avenue are also
recommended for redevelopment as opportunities arise.
• We recommend that a public boating center be built in the park to the south of the
Waterworks. This could also include a museum, display, or "living classroom" arrangement
to educate visitors about the maritime history of Elizabeth City.
• Water Street is shown as the main pedestrian waterfront pathway. To accomplish this,
major improvements are needed along Water Street from Elizabeth Street to Shephard
Street.
• In order to improve Water Street, the overhead electrical lines should be consolidated or
removed.
• The rights -of -way between Water Street and the waterfront should become pedestrian
priority. All vehicles should be discouraged from entering this area except those requiring
access for delivery or parking near residential buildings.
• Parking on the public and private properties adjacent to the Waterfront needs to be
reorganized in a major way. Wherever possible, parking should be designed so that it
takes up the minimum footprint possible along the street. For instance, where parking bays
are located parallel to the street, they should be moved so they are perpendicular to the
street and screened from both the waterfront and the street. In other locations parking
should be relocated to a site a little further from the water.
• Gateways should be established at the two "ends" of Water Street: the intersection with
Elizabeth Street and the intersection with Ehringhaus Street.
• Planned improvements to the intersections of Water Street with Ehringhaus, Main, and
Elizabeth Streets should be treated similarly to the intersection of Poindexter and Fearing
in order to slow down traffic and improve safety for pedestrians.
• Waterside access should be extended as far as possible within the current constraints of
private ownership, and as opportunities arise in the future, additional rights -of -way for
waterside access should be obtained.
• Any new development should be carefully considered in order to ensure that it adds to the
synergy of the waterfront. To accomplish this, it is recommended that development
controls be put in place to give the city leverage to negotiate appropriate development. See
section 4.1 for more information about this strategy.
Page 15

Figures 3.2-3.4: The Existing Site (top),
proposed site plan (above), and a sketch of
Water Street showing the proposed building
on the right side.
3.3 Private Development Opportunities
3.3.1 Development Site #1
This site, which is owned by the City, is bordered on the South by Mariners' Wharf and the
Fearing Street ROW, on the west by Water Street, on the north by a photography studio and
a residential building, and on the east by the water. We have also included the photography
studio and the dry cleaners in this development scenario, in order to provide space for a more
significant development and a continuous building edge along Water Street. However, if
acquisition of these parcels is difficult, the concept would work without them. At the present time
this area is used informally for parking, but this property is too central to the waterfront to be used
for such a low -impact, nonproductive use. We recommend that the ground floor of this new
building be used for visitor -oriented retail and a major restaurant, with residential on the upper
16

try 1 Lj.
L }
L 13DI
19n�
1: lilt
3
Figures 3.5-3.7: Existing site configuration (top),
proposed site plan (above) and a sketch (right)
looking north from the Museum lawn towards the
proposed hotel and other new development.
floors. Because of the requirement to set buildings back 30 feet from the shore,
we recommend that the area between the building and the water be used for public
waterfront access and an outdoor dining area for the restaurant.
3.3.2 Development Site #2
Site #2 includes the municipal parking lot on the northwest corner of Ehringhaus
and Water Streets plus all the parcels fronting on Ehringhaus and Water Streets
including the Chamber building, a bank, and a used car lot. The site to the west
of Ehringhaus, which is a former grocery store now used by a glass company, is
included to provide parking. The buildings on the southeast corner of Church and
McMorrine Streets could also be included, or perhaps renovated as is, although
their orientation makes that problematic.
This site would be ideal for a hotel including a small conference center. Since the
museum also has some meeting facilities, this would make the conference
facilities more flexible and attractive for both entities.
x � f
Tl' Ali r
0rA
S k�� � � � a �_'Ji i 4 - y 'f` � • '��'�f � •' � `r I y'+y�V�yh
s.
1i r_`
Paqe 17

Figure 3.8 (above). Proposed cross-section of the canal.
Figure 3.9 (below). The Riverwalk in San Antonio is an
example of the type of canal space that could be created.
We were told at the initial public meeting that this site had been considered and
rejected by the museum because of problems with flooding. Further investi-
gation revealed that the site was originally an inlet from the harbor. Early in the
20" Century, a canal was used as a flood control measure, and some time after
that it was buried in a large stormwater pipe under the site. When there are
significant storms, however, the pipe in not adequate to handle all the water,
and there are additional problems from rain and wind -driven water. At these
times there is standing water on the site.
We propose to deal with this in a way that will turn a liability into an asset. We
suggest that the stormwater once again be collected in a canal, and that this
canal be used as an open space feature for the waterfront and for this site in
particular. The image most similar to what we envision is the Riverwalk in San
Antonio Texas, in those sections where the river is quite "canal -like" and lined
with restaurants and other development. The cross-section shows a possible
configuration for such a canal, although the exact specifications and design
must be developed to ensure that it will fulfill the stormwater requirements while
still functioning as an attractive open space asset. It is likely that the former
canal was not a visual asset, but we propose that this canal be designed with
a weir and a backflow preventer combined with a method to keep the water in
the canal aerated. Although the canal would look like a canal, it would function
more as a stormwater pond.
We have shown the canal with a lower walkway which would provide excess
capacity for floodwaters should it be needed during storms. On the higher
level, walkways, trees, and areas for outdoor dining would make this an
attraction for residents and visitors. There would also be sufficient space in this
area for a wide range of displays, activities, and events.
The hotel is shown in the area to the south of the canal. We have shown the
area to the north of the canal redeveloped for ground floor retail and restaurant,
with upper floor residential or office. This area could remain as a parking area
in the short term if the city and merchants feel this is absolutely necessary.
However, this land will become very valuable once the canal and the hotel have
been built, and in addition this site is an important pedestrian transition from the
area around the museum to the waterfront and the downtown, so we would not
recommend providing parking there permanently.
18

Figure 3.8: Proposal for the
Marina Property.
3.3.3 Marina Property
The marina property represents a significant opportunity to extend the waterfront to the south
and east. The types of uses that we feel would be appropriate are shown on the plan, and
include retail and restaurant with office above and/or a small inn/hotel on the western end of
the site nearest the downtown, and residential on the eastern end of the site. We feel strongly
that the success of this project, both to the developers and the city, depends on providing public
access along the water. There are innumerable examples of successful developments of this
type, where the integrity of private uses is protected, and all the public and private uses benefit
from direct pedestrian access to the site and to the rest of the waterfront. Such access is no
different than building a private development on a public street. At the present time most of
the properties that comprise the marina area are under single ownership, but there are a few
properties that are owned by others, including the college boating center that is in the center
of the property. We suggest that the city consider facilitating the relocation of the boating
center to the park immediately south of the Water Works in order to make redevelopment of
the marina property more efficient, and potentially more profitable, but only if the principal
property owners are willing to allow public access along the water.
It is our understanding that the necessary permitting has been obtained to rebuild the working
marina portion of the property. This is certainly desirable, since new permits for marinas are
very difficult to obtain and an active and successful marina will increase downtown activity.
We suggest that a portion of the marina be accessible to the public in order to accommodate
boats and marine -oriented activities that would be an attraction for the public, such as historic
Page 19

Figure 3.11 (top) and 3.12 (bottom) show the same
building during and after renovation. Removal of the
metal sheathing and restoration of the facade of this
New Bern commercial building have made a dramatic
improvement in its appearance.
sailing vessels or takeoff points for cruises or boating events. If this is not possible,
then such a facility should be built on the waterfront in the park south of the Water
Works, perhaps in conjunction with the proposed Boating Center.
3.3.4 Other Private Development Opportunities
There are numerous other opportunities for private development and redevelopment
along Water Street. Vacant and underutilized buildings can be renovated for visitor -
oriented uses. Many of the facades of historic buildings are covered with siding, and
this is an opportunity to restore the facades and make the buildings more valuable.
If there is no state or federal historic designation for these buildings and if they qualify,
this designation might be pursued in order to provide the owners with tax credits for
restoration work.
There are quite a few sites along the west side of Water Street that are now used for
private parking. We have shown alternate uses at some of these sites in order to
maximize the storefront "street wall" along Water Street.
3.3.5 Parking
Some merchants have expressed concern about the present and future availability of
parking. At the present time there is an oversupply of parking and an undersupply of
destinations that require parking. Much of the existing parking has been reconfigured
in the plan rather than eliminated, and although there may be a slight reduction in
parking, it is probably not excessive. We have also shown a major new parking lot to
the west of Site #2 as discussed above. This parking lot could eventually accommo-
date a parking deck if one is ever needed. Another potential location for parking is
shown in the plan across Riverside Avenue from the marina property, either in the
existing park lot or adjacent to it.
It was not within the scope of this work to look at parking lots outside the study area
to evaluate whether they are adequate for anticipated growth, so this should probably
be done in light of the waterfront plan. However, a brief examination of the existing
parking and potential sites for parking downtown near Water Street suggests that
there are probably adequate existing and potential parking areas off Grice, Church
and Fearing Streets within a few blocks of the waterfront.
20

Figure 3.13: Streetscape Design Concept
Sketch.
If additional lots are needed, the general rule should be to locate them in the center of blocks
or at the back of major retail streets in order to maximize retail frontage while providing parking
within a short walk. It is also helpful to install clear signage directing visitors to public parking
or private parking available for a fee. The key to success in downtown parking is coordination
and sharing based on different hours of operation. A parking authority might be considered
if the need becomes more pressing.
Downtown merchants often want parking right outside their buildings, citing suburban malls as
the models to follow. It may be useful to make two points that contradict that argument: 1) the
old model of the enclosed mall is being replaced by a new model designed to look and function
very much like a downtown main street; and 2) although it is true that a mall is visible from its
parking lot, the walk from parking to the destination store is often longer than it would be in a
downtown. And, if downtown streets have been improved, the walk would be much more
enjoyable in a downtown than at a mall.
3.4 Public Improvement Recommendations
In order to attract private investment to the waterfront, it will be necessary for the city to
demonstrate its support for revitalization by creating the infrastructure needed to support that
investment. This should be seen not as a cost to the city, but as an investment that will grow
the economy of the community in a significant way. In New Bern, for instance, approximately
$7 million has been invested in infrastructure improvements in the past 10 years. Funding
sources included the MSD, Electric Cities, City operating funds, private fundraising, and state
and federal grants. This investment has resulted in approximately $24 million in private
investment. The increase in tax base represented by this level of private investment more than
justifies the public investment in infrastructure.
3.4.1 Water Street Streetscape
Because it is not possible to have continuous waterside access in downtown Elizabeth City in
the foreseeable future, we recommend that Water Street be designed to serve as the
waterfront pedestrian route for the city. This means that the design should be high -quality and
although it may be a variant of streetscapes elsewhere (such as on Main Street), it should have
distinctive characteristics that make it unique and celebrate its relationship to the water. These
might include unique banners on pedestrian lights, or a different color for the street furniture
Page 21

Figure 3.14 (top) and 3.15. (bottom), show a
"before -and -after" view of streetscape
improvments in New Bern.
(benches, lights, trash receptacles) than occurs elsewhere in the city. If a family of furniture
has not been selected for the downtown, then this selection can begin on Water Street.
Before improvements to Water Street can begin, the issue of mitigating the effect of the
overhead utility lines must be addressed. Because there are so many lines and they carry so
much current, burying them underground is not financially feasible. Therefore we recommend
that they be placed at the mid -block between Water Street and Poindexter Street. Feeder lines
to the waterfront could be run down one side of the street that run perpendicular to Water
Street, or perhaps for this short distance it might be possible to put the lines underground
because they would not be high-tension lines. The lines for the streetlights on Water Street
would also need to be put underground, but this can easily be done when the street is improved.
One of the first tasks in approaching improvements to Water Street should be to make the
roadway as narrow as possible given its present traffic requirements, and to plan for further
improvements if through traffic can be rerouted in the future. At the present time the roadway
near Mariners' Wharf is unnecessarily wide, and this space should be reclaimed for pedestri-
ans. In other locations, it maybe possible to narrow the lane width, which will slowdown traffic.
Finally, if it is possible to plan in the longer term for rerouting of through traffic away from Water
Street, we could envision the cross-section of this road becoming one lane in each direction
plus parking, rather than two lanes plus a turn lane and no parking. This could be
accommodated within a curb -to -curb distance of as little as 42'. Any space left over could be
reclaimed for pedestrians.
If the city can identify funds to cover the cost, we recommend that the sidewalks be composed
of brick, or at least of brick bands alternating with concrete. Brick on a concrete bed set in sand
is ideal for downtown streets because if street or utility work requires tearing up the sidewalks,
the brick can be removed and replaced seamlessly. Another option is to use concrete scored
in a smaller -than -normal grid, which will both make it distinctive and make it easier to remove
a portion and repair it adequately if the work is done with care. We do not recommend colored
or stamped concrete, because the color tends to bleach out over time, and it is virtually
impossible to repair it and match the original work.
Pedestrian light fixtures appropriate to the historic downtown, or matching fixtures already in
use, would also be appropriate. One design for benches and trash receptacles should be
chosen and over time fixtures that do not match should be replaced.
One of the most important elements needed along Water Street and along the waterfront is
Page 22

Figure 3.16: This detail of the waterfront master plan shows a
possible treatment for public spaces, including intersections
along Water Street, waterfront walkways, and the connections
between them.
trees to provide shade. In order to do this, it will be necessary to move the
overhead utility lines to the mid -block as discussed above. The placement
of trees will probably be the single most significant improvement the city can
make, because it will soften the hard edges of the street and provide
welcome shade for pedestrians.
Parking adjacent to the street (whether public or private) should also be
screened with a 30-36" wall or hedge, and to accomplish this, a 5' land-
scaped setback between sidewalks and parking spaces should be required.
If the parking lot is large, tree islands within the parking lot should also be
required based on an appropriate formula of paved area to landscaped area.
These types of requirements moderate the temperature in downtown areas,
besides making them much more attractive.
3.4.2 Water Street Intersections
There is some funding available now for improvements to the intersections
along Water Street similar to intersection improvements on Poindexter
Street, and these improvements are an excellent idea. The raised pavement
and different color and texture of pavement will help to ensure that cars will
slow down through these intersections, improving pedestrian safety.
3.4.3 Pedestrian Connections between Water Street and the
Water
The sections of the east west street rights -of -way between Water Street and
the water should be treated differently than those to the west, in order to tie
the waterfront back into the downtown and to make the whole waterfront
area more pedestrian -friendly. The exact design will need to be developed,
but it could include such elements as complete removal of the roadway and
replacement with a building -to -building treatment that would allow cars, but
not encourage them. Bollards or pavement color or texture could designate
moving lanes and parking. Another idea would be to leave the street (although it could be
narrowed), but pave the roadway with cobblestones similar to those used in the improved
intersections. This would slow down traffic to the point where pedestrians and vehicles could
probably coexist safely.
23

Figure 3.17-3.18: Concepts for a "Gateway
Park" on the north end of Water Street near
Elizabeth Street (top), and an improved
Mariners' Wharf.
These pavement changes should be combined with street trees, benches, and landscaped
mini -parks at the end of the streets near the water. A design detail should be devised for those
locations where access along the water is denied so that it minimizes the visual impact of this
situation. A high brick wall similar to the one at the south end of the Water Works property is
probably most appropriate.
4.4.4 Waterside Access
A continuous waterfront promenade is not presently feasible, but the existing waterfront walks
should be designed to look similar, and should be extended to the fullest extent possible as
properties become available. Existing bulkheads should be retained whenever possible
because the cost of replacement is very high. Where a new edge treatment is needed, riprap
is recommended as a more environmentally friendly and less expensive alternative to
bulkheading, especially in this area where the water depth would make the cost of a bulkhead
prohibitive. A railing will probably be needed even if a sloped riprap edge is used because of
the water depth, so a typical design for a railing should also be developed.
4.4.5 New/Renovated Parks
We have shown improvements to several of the parks along the waterfront. The first, at the
north end of the study area, would be a sort of "gateway park." The land is now privately
owned and is operating as a used car lot, but the property is for sale. It is our understanding
that some of this property will be needed for planned improvements to the bridge. If this is the
case we recommend that the entire property be purchased by the city or the state and after
the land needed has been removed, that the remainder be used as a park. This park could
provide signage and landscaping to welcome people into the downtown from the north and
east. In addition, a promenade treatment of the water's edge would be appropriate here, and
perhaps a fishing pier.
We also recommend improvements to Mariners' Wharf. Improvements shown include
removal of the parking on the interior of the site and replacement of a portion of it with head -
in parking along the street. It might also be possible to reorient the direction of the parking lot
so that it is perpendicular to the street instead of parallel. Rather than a unmanned kiosk, we
have shown a small visitor information center that could be manned at certain hours/days/
seasons as appropriate, but could still provide printed information at all hours. It would be
desirable to provide public rest rooms at this location, as well. With the reorientation of the
Page 24

Figure 3.19: Concept for improved park to
the south of the Water Works, including a
new Boating Center.
Figure 3.20. Concept for canal park. This
design would solve a flooding problem, and
also create an attractive setting for new
development near the waterfront.
parking, the views from the street to the water will be greatly enhanced, and it presents the
opportunity to create a more attractive landscaped setting and room for small gatherings.
The park to the south of the Water Works has been reorganized as well. Parking has been
moved to the north and south ends of the park in order to provide uninterrupted views from the
Museum to the water. On the southern end of this space, we have shown a Boating Center,
with the boat ramp and associated parking south the Boating Center and screened by it. The
Boating Center could be public or a public -private venture. Educational elements could include
displays about the maritime history of Elizabeth City and perhaps a "living classrooms"
arrangement where people could learn about boat building, sailing, and water safety. This
might be done in cooperation with the Museum of the Albemarle, or as another attraction in
its own right. A rental center could be included where people could rent kayaks, canoes and/
or sailboats, and from which tours or cruises could leave. This could also be combined with
25

a boating center for the college if that is appropriate (see Section 3.3.3, above).
The Canal Park was discussed earlier under the description for private development Site #2.
This space could be a dynamic open space for the community that would be different than the
nearby parks because of the proximity of buildings and the predominance of paving. It might
serve the needs of conferences at the nearby hotel, or it could be used for sidewalk sales, art
shows, or small concerts.
Page 26

4.0 Implementation Strategies
To move the plan forward, the City, Elizabeth City Downtown (ECD), and other agencies such
as the Chamber and Visitors Bureau should cooperate to promote and implement the plan.
Here is a checklist of actions that experience tells us will help kick start the revitalization
process. Those groups or entities that can assist in the process are also identified in italics, as
are suggested time -lines for such actions.
4.1 Administrative Actions Needed
• Approve the Plan. One of the most important steps that should be taken is for the City,
and perhaps the County, to approve the plan. This will give the development community
assurance that they can proceed with plans for redevelopment confident that they will be
supported by the public sector. It will probably be difficult to get a hotel developer to commit
to the site without approval of the plan. Responsibility. City. Timeframe: within six months.
• Review Zoning Code for Needed Changes. The planning department should begin
review of the plan and the existing zoning code to determine if any changes are needed
to implement the plan. If there are no requirements to guide development on the waterfront,
then they should be put in place to give the City leverage to obtain quality development.
Changes can probably be handled most simply by using an overlay zone. Responsibility.
City Planning Department. Timing: begin immediately with a goal of implementation of
changes by the end of the year or sooner.
• Consider preparing design guidelines and implementing design review for the
waterfront andperhaps also for the downtown. Design guidelines are not requirements,
but rather design goals for the community. High quality developers tend to like working with
communities that have such guidelines in place because they are reassured that if they
build a high -quality development, nearby properties will be held to the same standard.
Design guidelines deal with architecture, signs, materials, siting of buildings, and other site
guidelines such as landscaping and screening of parking and trash dumpsters. Respon-
sibility. • City. Timeline: begin immediately with the goal of having the guidelines in place
before a hotel developer is secured.
• Consider ways that the City and other agencies can assist with the development
review and approval process. Obtaining permits and approvals for development can
often be difficult and confusing. Many municipalities have created departments and
procedures that are designed to guide developers and property owners through the
Page 27

process in a user-friendly way. We recommend that the city review its development
approval process to determine if changes are needed. Responsibility. City. Timeline:
begin immediately.
4.2 Funding Strategies
Begin identifying possible funding sources for specific projects as soon as possible. Once the
plan has been approved, all interested agencies should share ideas on ways to get elements
of the plan implemented. Some groups might "adopt' a certain part of the plan (e.g. the Boating
Center) and seek funding just for that portion of the plan. The City and/or ECD should
coordinate efforts for maximum effect. Funding sources might include:
• TEA-21 or NCDOT TIP funds for Water Street improvements (consider including a bike
path on Water Street to assist with this process)
• CAMA grants for waterfront improvements
• Clean Water Act grants or other grants tied to flood control to assist with construction of
the canal
• CDBG or other funds tied to job creation for projects such as the hotel
• Community reinvestment funds from local banks for projects such as loans and/or grants
for building renovation and fagade improvements.
• Expansion of the MSD or raising of the amount of the tax in order to make additional funds
available for downtown revitalization.
• Bonds for specific projects such as streetscape improvements.
• Electric company contributions for relocating the overhead lines
• Be creative: consider participation by local educational institutions in elements such as
living classrooms related to the water, foundation grants for specific elements of the plan,
or private donations for bricks, benches or fountains as part of a fundraising campaigns or
in memory of important people or events.
Responsibility. All agencies and entities concemed with revitalization. Timeline: begin
immediately, ongoing.
4.3 Project Implementation Priorities
• Implement Improvements to intersections on Water Street. Since funding is now
available, improvements to the intersections of Fearing, Main, and Colonial Streets should
Page 28

begin as soon as possible. In order to do that, it may be necessary to obtain some
additional funding, and to look first at the cross-section of Water Street to determine if it
can or should be altered, so that this is taken into account when the design for the
intersections is prepared. Improvements to the intersection of Water Street with Grice and
Ehringhaus Streets are not recommended until a decision has been made regarding
possible new development on the municipal parking lot site. Responsibility. City and ECD.
Timeline: begin immediately, finish by early 2002.
Begin seeking a developer for the Conference Center/Hotel. Once the plan has been
approved begin discussions with property owners to assemble the property needed for the
hotel, and begin discussions with potential developers. It may be to the City's advantage
to consider a formal solicitation that will elicit responses from a range of developer and give
the City more options. Responsibility. City and ECD. Timeline: begin after approval of the
plan.
Water Street Improvements. Because Water Street will be the spine of the waterfront,
it is essential that improvements to this street have a very high priority. Responsibility: City,
ECD and MSD. Timeline: Begin immediately, with a goal of beginning design within a year,
and completing construction within three years.
Canal/open space improvements. Because the site will need to be improved before a
hotel/conference center can be built on the site, it will be essential to begin work on
obtaining funding for design and implementation of the canal and surrounding open space.
Although a hotel developer may contribute to this project, it will be the responsibility of the
city to provide the infrastructure needed before the hotel can be built. Because it could be
one of the early projects, the quality of this work will set the tone for future downtown and
waterfront development. Responsibility. City. Timeline: begin planning immediately, finish
as soon as possible in order to move the hotel project forward.
Other public improvements. As mentioned above, all downtown/waterfront stakehold-
ers should discuss these tasks, and a strategy should be developed for all the implemen-
tation projects based on possible funding sources and manpower available for grant writing
and coordination. Responsibility. All. Timeline: Once a strategy has been developed,
assign responsibility for carrying different projects forward. Since the Canal open space
and Water Street improvements are key, otherproject will follow afterthese unless funding
tied to a particular project comes through unexpectedly.
Page 29

��c�?�199C�

CENTRALIZED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
FOR
KNOTTS ISLAND & GIBBS WOODS
Prepared By
Bissell Professional Group
Kitty Hawk, North Carolina
in association with
Edwin Andrews & Associates
Raleigh, North Carolina
December 1996

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
KNOTTS ISLAND & GIBBS WOODS CENTRALIZED WATER
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I. Introduction
SECTION H. Population & Water Demand Projections
SECTION M. Water Survey Results
SECTION IV. Source Analysis
SECTION V. Basis of Design and Cost Estimates
SECTION VI: Implementation Plan
kJ II

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
List of Fizures
Follows Page
Figure 1: Study Area Vicinity Map (;3
Figure 2: Knotts Island Conceptual Water System Layout 8
Figure 3: Gibbs Woods Conceptual Water System Layout 28
List of Tables
Page
Table #1:
Residential Building Permits Issued
4
from 1985 to 1995
Table #lA:
Rate of Growth
5
Table #2:
Population, Housing & Water Demand Projections
5
Table #3:
Survey Responses
11
Table #4:
Knotts Island Groundwater Survey Results
21
Table #5:
Gibbs Woods Groundwater Survey Results
22
Table #6:
Wells & Well Sites Required for Central Systems
23
Table #7:
Knotts Island with Fire Protection
27
Preliminary Estimate of Probable Project Cost
Table_ #8:
Knotts Island without Fire Protection
27
Preliminary Estimate of Probable Project Cost
Table #9:
Gibbs Woods with Fire Protection
28
Preliminary Estimate of Probable Project Cost
Table #10:
Gibbs Woods without Fire Protection
28
Preliminary Estimate of Probably Project Cost
Table #11:
Summary of Projected Cost Per Connection
29

n
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
The 1990 Currituck County Land Use Plan recommended as one of its goals that a plan
be prepared addressing the feasibility of providing centralized water supply systems for
the Knotts Island and Gibbs Woods areas of Currituck County. The purpose of this
study is to fulfill the goal of providing a water system feasibility study for those two
areas. The report addresses an evaluation of water sources that could be utilized as a
basis for the water systems and the populations to be served and resulting water demands
jr
to be provided. A preliminary basis of design is then presented in order to determine
the estimated costs, and then to look at funding sources that may be available and
implementation strategies that should be considered for providing a centralized water
system for each of these communities.
As work began on this study, it became apparent that a question which needed to be
addressed early on was whether or not the public perceived a need for centralized water
systems in these communities. In order to solicit as much input as possible from the
public within the time available, a survey was mailed to all of the property owners of
record located within these two communities. The survey also advertised two public
o.^-L
meetings - at the Gibbs Woods Civic Center, and the second at
Knotts Island Elementary School y,
September 30, 1996�roiscussAthe results of the survey and the need for centralized
water in both areas. The results of the surveys and public meetings were extremely
valuable to the study process, and will be discussed later in this report.

I
SECTION II: POPULATION & WATER DEMAND
Knotts Island is located in the northeast section of Currituck County, situated between
' Knotts Island Channel to the east and Northwest River to the west. No direct
transportation is available from the remainder of the Currituck mainland, except for the
' ferry which runs from the Currituck County Courthouse area to Knotts Island. A
' highway access is via Highway 615 from Virginia Beach. The majority of the western
portion of the island is composed of wetlands which comprise the Mackey Island National
' Wildlife Refuge. '& � �X. -'°� 1
g � /
' While some developable areas exist in the northwest corner of Knotts Island, the east side
of the island contains the majority of the soils which are suitable for development using
' conventional on -site wastewater disposal systems.
Knotts Island contains zoning districts including: Residential -Mixed Use (RA),
Agricultural (A), General Business (GB), and Residential/Recreational (RR). The
majority of the land with good development potential is zoned RA, which permits
development with a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet.
' Gibbs Woods is located in Moyock Township, west of Knotts Island and south of the
Virginia/North Carolina State line, and is accessible by S.R. 1248, S.R. 1250, and

S.R. 1351 through Virginia Beach. Zoning within the Gibbs Woods study area is
' primarily agricultural (A), with small areas of general business (GB) and residential (R).
Developable soils within the Gibbs Woods area are primarily located within the
' agricultural zoning district, which requires a minimum 3-acre lot size for new
development. The study area vicinity map is shown on the following page (Figure 1).
' Population and water demand projects were made for both areas based on current zoning
P P g
' district regulations, an analysis of the development potential of the soil types present
within these zoning districts, and information obtained from the Currituck County
Department of Planning & Inspections, including a 10-year history of building permits
issued, average occupancy rates, and the average number of people per dwelling unit in
I
each study area.
IUtilizing soils map overlays furnished by the Planning Department, the acreage of soils
' which are either suitable for development or marginally suitable for development were
determined for each area as a basis for determining an estimate of the number of
' dwelling units likely to exist at buildout. Soil types which were considered to be
generally suitable for development include: Altavista, Bojac, Conetoe, Dragston,
Munden, and Newhan. Soils which are moderately to marginally suitable for
development include: Augusta, Nimmo, Osier, Portsmouth, and Tomotley. The
' Roanoke soils, while generally not considered wetland soils in these areas, are generally
considered to have low development potential due to the, presence of massive clays.
' w&C f ooa-
' 3
IU

VAcAnAty Map
I - 1
3F +IGhT �1
SwSSEX � •- I
I
/ .6QI
_
IN
-
WAFOLK
12
/
/IAGINIA
/ \ SEACH
FRANKLIN f^�
:.FFOLK \
/ ; J
OiESAPEAKF I
1
SCUTPA►PTON
t]
i
'IIRGINIA i.._.
'^1 1 i
GATE;
CAMEN
\ ILILUCTM CITPEADUIwNS
-Asouoru+x �\
(
^ I _care •� ��'rp
17
ALS14WAAII SOUND
LEGEND: A:
RNOTTS ISLAND AREA
'
B:
GIBBS WOODS AREA
'
FIGURE 1
DARE
`V \
7

The historic data available on residential building permits from 1985 to 1995 were used
to determine the rate of growth toward this ultimate build -out figure. Since the growth
rate accelerated during the most recent five years of the historic data, the more rapid
development rate was utilized in the projections.
The following tables summarize the data utilized to develop population and water demand
projections. As shown in Table 2, the number of dwellings at Knotts Island is expected
to grow from the current estimate of approximately 583 to an ultimate build -out number
of approximately 2,842. At Gibbs Woods, it is projected that the existing dwellings
which number approximately 166 will. increase to approximately 362 at buildout of the
developable areas. Water demand is based on the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Health standard of 400 gallons per day per dwelling unit.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED FROM 1985 TO 1995
TABLE #1
____
Yr
Location '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 192 '93 194 '95 Totals
II Gibbs Woods 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 2 1 5 1 9 1 37
Knotts Island 15 I 10 I 13 18 I 13 18 I 19 121 I 18 125 I 16 I 156
P

RATE OF GROWTH
TABLE #1A
POPULATION, HOUSING & WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
TABLE #2
19&5
1995
2005
2015
Projected
427
583
781
979
Dwellings
Projected
943
1,288
1,725
2,163
Population
Expected
Water
N/A
0.233
0.312
0.392
Demand
(MGD)
Projected
129
166
214
262
Dwelling
Projected
347
447
576
706
Population
Expected
Water
N/A
0.066
0.086
0.105
Demand
(MGD)
*Based on development
potential
using soils and zoning
as constraints,
using the following
occupancy rates and
persons per dwelling:
5
2,842
6,279
1.14 .
362
974
0.145

... ........... ..... ........... ..
OCCUPANCY RATE I PERSONSID�
KNOTTS ISLAND 0.8529 2.59
GIBBS WOODS 0.9311 2.89
Based on the water demand projects presented in Table 2 above, it is suggested that, if central water supplies
are developed for Knotts Island and Gibbs Woods, the following capacities be used as a basis of design:
Knotts Island
Gibbs Woods
0.40 MGD
0.010 MGD
6
1.0 MGD
0.015 MGD

SECTION III: WATER SURVEY RESULTS
' As mentioned previously, a water study survey was mailed to all property owners of
record on Knotts Island and Gibbs Woods. The purposes for conducting the survey were
threefold. The surveys were used to gather information about water quality and quantity
' for use in completing the source analysis. The were also utilized to determine general
P g y Y
' public opinion and perception regarding the need for centralized water supplies on Knotts
Island and Gibbs Woods, and to take various opinion and concerns into consideration in
the preparation of the report. Finally, the survey was used to advertise public meetings
' which were held at Knotts Island and at Gibbs Woods to discuss the results of the survey
' and to receive additional public input concerning the need for central water systems in
these areas.
' A total of 1,028 survey forms were mailed to property owners during the week of
September 9, 1996. Of the surveys mailed, 471 responses were received, which is
' approximately a 46 percent return rate. (Responses were received right up until
October 23, 1996, in part due to additional public interest generated through airing a tape
of the public meeting held at Knotts Island on the public information channel for a week
' after the meeting.)

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Approximately 54 percent of the respondents from Knotts Island were opposed to the
development of a centralized water supply for that area, with approximately 36 percent
in favor, and approximately 10 percent undecided. At Gibbs Woods, approximately 47.5
percent of the responses were in favor of a centralized water supply, approximately 45
percent opposed, and approximately 7.5 percent undecided. The results of the surveys
are tabulated on the following page.
Development of the questionnaire was the joint effort between the consultants and the
Currituck County Planning staff, and is presented on the pages following the response
tabulation. Groundwater quality and quantity issues are discussed and related to the
aquifers in Section 4. Due to the voluminous nature of the questionnaire responses, they
are only summarized in this report, but a complete copy of all responses received is on
file in the Currituck County Planning Department.
8

C
Currituck County
�
Ikpartmcnt of Planning atxi Inspectioru P,�t orrce eoz 70 1670 C tirmuck. North Carolina 27929
919.2 32.1055 / 919-232-3378
KNOTTS ISLAND/GIBBS WOODS WATER STUDY FAX [phone]
Curriluck County is now in the process of determining the need for centralized water on Knotts Island and Gibbs
Woods. Similar studies have been completed for the Mainland and Outer Banks areas.
' Your input for this study is extremely important. Therefore, we respectfully request that you take a couple of
minutes to reply to the following questions and return immediately in the pre -addressed, stamped envelope
included.
' 1. What best describes your situation:
❑ I live at Knotts Island
❑ I own property at Knotts Island, but do not live there
2. Your street name or address (optional):
3.
4.
S.
6.
Do you have a well on your property?,
❑ Yes ❑ No (If no, skip to question 117)
Depth of well (if known): feet.
Well driller (if known):
Water Quality Issues.
a. Does your water cause brown/orange stains?
❑ Yes ❑ No
b. Does your water cause green staining?
❑ Yes ❑ No
c. Does your water have odor problems?
❑ Yes ❑ No
d. Do you have a water softener?
❑ Yes ❑ No
e. Does your well produce enough water?
❑ Yes ❑ No
f. Other problems:
' 7. Would you support a central water supply system on Knotts Island?
❑ Yes ❑ No
8. Any other comments:
Should you have any questions about this survey, please call Shelby Lusk at 232-3378 ext. 260.
A public meeting will be held at Knolls Island Elementary School on Monday, September 30, 1996 from
8:00 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. to discuss the results of this survey and the need for central water.
Your attendance is encourazed.
9

Currituck County
' 1670
11
11
Ikrartn,cnt of Planning and Irl Mtions
P(16CC fice Box 70
G►rrituck. North G'uolina 27929
919-232.3055 / 919.232-3378
FAX [phone]
KNOTTS ISLAND/GIBBS WOODS WATER STUDY
Currituck County is now in the process of determining the need for centralized water on Knotts Island and Gibbs
Woods. Similar studies have been completed for the Mainland and Outer Banks areas.
Your input for this study is extremely important. Therefore, we respectfully request that you take a couple of
minutes to reply to the following questions and return immediately in the pre -addressed, stamped envelope
included.
I. What best describes your situation:
❑ I live at Gibbs Woods
❑ I own property at Gibbs Woods, but do not live there
2. Your street name or address (optional):
3. Do you have a well on your property?
❑ Yes ❑ No (If no, skip to question #7)
4. Depth of well (if known): feet.
S. Well driller (if known):
6. Water Quality Issues:
a. Does your water cause brown/orange stains?
❑ Yes ❑ No
b. Does your water cause green staining?
❑ Yes ❑ No,
C. Does your water have odor problems?
❑ Yes ❑ No
d. Do you have a water softener?
❑ Yes ❑ No
e. Does your well produce enough water?
❑ Yes ❑ No
} Other problems:
7. Would you support a central water supply system at Gibbs Woods?
O Yes ❑ No
8. Any other comments:
Should you have any questions about this survey, please call Shelby Lusk at 232-3378 ext. 260.
A public meeting will be held at Gibbs Woods Civic Center on Monday, September 30, 1996 from
6:00 p.m. to 7. 30 p.m. to discuss the results of this survey and the need for central water.
Your attendance is encouraeed
10

GIBBS WOODS/KNOTTS ISLAND WATER STUDY
SURVEY RESPONSES
(TABLE #3)
Total Number of Surveys Mailed:
KNOTTS ISLAND
Generally in Favor of Central Water
Generally Opposed to Central Water
Undecided or Needs Cost Information
Total:
GIBBS WOODS
Generally in Favor of Central Water
Generally Opposed to Central Water
Undecided or Needs Cost Information
Total:
Total Number of Surveys Returned:
(Unopened)
Total Respondants:
11
19028
127 (36%)
189 (54%)
37 (10%)
353
12
471
(46%)
56 (47 %) q
53 (45 %)
37 (8 %)

Many comments were received which were noteworthy in terms of presenting different
opinions regarding the need for centralized water supply in these areas. Several of these
comments are repeated below:
A. Gibbs Woods Responses:
Excerpts from Positive Responses:
1. The majority of respondents utilize a water softener
2. Nearly all of the respondents indicated that their wells produce a sufficient
quantity of water.
3. Several respondents felt that central water would be good for the entire
area and that the sooner provided the better off everyone would be.
4. Concern was expressed about the shallowness of the wells with potential
of contamination.
5. One respondent indicated that North Carolina should work with Virginia
Beach to bring water supply to these areas from Lake Gaston.
6. One respondent was in favor of a desalinization system.
7. At least one respondent was in favor of centralized sewage as well as
central water.
8. At least one respondent was concerned about water loss due to power
outages.
Excerpts from Negative Responses
1. Several respondents were adamant that they would not hook up to a
centralized water system under any conditions.
2. Several respondents were more concerned about garbage disposal and
paved roads than water supply.
3. Concern was raised about limiting development.
12

4.
Several respondents were concerned about the potential cost of connecting
to a central system.
'
5.
At least one respondent felt that the individual should be responsible for
P P
water and not the taxpayers as a whole.
'
Undecided Responses
1.
Several of those undecided appeared not to have made a decision due to
uncertainty about cost.
B. Knotts Island Responses:
'
Excerpts from Positive Responses
1.
At least one respondent was concerned about fire protection and interested
in the improved protection a central supply would afford.
2.
At least one respondent was concerned about wells drying up during
'
drought conditions.
'
3.
Several respondents indicated problems with sand and sediment buildup
in their wells. The possibility of well contamination was raised due to
future development without central water supply.
4.
One respondent mentioned that hooking on should be voluntary for
existing owners but mandatory for new development.
5.
Water quality problems were mentioned (brown/orange color not
conducive to drinking.)
'
6.
The cost of operating water softeners and replacing them periodically was
'
a concern.
7.
The level of support would depend upon cost.
8.
One resident would like to rely on grants and loans so that no tax increase
would result from a centralized supply.
9.
Taste and odor problems were mentioned.
10.
Several people mentioned the desire to avoid a tax increase.
'
13

11. At least one respondent indicated that bottled water needed to be
purchased for human consumption.
12. It was mentioned that property values would increase with the installation
of centralized water.
13. At least one respondent would also like a central sewer system.
14. It was mentioned that any assessment should not be paid until the time of
hook-up.
Excerpts from Negative Responses
1. Existing well water is of good quality; central supply is not needed.
2. Sewage disposal and water drainage are bigger concerns.
3. Desire for developers to shoulder the majority of burden of centralized
supply.
4. Want to stop development of the island.
5. Concern about cost to the individual.
6. Concern about cost impact on senior citizens.
7. Concern about cost to residents who own large tracts used for farming.
8. More concern about mosquito control.
9. Concern about taxes.
10. Concern about mandatory vs. voluntary connections.
11. Concern about population density. Would like to maintain rural character
of the community.
12. It was noted that Sandy Point Resort already has a state -approved central
water system.
13. Concern about drainage.
14

14. Concern that quality of some centralized water systems is low (e.g.
Chesapeake).
Undecided Responses
1. Concern about cost and time frame.
2. Would like more information.
3. Concern about getting enough input from young people and newer
residents.
4. Concern about system reliability.
5. Wants to make sure that the State of Virginia has nothing to do with it.
6. Most residents would like more information on cost.
15

SECTION IV: SOURCE ANALYSIS
Several potential sources of water to supply centralized systems at Knotts Island and
Gibbs Woods were explored. The initial, and most obvious, source evaluated was the
utilization of the Yorktown aquifers which are presently being utilized by most of the
individual well supplies in these areas. A more indepth analysis of those aquifers
follows.
A second potential source would be the Currituck Sound, which has brackish water. Use
of this brackish surface water could result in increased saltwater intrusion in the sound
and would be sensitive to release of salt brine concentrate from the new City of
Chesapeake deep wells near Northwest River. The treatment of this source would also
be considerably more expensive than would treatment of the groundwater sources due to
the need for a filtration plant ahead of a desalinization system. The water quality of the
surface water source is also likely to fluctuate considerably with changing rainfall,
runoff, etc.
Alternative sources of water available to the Knotts Island and Gibbs Woods areas
include purchase of water from Virginia Beach (including sources such as Norfolk,
Chesapeake, Lake Gaston and Potomac Aquifer wells located in the Suffolk area). It is
believed that the long-term costs associated with these alternatives would also be
significantly greater than costs associated with Yorktown wells. It would most likely also
16

' be politically much more difficult to accomplish than would the development of in -state
' supplies.
Due to the relative cost and availability g Y of groundwater in the stud areas the source
' analysis focused on utilization of the Yorktown aquifers for Knotts Island and Gibbs
Woods.
Aquifer Description:
' An earlier report "Geology and Ground -Water Resources of the Hertford -Elizabeth City
Area, North Carolina," Ground Water Bulletin Number 10, by William R. Harris and
' H.B. Wilder, 1966 described two Yorktown Aquifers. The Yorktown Aquifers were
' described as the Upper Yorktown and the Lower Yorktown Aquifer. Recent data from
Virginia and North Carolina, reveal three water bearing units in the Yorktown
' Formation. These units are labeled the Upper Yorktown, Middle Yorktown and the
Lower Yorktown Aquifers (Report of Hydrogeologic Investigation Groundwater
Development Phase, Virginia Beach Fresh Groundwater Project for the City of Virginia
' Beach, Virginia by Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. 1981' Pungo Ridge tests PNG-02
' & 03 ). Typically, only one or two of these aquifers are present at any one location
because the geologic formations are discontinuous. In the Water Study Questionnaire the
' depth of the well information enabled us p to estimate the percentage of wells completed
in each aquifer and to determine if any of the aquifers are absent.
' 17

H
1�
L
0
The Virginia State Water Control Board (Department of Environmental Quality)
(AbLji' (Mi kA. jjaA. L G,l-t.�. s
established a test station in the vicinity of Blackwater. Two water bearing aquifers were �r�'r`'
tested from 20 to 24 feet and 66 to 76 feet below ground surface. The water table and
the Upper Yorktown aquifers were logged and water quality samples were collected.
Generally, the Yorktown aquifer exhibited hardness with less than 0.5 milligrams per
liter of iron and the water table exhibited softer water with more than 1.2 milligram per
liter of iron. Information obtained from these test wells is included as Appendix A.
The Gibbs Woods and the Knotts Island area questionnaire responses indicate that the
Upper and Middle Yorktown aquifers are present in both places and the water table
aquifer is used substantially. The Upper Yorktown aquifer is projected to be between 50
to 70 feet below land surface and the Middle Yorktown aquifer appears to be present
from 80 to 120 feet. It is estimated that the Lower Yorktown aquifer is probably deeper
than 120 feet, if present at all (In the Virginia beach study wells screened below 120
feet had chloride concentrations of more than 500 milligrams per liter).
The next available aquifer is the Beaufort Formation (correlatable to Mattoponi
Formation in Southern Chesapeake). This aquifer is . expected at a depth of
approximately 600 feet below land surface in the Gibbs Woods and Knotts Island area.
The aquifer consists of glauconitic sands with moderate hydraulic conductivity. The
chloride content is probably near marine concentrations.
18

A study performed for the City of Chesapeake in 1982 (Artesian Aquifer Test Well
Program, Contract 9A, Chesapeake, Virginia, Edwin E. Andrews III, 1982) at the
Northwest River treatment plant and three other sites confirmed that chloride
concentrations were related to hydraulic conductivity. The underlying Potamac
' Formation contained more permeable sand, resulting in lower or similar chloride
concentrations than the Mattoponi Formation. There is probably a source of high
' chloride water at a depth of approximately 1000 feet in the Gibbs Woods and Knotts
' Island area that is suitable for treatment using desalinization technology. New wells and
expected heavy pumping by the City of Chesapeake would result
sult in a continuing increase
' in the chloride concentrations in the Cretaceous aquifers in the Gi
bbs Woods and Knotts
' Island area.
Current Groundwater Resources:
' Groundwater resources for the Gibbs Woods and Knotts Island area are limited to a
' recharge area consisting of the Gibbs Woods area extending into Virginia and the Knotts
M
Island land area. The groundwater that is currently pumped is steIecl-i-m four aquifers
' (water bearing sands and shells). There are two characteristics of these water bearing
' layers that affect yield and reliability. The first characteristic is the ability of the sand
to transmit water to a pumping well. This is called transmissivity. The second
' characteristic is the ability to store water or storativity. These relatively shallow aquifers
E�,S�t�aG
' store and transmit an adequate volume of water to wells in the region. It is uncertain
that these formations will transmit the desired volume to a central system without the use
1 19

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
of "well fields", consisting of many low -yield (estimated 25 to 50 gallons per minute,
maximum) wells spread out to utilize the storage potential of the aquifers.
As discussed, the four aquifers are not continuous throughout the area. The geology
changes from sand to clay at many depths in a manner similar to what we see on the
surface. For example, Knotts Island consists of two dominant surface conditions. A
regressive beach ridge sand deposit exists on the eastern edge running north to south
(parallel to the outer banks). This ridge is probably a remnant of the beach from when
sea level was higher than it is today. The area to the west of this sandy ridge consists
of low energy lagoon, swamp and estuarine deposits. It is expected that.the best yielding
wells in the water table aquifer are along the ridge. The Yorktown aquifers are typified
by shallow marine clays with shells and sand lenses up to 20 feet thick deposited by
littoral or near shore wave energy during the Miocene Epoch. Each of the Yorktown
Aquifers is defined within the Yorktown Formation based on relative elevation.
20

'
WATER QUALITY:
'
Knotts Island•
As shown in Table #4 below, it appears that water quality at Knotts Island is generally
good, even in the water table aquifer and the Middle Yorktown aquifer, although water
softeners are generally used. There is significant interest in a central water supply
(approximately 34 %) from houses with water table aquifer wells. Many of these systems
could probably obtain better quality water from the Upper Yorktown aquifer. It is noted
'
Middle Yorktown Aquifer have therefore,
that most of the wells softeners, untreated
'
water quality is expected to be poorer than that which was reported.
qjK '6
It is probable that the ridge also comprises the suitable soil for drainfields, therefore,
I
'
much of the development uses the water table aquifer. As population growth results in
new development, new construction will use less suitable soil. It is probable that water
'
quality in the water table aquifer will be poorer than the ridge area.
'
CURRITUCK COUNTY WATER STUDY
KNOTTS ISLAND AREA
TABLE #4, GROUNDWATER SURVEY RESULTS
.................................
:.;:.;;:.;.l
.....................................................
E 1 H.::::::::::::::.:
.::4A.:.I T.>;::.;::.;;.>;;;:.::.....4tLl*T....................4Q
.7Q..t~ i..........................
..hT...................
........ ..........I......"...............
Q..1. t1. ....................
�..�. :::..:..
...............::............................................................
...............................
.......?.........................:..::.:::::..::.::
:>::.
5.::............:.............:::..::.:::::
........:.......................::::.:::.:::::....:..............................
0::::::::::::::::::: .
Iron
32
74
22
21
1
6
'
Copper
11
95
5
38
7
Odor
12
94
11
32
1
6
;:.;:.;:.;:.:;;.;:.;.::1.
te.:e:::::::::
>::::::;::<:..::..:..........
:>::>::>::>::;<>.:.....................................:.......:...:......:.3......................................:..................................................................
:.:...:..
.;..;..................:.................
.......
:......
.vfn.
....:
1(q) rn�.::::::.:.::::::::..::1:04:::::::::::::.........._:::::.2:::::.:.:..............................3...............:.......................0..................................................................................:..:::::::::::.:::::::::.:.
......................:
,::::::::::.:::::::::::::,:::::::.:::::::SS.::.:::::.::..................................:::::.::..:..:...:...........:..............,...:....
.
::::::::::...... :..::::,::.::::::::::.::::::.::::::::.
:;;::: ..............
Central
36
61
15
26
1
5
Supply
Total
213
414
107
734
14
1482
Percent
34.0
66.0
12.7
87.3
0.9
99.1
........:.:::::...:..:
.....
...:.; ;
21

'
Gibbs Woods:
From the questionnaire it appears that the poorest quality water exists on Gibbs Woods
'
in the Middle Yorktown aquifer, where most of the wells have hard water with high iron.
It appears that all of the aquifers in the Gibbs Woods area have iron in locations. Iron,
sulfides and hardness are conditions that are likely to occur with wells constructed into
'
the Upper and Lower Yorktown aquifers. The water quality results from the
PP q q Y
'
questionnaire are summarized in Table #5 below.
'
A central system would probably require greensand filters, softening and possibly
aeration. Recommended well construction would be into the Upper Yorktown aquifer
'
with an expected yield of at least 20 gallons per minute per well. For planning purposes
'
wells should be spaced 200 feet apart. Specific testing should be performed to refine the
spacing and determine maximum safe yield, if a central system is developed.
CURRITUCK COUNTY WATER STUDY
GIBBS WOODS AREA
TABLE #5, GROUNDWATER SURVEY RESULTS
DEPTH::><>::`:...
.:::..:...........................................................:.....:..:::.:.:..:::::::::::::::::::::::::
s::::::::............................
...........................................:
::::::::::::............:::::::.NQ.::::::::::::.:....
Iron
4
9
10
6
9
Copper
1
11
3
13
1
7
Odor
5
8
4
11
7
2
...........................:..::...:::::::::.:::::...::.:.....::....:.:::..::::::.:::......:::::.:::.:7.......................................9.......................................8...........::::::.:.::.:::::.1:::::::
plume.... <
`'> :>::»:>: >>12 > :>
::::::...........:::........::1
>::::::.....:::....::»::>::;::
..:::.:::::.:::.::............:.::
b:.:::..:.....:.::.::::.
:::>::::»::::>::::::.:::::.::.:::::
_:::::::::::::.1:.:.::.........:..:.:::....................:::::0.:..:::::::::::::.:.:
>:::::::
Central
6
8
8
9
8
1
Supply
Total
32
46
48
49
42
11
Percent
41.0
59.0
49.5
50.5
79.2
20.8
22

Utilization of Resources:
To develop a centralized water system for either Knotts Island or Gibbs Woods, a
number of well sites must be acquired and developed. Based on the water demand
projected iDherevious Section of this report, the following estimated range of wells
would be required in order to accommodate the potential buildout of these areas:
WELLS & WELL SITES REQUIRED FOR CENTRAL SYSTEMS
TABLE #6
The range of well areas tabulated above is based on a range of well yield of 25 to 50
gallons per minute, and the placement of two wells on each site. The placement of more
than two wells per well site would reduce the acreage requirement, but is subject to
hydrogeological testing and verification.
The impact of such a well system on the aquifers can be minimized by good spacing of
the wells, avoiding localized overpumpage, and by utilizing more than one aquifer.
23

SECTION V - BASIS OF DESIGN & COST ESTIMATES
For the purpose of determining the financial feasibility of constructing centralized water
' supply systems for the Knotts Island and Gibbs Woods service areas, a preliminary
Ss`" to,
design of the required infrastructure improvements has been made for both of these
' communities. The analysis has taken into consideration the well supply system discussed
' in Section IV, which would serve as a basis for design of a water treatment, storage and
distribution system to serve these potential customers.
1
' The design of the water distribution system would change considerably, depending upon
whether or not fire protection is a key consideration in these centralized water systems.
If fire protection is not a criterion, smaller diameter water lines can be used, no elevated
storage is required until the 300th connection is made to the water system, and looping
of distribution lines is less important. Due to the configuration of the developable areas
' at both Knotts Island and Gibbs Woods, if no fire protection is desired, then it may be
' more cost effective to construct two or more smaller community -type water supply
systems for each study area, with no need to interconnect the raw water lines to a central
' wastewater treatments stem or to connect the finished water distribution line
s es to a
' centrally -located elevated tank.
During the public meetings at Gibbs Woods and Knotts Island, the question was raised
to the public as to whether or not fire protection was a key concern in these areas. At
' Gibbs Woods, fire protection was not viewed, by the persons present at the public
meeting, as a high priority consideration when determining the need for centralized water
distribution. At Knotts Island, however, the majority of those attending the meeting,
' even though largely opposed to the centralized water system idea, felt that fire protection
' was an important element if a system were to be installed.
1 24

For comparative purposes, preliminary estimates of the probable project costs are shown
for both alternatives (with and without fire protection capabilities), for both service areas.
Basis of Design
the source analysis presented previously, it appears that groundwater is available
in adequate amounts to serve the two population centers. The long-term reliability of
water supply wells will increase as the separation between the supply wells is increased,
since they rely heavily on recharge from rainfall.
%S
r As discussed, a water supply source which would need desalinization as available from
the lower Yorktown aquifer; however, it appears to be much more cost effective to
utilize the Upper aquifers with conventional treatment, so the reverse osmosis alternative
was not explored further. Studies of the Currituck Sound as a potential source of water
supply has been explored previously in connection with earlier studies on the Mainland
and Currituck's Outer Banks' water supply potential, and not recommended due to
fluctuating water quality and environmental concerns. Therefore, the water table and
Upper and Middle Yorktown aquifers are assumed to be the preferred sources for these
projects for the purpose of developing appropriate cost estimates.
b. Information returned with the surveys mailed to the residents in these areas indicated the
probability of iron, and possibly hydrogen sulfide present in the well water, so it is
assumed that the water obtained from these sources will require treatment for iron
removal. It may also need to be softened to remove hardness, depending on the actual
aquifers used. Finally the water will be disinfected. It is likely that greensand filtration
with potassium permanganate as an oxidizing agent would be utilized to remove iron and
25

' odor from theses stems. These assumptions are used to develop Y p p cost estimates for
' treatment systems for these potential projects.
' Fo
r the alternatives without fire protection, it is assumed that smaller, localized water
' treatment systems would be located closer to the well sites in order to reduce the length
' of raw water lines. No elevated tanks would be proposed, except where a number of
connections on a particular community system exceeded 300. This would likely only
occur at the main portion of the Knotts Island system. No interconnections would
' necessarily be made between the distribution systems, since small diameter water lines
would be sized for domestic flow only.
' d For a system with fire protection, at least a 24-hour storage volume would be anticipated
to be stored in one or more elevated tanks. Distribution lines would be sized for both
' domestic and fire flows in accordance with NFIP and Division of Environmental Health
' standards.
e. It is assumed that distribution lines will be run throughout the potential service areas, so
' that all platted lots can be served, as well as provisions for future subdivisions, including
areas where easements would need to be acquired in order to run lines outside of existing
street rights -of -way to existing dwellings. [A concern raised at the Knotts Island public
meeting was the ability of a centralized system to serve all potential customers, so it is
' assumed that provisions would be made to extend the distribution lines to accomplish this
objective.]
1
26

COST ESTIMATES:
Based on the above assumptions and design criteria, estimates of the probable costs to
implement centralized water supply systems in these service areas have been developed.
Preliminary configurations of these infrastructure improvements are shown on Figures
3 and 4 following the tables.
TABLE #7
KNOTTS ISLAND WITH FIRE PROTECTION
Preliminary Estimate of Probable Project Cost
Initial
Future*
Total
Cost
Cost
Cost
Wells & Raw Waterline
480,000
710,000
1,190,000
Water Treatment
700,000
950,000
1,650,000
Storage
1,200,000
800,000
2,000,000
Distribution System
1,964,000
-0-
1,964,000
Subtotal:
4,344,000
2,460,000
6,804,000
Allowance for Engineering &
Contingencies
869,000
492,000
1_,361,000
Total, Estimated Project Cost
5,213,000
2,952,000
8,165,000
TABLE #8
KNOTTS ISLAND WITHOUT FIRE PROTECTION
Preliminary Estimate of Probable Project Cost
Initial
Future*
Total
Cost
Cost
Cost
Wells & Raw Waterline
480,000
710,000
1,190,000
Water Treatment
700,000
950,000
1,650,000
Storage
400,000
800,000
1,200,000
Distribution System
1,352,000
-0-
1,352,000
Subtotal:
2,932,000
2,460,000
5,392,000
Allowance for Engineering &
Contingencies
586.000
492.000
1,078,000
Total, Estimated Project Cost
3,518,000
2,952,000
6,470,000
27

2.
3.
2.
3.
4.
TABLE #9
GIBBS WOODS WITH FIRE PROTECTION
Preliminary Estimate of Probable Project Cost
Initial
Future*
Total
Cost
Cost
Cost
Wells & Raw Waterline
200,000
130,000
330,000
Water Treatment
325,000
150,000
475,000
Storage
350,000
100,000
450,000
Distribution System
820,000
-0-
820,000
Subtotal:
1,695,000
380,000
2,075,000
Allowance for Engineering &
Contingencies
339,000
76,000
415,000
Total, Estimated Project Cost
2,034,000
456,000
2,490,000
TABLE #10
GIBBS WOODS WITHOUT FIRE PROTECTION
Preliminary Estimate of Probable Project Cost
Wells & Raw Waterline
Water Treatment
Storage
Distribution System
Subtotal:
Allowance for Engineering &
Contingencies
Total, Estimated Project Cost
Initial
Future*
Cost
Cost
200,000
130,000
325,000
150,000
100,000
100,000
522,000
-0-
1,147,000
380,000
229,000
76,000
1,376,000 456,000
*Future costs are in 1996 dollars.
Total
Cost
330,000
425,000
200,000
522.000
1,527,000
305,000
1,832,000
28

1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PROPOSED
SERVICE
AREAS
POSSIB
REMOTE VIRGINAWATER -
LJ PLANT NORTH CAROLINA �
- 1
— ---------------
ELEVATED Q
'l TANK
v
KNOTTS /BLAB
I
b
WATER 1 Q
PLANT l
cq
Z w
I E+
cq
O
i � a
i Z
� v
LEGEND
PROPOSED TRUNK LINE
i
- ----- CONNECTION BETWEEN MAJOR
�] POPULATION CENTERS (FOR
FIRE PROTECTION ONLY )
NOTES:
1) PLAN SHOWS MAJOR WATERLINES ONLY.
SMALLER WATERLINES TO BE PLACED TO
SERVE ALL EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
2) PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT
TO MODIFICATION.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

' Based on the cost estimates outlined above, and assuming that connection of all potential customers is
' utilized in estimating the costs to serve these areas, the following estimates show the per connection
costs of providing centralized water supply systems to these potential service areas, both with and
without fire protection included:
'
Knotts Island with
Fire Protection
Knotts Island without
Fire Protection
Woods with
'Gibbs
Fire Protection
'
Gibbs Woods without
Fire Protection
TABLE #11
SUMMARY OF PROJECTED COST PER CONNECTION
Initial Ultimate
Cost # Conn. Cost/Conn. Cost # Conn. Cost/Conn.
5,213,000 623
8,368
8,165,000
2,842
2,873
3,518,000 623
5,647
6,470,000
2,842
2,277
2,034,000 176
11,557
2,490,000
362
6,878
1,376,000 176
7,818
1,832,000
362
5,061
1 The column showing the "Ultimate" number of connections is based on the number of dwellings
1 available to be served at buildout from Section II of the report. The cost per connection figures
presented for Knotts Island appear to be fairly typical of costs observed to provide similar public
' water supply service in other areas. The Gibbs Woods cost projections are comparatively high
Mdue to the relatively low density of development existing and projected in that area.
' Potential revenue sources and steps suggested for the possible future implementation of these projects
are discussed in Section VI.
29

' V. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
' If Currituck County determines that it desires to pursue the development of public water supply systems
for the Knotts Island and/or Gibbs Woods areas, special attention should be given in an effort to
implement these goals in as smooth a manner as possible. This implemention plan first considers
revenue sources which may be available for water system development, and then examines steps which
should be taken, leading ultimately to construction and operation of these systems.
Revenue Sources:
Sources of revenue which are typically utilized for implementation of a public water supply system such
as those proposed for Knotts Island and Gibbs Woods include the following:
• User Fees
• Bonds
• Special Assessments
• State & Federal Grant & Loan Programs
• Impact Fees
' • Tapping pp g Fees
' Each of these sources is discussed briefly below.
User fees are typically designed to primarily offset operational costs, but may also include an amount
' designed to retire debt incurred during initial construction. User fees from other systems in this region
typically range from approximately 12 to 32 dollars per month, depending largely on the size and type
1 of the system.
' 30

Bonds may be issued to be used for design and construction of a water supply system. These would
be in the category of either general obligation bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the County,
or in the form of revenue bonds, which rely on cash flow from utility system operations to retire the
debt. The revenue bonds do not require approval of the voters, but can be more costly to design and
sell.
Special assessments are sometimes made to reduce the amount of capital which must be borrowed to
replace grant funds which may not be available. Assessments can be made based either on footage of
waterline, on a per connection basis, or on some other formula designed to assess potential customers
in an equitable manner. For Knotts Island and Gibbs Woods, the front footage type of assessment
would probably not be equitable, due to the presence of many large tracts of land in these areas.
State and Federal grant and loan programs may be available which include the following:
•
•
Farmers' Home Administration Grants & Loans. The majority of the funds are normally in the
form of a low -interest loan repayable over a 40-year period. Grants may be available if needed
to reduce the monthly cost to the users to an acceptable level. This would likely be necessary
in the case of Gibbs Woods, where the cost per connection to implement a water system will be
quite high. According to the Farmers' Home Administration district office, a pre -application
submitted in the near future would possibly be considered for funding three years from now.
Community development block grants could be available if the areas were to meet the low to
moderate income requirements which are associated with that program, although the Knotts
Island and Gibbs Woods areas would probably not meet the income threshold.
31

' • Governor Hunt is reportedly working on a State infrastructure constru
ction fund which could be
' appropriate for this, type of project. Since legislation is still pending, the precise terms and
conditions of this proposed funding program, and associated timing, are not known at this time.
It is expected that it would be a revolving grant and loan fund which would be available on a
' competitive basis.
• Impact fees are available only after special legislation is passed in North Carolina. These fees
are designed to offset the cost of providing public services, and are typically charged to
' developers of new projects as a condition of project approval. They would probably not be
appropriate for the initial construction of a centralized water supply system.
' • Finally, tapping fees are typically designed to offset the cost of an actual water service hookup,
and may possibly also supplement operational revenue.
' . It is suggested if the County wishes to pursue funding of one or both of these projects, that
an application be made to the Rural Economic Development Center for funding by the Farmers' Home
Administration grant and loan program. As part of that process, a user fee schedule will be developed,
' and a determination made as to whether a grant may be available which would to reduce the amount
' of the construction loan required. If grant monies are not available, special assessments could be used
to offset the initial construction costs.
' Organizational Structure:
Several types of organizational structures are available as part of the process of implementing a
' centralized water system in North Carolina. These include a County service district, a County water
and sewer district, and a non-profit utility company.
1
32

' The non-profit utility
y would be owned and managed by the members of the association (water users).
' A water and sewer district could be formed by the County with the County Commissioners serving as
the Operating Board for the district. The Board of Commssioners would also serve as the governing
' board for a Count service
y ry ce district. With any of these alternatives, a district boundary would be
' established which would serve as the service area for each water system.
The County service district affords the County the most power and flexibility in terms of financing
' alternatives, including the ability to levy taxes, and the ability to require the connection of new
developments to a water system. A water district would afford the County most of the powers in terms
of financing alternatives available to it, and requires only a vote of the registered voters within the
' boundaries of the proposed service district. The County water district would therefore most likely be
' the appropriate organization for Knotts Island and Gibbs Woods.
' Steps Needed for Implementation:
The first step needed in order to implement a centralized water supply system for either Knotts Island
or Gibbs Woods would be the formation of a district which would govern the creation and operation
of the utility system. Once the organizational structure is in place, the board of Commissioners will
be in a position to apply for grants and loans to obtain the funds for design and construction. Once
funds are in place, the process of additional testing can begin, followed by engineering design, issuance
of permits, and construction. The following is an outline of the steps needed to be undertaken to
I
implement these projects:
1. Further explore the desirability of implementing a centralized water system, in terms of the
wishes of the residents of these areas.
' 2. Establish district (either a County service district or County water district, as appropriate).
1
33

3. Apply for Federal grants and loans also State funding
g may become available in the future).
' 4. Develop a test well program to verify the quantity and quality of groundwater available and to
serve as ' the basis for finalizing the number and locations of well sites to be acquired.
' 5. Begin acquiring land for construction of permanent wells.
6. Perform engineering design of water supply, treatment, storage and distribution systems for the
S service areas.
7. Apply for' construction permits (Division of Environmental Health, Department of
Transportation, possibly the Corps of Engineers' approval for utility crossings will be
necessary). This step should also include the obtaining of easements where necessary to run
' water distribution lines across private property where no right-of-way exists.
8. Advertise for bids, obtain construction bids and award contracts for construction of the various
components of the water systems.
9. Perform start-up and testing of the constructed systems; implement a plan of operation.
Based on the mixed responses received from the public through the water survey questionnaire, and the
likewise mixed reactions received at the public meetings held at Knotts Island and Gibbs
Woods, it is
' suggested that a public information program be continued or expanded as part of the process of
determining the desirability to move forward with the plan outlined above. This expanded program
would be designed to assist the Board of Commissioners in it
s desire to continue to involve the citizens
' of the proposed service areas of Knotts Island and Gibbs Woods in the decision -making process.
1]
1
34

APPENDIX A
TEST WELL DATA

.1
• .tn 4W•2
itit K At Control Board (Certification of Completion/County Permit)
O. Ikon 11143
s 1 North Hamilton St.
:hmond, Va. 23130
unty/City ._ ...�� [Jt? c�'.C�:i1_ ^�
hryiniaPlatse Coordinates
1 0 561?0D N
jQ0)3'7U0 E
autude & Longiiude
N
W
opu. Map No._
lcvdtion it) ft.
otmation --
i t hology _ � 4
fiver Basin
rovince I -�-
vpe logs
uttin93 ...
ater Analysis
quifer Test,
county/City Stamp
*Owner` _I GR, - I
swell NOgnatinn nr Number --
Address.. CI ' C
Phone -
• priding Contractor—
Address
Phone
WELL LOCATION: Ueet/miles direction) of
and , feet/miles (direction) of
(If possible P101114 include map showing location markWl -
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
WATER WELL COMPLETION REPORT •8WCM No, Mza, - I - k
Sv1+Ce Permit
County Pumit
Ceftificat(°ttof inspecting official:
This well doef does not
meet COde/low rpUiMMersm
S.
_.........
—
Foe Office ufe
Tait Map I.Q.
S ulsd ivi ii° n
Session-.—_��+_,
Block -
Gass Well' I _ _-• IIA
u8 IIIA t11y
111_C _ IIID
Date started Date completed _ % y / —Type r19/rc' '� �•" e
ELL DATA. New ✓ _Reworked
Deepened
ataldepthDA
)epth to bedrock
tt,
dole sire (Also include reamed zones)
0 _�.irtches from
_ ...
1O
• tnchet from
to
IL
•—tnches from
_
to --_--
It.
:asing size I1.D.) and material
•� - inches Irons
i ,'
to '�`
It.
Material lii' lc_.
_
- -- -
-
Wt. per toot
or wan thicknesS
in.
nches Irom .-_-•
_, _--
to
ft
Material
Wt. per toot
or watt tn'Ckne1S -----
rn.
• incties Isom
110
ft
Material——-
Wt. per loot — _ ___or
wall thickness_,-__-
.. _-._in,
irre<n sire and mesh for each
zone (where
appltcablel,t
• "� .tI• inches from
to
It.
•Mesh site
Type
-
_
• .nChet Irum
Mesh sizd
Type
—_-- inches Irunt
___-- -
iu
ft
• Mesh iqr -- --
Tvpe ---
- --- ----
-- - - -
-
e -----..inches Iturn
to
ft
• Mesh Mot —.
TvVe ---
- --
.ravel pk
*Front
-------
•from ---- -
to --------
-�_.._ . -• 11
- --- -
..out
•Frgnt - -- i" .. --II
' Type
-
• Fton% ----- 10 --
h . Twist
-------
2. WATER DATA a Water temperature
•Static water level (unpumped level•measufed)
"Stabilized meaurred pumping water level
aStflbilired yield -- gem alter - _ hot,
Natural Flow: Yes •__ No -_ , Ilow rate _ _ -� p
Camment on quality
3. WATER ZONES: From
F tom -, To __ _ From � To
Front _ -- To From Co _
a. USE DATA — -- ---- ---
Type of use. ((inking-_..- Livestock Watering__
Ifrigation __--Food 0(0Ceutnq___ Household
Manufacturing , hire salrty . Cleanin
Recrrar.tsn --- Aesthetic Cooling or ttealtrty —
Injection _ ,Other_
• Tyoe at facility Domestic -- Public water supply—_ -
Publicinslitritiun _ FarmIndustry___--
Cornowrcial — -- • Other
5. PUMP DATA. Type _ _ 1 Raters H.P. -
41Intake4cptli _ 9Cavacily.__. at -- hears
G. WELLHEAD Tyw. wen seal - - ---
Pressure tattle --- gal , Lot --- -• _ . .
Sample lap - -- Measurement Port -- -
Well vent _ Pressure telt;f valve
Gate vaive - Check valve Iwnen rCJunedl - --
I teetotal dtsCOnnect switch on powet supply —1-
7. DISINFECTION lhell tlisinlocfed _ yet - no
Uat• -- Uisinlecl.fm used ---
Amount -- - _ ,Bouts used^
--_- -- -- -
A, ABANDONMENT (where apphcablel •ynno
Casing nulled Val- -- no --- -- not apolicoMe- ----
Phigytng geoul Fiom ._._ to -----Matenal_-

' Virginia Slate Water Control board
V.0. Box 11143, Richmond, Va. 23230
' FIELD AND LABORATORY DATA
l WCB WELL HUNBEF '�7 T U
' O — T lHII III
09Prw
LONGITUDE
O iwN
a,.r�
LG CC) ADP
3
cu:v
MAP
r ogAwn oe
ricu)
naufta
DOU LUA
ICA -M COMP
WAAR 10"Cl1aCKCH3
IALM
70
ng1y
n)
r.pM
ITO
PT40M
ro
rrtlM
MONTH DAY YEAR TIME FIELD pH
' PARAMETER Co� t�t•.VALUE
06U, c122/021, 024 , 027, 0.
032, 094, 100, 095
Collect for: Tidewater Reg i gn
Collected by - G7W I
Station Ue"ription �j
C 1�-
�7_�'
UASIN REGION
51
PARAMETER
-%.
-X
loll (Laboratory)
Alkalinity/,acidity (mg/I as Ca(:O) _ - --
050
022/021
Arsenic (nrg/1)
Cadmium (mg/1)
^
_I_utat Solids; l`otal (niCil)
volatile
03.1
:L92.
Calcium (mg/1)
025
515
Chromium (mg/1)
Fixed
026
2-37
Cupper (Mal)
Sow-lddl tirrlids,Total (rr.K/1)
027
44
Iran (mg/1)
Volatile
028
I,rad,Total (mg/1)
'
Fixed
OZ9.
l)
M1lagngium (mA/1)
Di»ulred Sullds,Tolal (mg/l)
067
Manganese (mg/I)
SettleAde Solids (mg/1)
023
1lercury,Totil (mg/1)
'
X
_
)(
Clrluride ( nr t[/1)
Hardnrsa.F u rn (rng/l a, CaCo3)
033
b �
'/,luc (MC/1) �� �+;. •„ •s
032
logSodium
(mlt/I) C1 •''
J(
-Nilr+rytur;ratal IyeWald (ntg/I)
035
tj
Potassium (m 1)
X
Phoiphorue,Total (mg/1)
065N"s
Nickel (mg/1)!
X
Phosphurus,Orthu (me/I) -
064X
lmrnuuia mfJl as "1)
03ti
Total Colilnrm QO mbt�M1tF;Nitrite
X
Nitrate (mtt/(as N)
J M111rite (mg/I ar N) --_-
09dFecal
Colilorm/1 aM�MI t?�'
037
_ 0. 0 t ' _
Total Colilorm% 100 ml • NIPN
'
Sulpbale (n,01)
107
y�—
(-*•)111nrnr/100 ml - M1IPN
X -
I',eonEtrradables(mrfl)
HODS (myJl) _
_
-Fecal
Cunduclivily (enicru • mhodcm)
019
051
_..-tU0 J
C011 (mg/I)
_7•:•Ial (hganic Cads -in (mg/I)-
_
--
Turbidity, NTU
Z'
Prslicidcs
CUU1✓ V:11.
05R
078
052
040
045
044
043
246
096
080
041
106
lUs ~L
090
055
020
O55
034
041)
121/I"'l
X- Fluoride (mg/1) 0(n
AUG 7 107n -- -��--i
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SWGO WILL NNMbrr
](Pin
YIS1D
wAKIt 2oNe1/sCKC.9
«i.4,
$WL
o,lAwo ow N
Virginia State Water Control Board~
I
1.0. Box 11143, Richmond, Va. 23230*''':
� * 052, 044, 246, 096106,
FIELD AND LABORATORY DATA
A DE
LONGITUDE -
LG CD AOP coTidewater Collect for : Region ---
3
Collected by: Aa't�'
hOVq
Station Description
JDA-M Como
MONTH DAY -YEAR TIME FIELD PH BASIN REGION
61-7
.= � i 5 CD L
PARAMETER STATE CODE VALUE'
PARAMETER CODE, VA1.
PH (Lab, ralnry)
050
Araanic (ntA/I)
Cadmium (mg/l)
05$
07$
-- Alkalinity/Acidity (miVI as (,aCO•)
Total Solida,Tutal (mg/l)
--• _
022/021
024
Calcium (mg/1)
052aj
Vulatilf:
025
Chromium (mg/I)
040
Fixed
026
_
Copper (nrg/1)
045
Susprnded Solids,Totsl (mg/1)
021
X
Iron (mg/i)
p.1,1
2
Volatile
026
Lead,Total (mKA)
~ 043 V
—
Fixed
029
X
Magnesium (mg/1)
246
Otavolved Su11ds,Total (mg/1)
067
X
hlangane" (MCA) r ~ • 171
096
tirlllPrl]le Solids (mg/1)
Ilardncis,EDTA (rng/) as CaCO)
023
1lercury,Tot21 (mr/i\ 0
080
033
032
17
Zinc (mg/I) 0 9) "r>
041
Q. L
X
Sodium (mg/I) I G c4zL06
i Nitrugen,Total hicldahl (mg/I)
Phosphorue,Total (mg/1)
035
065
X
Potassium (mg/1) r rti
Nickel (mg/1) z l
105
098
Phosphorui3Ortho mg/1)
064
�'!fr
,lmmuoijmg/1 as N.6
1 ----- �—— _---
0 .
Total Colifornr 100 ml - AI
/
020
Nitrite t Nitrate (mg/I as N) _
�
(19.1
Feeat CQ)nQfnt/iaa ml • A1F
055
Nitrite (mall as N)
037
Total Culiform/100 nil - A1PN
020
-_
Sulphute (mg/I)
Freon F.xrra<lables (mq/I) -- ---- -
�yPODS
101
Fecal Culi(orm/100 1111- MPN
055
-
-
—OM1ft
TI)19
--
Conductivity (micro • mhos/cm)
oU
(-rjl) _ -
VCOD(mg!l) - '^
1*11141 011Kanic Carbon (iuK/I) -
0iI
100
-----
Turbidity,NTU
049
12l/122
Pesticides ---
Fluuride (mgll) 0 S

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
COV Ty ., 1
swca WELL NUMSEn
El 1 7 111
V11W11110 aww rVotgr L.(jltlrol Llunrtl
.0. Box 11143, Richmond, Va. 23230
FIELD AND LABORATORY DATA
F7L TI
oa.T►/
LON131YUDE
OIAM
twL
LfI CO ADP
L
.3
ally
MA.
•vAMwTlon
tteto
—7
gAAWvQWN
NOUNS
aw�LLaR
OAtC GOMp
W AT[A Z0Nt1/1C.r9ws
TO
/AOM
TO
FROM
TO
••OM
TO
rAoM
To
MONTH
DAY
YEAR
TIME
FIELD pH 00400
I J
I I
I 115-1
FF
I=
I ; , •1
Collect for: / t V
Collected by: .C_.
Station Des0rIptlon D/(I
Cz S C' d S
13ASIN REGION
a� 110
STORET
STORET
PARAMETER CODE VALUE
PARAMETER CODE VA!
7F_pH (t ahorato )
00403
Arsenic, Total 1
Alkalinity/Acidity (IncA as CeCoa)
00410
//
Cv
Cadmium Total VA
01002
-
Total Solids Total (m /11
00500
Calcium Total
`>
pA0091&
x
00.505
Chromium Totet PA
01034
_Volatile
00510
Coppor, Total 011
04Z
Fixed
i�
Suspended Solids, Total (mp/ll
00530
l
Iron, Total
UA
01045
V4014144
00535
Ceid Total I
01051
Fixed
00540
y
/
M netlum Total WI
00927
x
Dissolved Solids. Tote_ (mg/l)
00515
—
Ma s6,
nose TatatLoa—
01055
'
Settleable Solids (m I)
00545
M•reu TotalAlClIg
71500
71900
Chloride�
( /1)
00940
Zinc TotA)
092
Hardnau EDTA m II as CACO ►
00900
Sodium Total I c�N
Nitrogen, Total K Idahl m /1
00625
Q . 2
Potaalum Total N
0O9z9
Ph horn Total
65_
6.1
00937
�
'
6.d
Arnmonla m l e N
00610
d. 2
Naa7il f Nmnta ;n+ /I •1 N
Y�____
00630
d • 4 .s ~
1 1
Fa
1 oliform 100 ml • MF
F�
Nitrite as_Nj —
01>F 5
•6 I—
Total otiform 00 ml - P
• t m MI MEN
31615
-11-00
•Tint Imicro - mhoik 2L '
00340-
7uu_I Qroa�lc_Carbun 1 _ _
/
P •a in wear
39330
00951
U-
bicida In water
1
_
I
(
oat* relee..d from lab: `_— _ G+eraMl_ II

/
cOVNTy
SWCe WELL. NUMOLA
A
v►ty,►►la ZItata Wntof L.otttrol Uoartl
P.O. Box 11143, Richmond, Va, 23230
FIELD AND LABORATORY DATA
LATITUDE
oarst,
LONGITUDE
Ll
��U
1:11
0'AM
AWL
-
LC CO ADP
.3
wo"MArlorr
YICLO
VRAWDQWN
HOUR!
l 3 • � -F f
% fs1 / /V rt k3
Oaltl[R
wATtR 1Q-C81%CRCa"S
FROM
TOTO14rwaw
tCOlo,
TOTO
Collect for:
Collected by: L� •� A f \
Station 04wiptlon C/ /rC /( L v Z. /-" /'
f /(
' MONTH DAY YEAR
TIME FIELD pH pP400
BASIN
�L cc.
v
7,7]
REGION
STOR ET
PARAMETER CODE VALUE
STO R ET
PARAMETER CORE VAt
H (Laboratory)
Alkellnity/Aeldity (mg/l at CACo-a)
Total Solid! Total ( /I)
00403
00410
00500
�
Areanic Total WI
Cadmium Total jut
Calcium Total /I
01002
Ot 7
08916
U
Volatile
Q0505
Chromium Total
01034
Fixed
Sutpendad Solids, Total (mall)
00510
00530
Co r Total 1
Iron, Total I
01042
Ot0a5
G'
Volatile
00535
L.Total t/1
01051
Fixed
Dissolved Solid! Total (mg/1)
Settleable Solids (m ll
00540
00515
00545
��
Msonvolurn, Total WI
Man anew TOW0]055
YA
Mercu Tote( I
OOg17
71900
u(�G
Chloride /1)
OW40
Zinc, Total
01092
Hardness EDTA m /l a! CaCO
00900
Sodium TotalI
pOgxg
_
NitT an Total K'eldahl m 1
00625
PO sulum Total Vfl
00937
-Fhglpho_ul, 10121
0905
kel tal
7
Ammonle 1m /1 as N)
QQ§10
_
Nitrite + Nitrate (myll a! N)
00630
Fetal Coliform lib ml . Mr.
___
Nitrl s mH(1 at N
00615
Tou Iltorm 00 mI - MPN
Z 1507
_l�hate Itttulll
00945
Uacgpl ColiformllQ0m - Mpy
.� x
__
fEnn Frtrarrahle[ fm0/11
-
r,
S1I1b_Im4(JI —
-_�Q�iQ
_�undsullrJiX.! r •m �
00600
5 1__.i1111l
- P"!jsides. LO In water
Side Ldl In IyaSyl
°j
Tr1-�)_Q_ S_.lids^ JTML(j..--- . -----
Fluoride In►01 —
Data reteased from Lab.

V Q.,n Gw-2
t:r 7e.10,o00
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
State Wc'aer Control Board
P- O. Box 11143
2 111 North Hamilton $t
Richmond, Va. 23230
' Cot,ntylCity Va be zxh
• VirpinitrPlan# Coordinates
1°_ ACn Bch. N
a7Q 5:Z42(.. E
Latitude & Longitude
35 W
w
`Topo. Map No, aD
i
•Elevation lb h.
A Formation
s l.ithology Sn/,. `-
•River Basin
•Province f —
• Type bogs
• Cuttings_
is Water Analysis
•Aquifer Test -
WATER WELL COMPLETION REPORT •ewcM No. a�3, 1Q
(Certification of Completion/County Permit) _
Co fnry/City Starnp
*Owner_
G�
•Well Designation or Number edar V LOaw
Address CV ��-� v.
Phone d ^
• Drilling Contractor
Address j
Phone
4WG6 Permit_
County Permit
Car tification of inspecting official:
This well doe= don not
meet codt/low requirements.
S.
Date
. For Offid use
Tax Map I.D. No. --------��
Subdivision
Section
dlock -
Class Well:
fle
WELL LOCATION. (feet/miles LIIC -
of
and feet/miles (direction) of
Itf possible please include map showing toCacion ma_rked)
I. WELL DATA: New '� Reworked Deepened ---
It.
*Total depth ��_
_
' °Depth to bedrock
Holt size (Also include reamed zones)
• inches from to
f t.
' • —_inches trom to It.
•—inches from to
•Cas(ng size (I,D.) and material
0- — il- inches from p to 6 ,t
' material^ 4,6
Wt. per foot or wan thickness _ in,
` inches from
- to !t.
' Material-
WT. per toot Or wan thickness
in.
•__ __inches from to ft.
Material -`•------ ..� ----
Wt. per root or wall thickness in
oScreen size and mesh for each zone (where aPPlicabtel
• �' inches from
--- to is.
•Nish site -TYpAr
•- inches from
0 -mesh size -- -- Type -
• Mash sire _inches from --R -__ to -
ft.
--- Type
• -- mchet If Um --- to
• es Mh size TVpe - - --
t'-favilliPack ---- ,___� ..•- - -------_
•From to
'• From to It
`rat ------- - - —__-------
• rrom _— to — - - -It . Type
orrom ---- to -- -_ h . Type — ---
IIA _
IIIA Illn —I
lilt) nfQ
Date started .) Ll I7 i 14! • Date Completed js d Y %y
.. Y--� _ Type rig �%
Z. WATER DATA •
Water temperature w
of
•Static water level (unpumped Ievei-measuradl
•Stabilized measured pumping water level !t
o'Stabiliz d .It
e yield `_T 9pm attar
__hours
Natural Flow: yes Na , )low rate: gpm
Comment on ryvality1,
3. WATER ZONES: From_(; 6 T� j `
FromTo ,From _�
�__To
From To '
.- From To
a. USE DATA: .- -
TYpe of use' Orinkin9 . Livestock Watering
lrrisration Food processin - -
Fire safety."'Household
Manufacturing_-.
-r F_ .Cleaning_^
Recreation , Aesthetic C li
Injection Othng or heating
er_ __
*Type of facility: Do►nest.c __ Public water supply _
Public institution Faun , Indust
Commercial _—, Other
Industry -'
5. PUMP DATA: Type t Rated H.P.
•Intake depth tC .-- _ - apaci1v _ at head^
6. WELLHEAD: Typc well seal -_
Pressure lank gal., Loc._
Sample tap_ Measurement port -T
Well vent ___ Pressure rtlijf valve
Gate valve , Check valve (when r
equiradl
E fttrlcal disconnect switch on power supply
7. DISINFECTION: well disinfeclad -
Date---_.�.. yes no
DitintKlant used
Amount flours used
8. ABANDONMENT (wharf epplieeblel •ye% no
Casinapulled yet_ no _
` not applicable
Plugging grout From. tomaterial

r.u. clox 1 1 143, Fi{chmond, Va. 23230
' cou�r�� ��, .��lFIELD AND LA130RATORY DATA
swco w[u, NVMsett _j AT T E
V
a ��i •� C1 1•
' •1
' 1
O..rH ' - LONGITUDE ;j tl r •� r
' OIAY
i { fwu �
'7 �i •? W CO ADP
' [LN MAP
Collect for.
rO�MATION '��
Collact.d by;
OaAWggKH
i HOUIIf JJ
OAILL[w $1 ( n\J
' t Alt comp
WAT[7t IOMtr./iC et [Nf /ptg64 T.Q
/ rROM i"O
' FACM TO
room TO
�AOM TO
' MONTH DAY YEAR TIME FIELD H
P 00400
ETEI==- Emm
' STORET
PARAMETER CODE VALUE
( H (Labvrato 1 00403
' Ar
,^�Alkallnt /Acidi {m 11 as CeCa OOd10
C _ ap
Total Solids Total (1) 00500
Cal
Volatile 00505
Ch
Flied 00610 Co
Suspended Solids, Total (mg/1) 00530
Ito
Volatile 00535 Le,
Flxad 00540 Ma,
Olssolwd Solids, Total (m it 00515
Mai
' Sattlaebls Solid. (--III OOS45
Mel
1 Chloride A) 00940
tin
Hardness EDTA m A as CsCO
00900 Sod
Nltr n Total K eldahl m I
00625 . e Pat,
Pho h 0
0665
Phonhorus (L1tn21l l d .10
V
mmo I N • rl
Nitrate �) --I tas
_ N 00630
N00615
u l, dO dsI —
FoU
— --- 0094 _
tL -- s
-_� v,
- --
,d21lL(�r ■n! Arbon myLs1
Perri
Fluoride 00951
at on Descrlptlan
— L
BASIN REGION
STORET
PARAMETER CODE VAL
tal Wl
jm Total wpe
wa Total
Total 10r
tal "A �!
01
a
. nleaaed from Labe 11 �• 1 1!' 1 �` I ( ,r ..,,., ,�, tij•u L —..
,r

CUU14TY
i Wfn WrLL NUMnEn
' OVTN
CIAM I
i sw6
L! G r CI
•ORMATIOa
' TI[l0 ORAWOOwt1
1
C
'
0AIL4S1t
•
WAT[R ZON[SnCR[[Ni
•qOM
70
r
'
rAo. TO
,R m
-"u""" ••v 40QLtlr (.untf01 UOurd
P.O. Box 11143, Richmond, Vs. 23230
FIELD AND LABORATORY DATA
LATrpl
LONGITUDE
— =1 --
Em
1 rr lltlr 1
lC CD ADP
Collect for
.3 Collected by; T -
I�pUx[
$tetlon o.saiption
�l
oAYe COME
fAOM To
FROM TO
t
MONTH DAY YEAA
�-� CS 1 �. � `-r
TIME
% - Y .�•
FIELD off 00400
�•
BASIN
•�
REGION
('may
PARAMETER
STOREY
CODE
VALUE
STORET
H
PARAMETER CODE VALI
'p Laborsto ) 00403
s
Alkalini Acidi {m /1 as CaCo 00410
Total Solids Totei (th /I) 00500
' Volatile 00505
Fixed
G0510
Suspended Solids, Total (mall)
0053b
Volatile �^
00535
Fixed
00540 1
'
Dissolved Solids, Total (mg/l)
00515
Settleable Solids (m 1)
00545
Chloride (m !11
00940
Hardness EOTA fm A as C+CO j
00900
'
Nltr en Total IC eidahl m /;
00625
Phos h us Tot I I
00665
'
Ammo is
1 &I N
0
Nltrile a Nitrate (m /I as N)
00630
'Nitrite
frAgo as N
00615
h�
vlpha111mt1/11_
d
_��L33iLulre[7SI11R1 Itna/ll" ____-
____
Total Qrganl� Ce�bon I
�80
' I
�rlde m llm Il � _----
00951
I Gay r"01e8eed (rom -- _ 1, i • 1 ' 1
L114:_
;`...1 r
Arsenic, Total VA 010r12
t Calcium, Total, 1 0091fi
Chromium Total, /1 01034
r Co r Talal till —_-9j94Z
Iron, Total fill 01045
Lead. Total un
[Inc Totsl ith01
Sod{tlm Total 1 00
Fecal o1;lorm/100 ml .

swev wa:I.� nur.oie;
acPrn
Virginia Stale Water Control Board
N.U. Box 1 114:1,, Richmond, Va. 23230
1 IEU) AND LABORA,my DATA
LATI n
Lij- =
LONGITUDE
av,,
022,/021.
Q?.4.
0271 033
03z ,
094, 100,
095
/ 1071 f3 i,
LG ED Aop Tidewater Region
3 Collect fnr : _......�..
C011ecterl by :�1 o
' vtcIlp --__ oMwoOWN
[07
QQ,,I
��
Oq„jAA
OAK COMP -
Station IlcrcripliondJf�a ,�
' WATta zong7'scRins IiOM
To rnoM m
•.OM 10 moM
To r4JV TO
•-_.- •_-
MONTH DAY YEAR
TIME
FIELD
FIELD pH BASIN REGION
-O
-T61
El I
J
I F I
PARAMETER
CODE
VALUE
PARAMETER
CODE, VAI.0
PH (Laboratory)
050
'�.
Arsenic (mg/1)
058
_
x
Alkalinity/Acidity (mg/1 as CAU0)
022/021
I v
Cadmium (rng/I)
078
' ^
"rolat Solids Total (Ing/1)
024
447
Calcium (myJl)
052
Volatile
025
54
Chromium (mg/1)
040
026
34Ir
Copper (mg/1)
045
Fixed_
'
_
Su!�prnded Salida,'1'otal (mfJl) ^
-
-�
027
2G
Iron (mg/I)
044
Volatile
028
1
Lead,Total (mg/1)
043
029
Magnesium (mg/1)
246
Fixed
'
Oresolved Sul ',Total (rug/O
067
dlauganese (mg/1)
096
.�
+o•ttlemble Solids (mg/I)
023
Alercury,Total (mg/1) , �•' r.• ::,
080
Chloride (mKjI).WM
033
`Ir
Zinc (m6/I) ; �' fir.
041
'X
X
Nardntss,EDTA (mill CaCQ)
032
1
Sodium (mg l) r:; l
?
106
X
viln.�tn,Tnla! lycldahl (mg/1)
035
Potassium (rng/Iy: i ,' `_
•�
105
' X
' ptro,phorva,Tolal (mg/1)
065
0 , 1
Nickel (mg/1) - ^•
098
Plaosphorus,0rtho (mg/1)
064
0-to
r, ram:
%l'
X
Amrnooia (mg/I as N)
036
6.2
Total Coliform/100 ml e
020
_
094
-
�• r
Fecal Coliform/IUO ml • A1F=^-""
OSS
X
Nitrite +Nitrate (mg/1 as 1V)
X
—
.Nilritr (mg/I as N)
w
037
0-401_
Total Coliform/100 ml - MPN
020
X
Sulphate (mg/I)
107
3
Fecal Coliform/100 A atPN
055
!_iron 1'.ttrACIAblea (rnfll)—�----
0413 T
--
-
--
1300 (mfJl)
_
-- -_,
Conductivity (mlcru • mho4cm)
034
^�---
— COD (mpJl)
-- _0_19
051
Turbidity, NTU
049
'-
X
--_Tout organic Carbon (mg/1)
.._ _ 100
J
--
Peslir;drs
121/121
X! Flu... id. (rnrj,)
0 5
,,.. .. .. ..
AUG '7 1070