20231165 Ver 1_Public Notice Comments_20230921 (19)

u
1l
1
REGIONAL WATER STUDY
FOR THE
ALBEMARLE WATER RESOURCES
TASK FORCE
PREPARED FOR
THE ALBEMARLE WATER RESOURCES TASK FORCE
and
THE ALBEMARLE COMMISSION
512 S. CHURCH STREET
HERTFORD, NORTH CAROLINA 27944
PREPARED BY
HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
290 S.W. BROAD STREET
SOUTHERN PINES, NC
•,•••'�o�••F�ssio•�!ti'
DUNE, 1996 1EAL
_ 996 _
Jay Johnston, E.I.T.
Hydrogeologist
Eric T. Weatherly, P.E.
Project Manager

Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
Iqj 290 S.W. Broad Street • Post Office Box 1737 • Southern Pines, NC 28388
September 4, 1996
Regional Water Study Participants
c/o Albemarle Commission
P.O. Box 646
Hertford, N.C. 27944
RE: Submittal of Final Report
HUA No. HE 9501
Dear Study Participant:
Attached you will find the final version of the Regional Water Study. The study analyzes
the existing conditions and water resources of the 16-county region of the Albemarle
Commission and North Carolina, Northeast. Furthermore, the study identifies the
Counties of Camden, Currituck, Dare and Pasquotank and the City of Elizabeth City as
the area in greatest need of additional water resources to meet the water demands of
growing communities. Feasibility analyses of several production and distribution
scenarios are presented for this area.
The report is quite detailed and contains an abundance of information. Please feel free to
call with any questions regarding the material presented. Eric Weatherly or Jay Johnston
will be available for discussion or explanations.
As discussed at the August 19 meeting of the Albemarle Water Resources Task Force, the
identified counties and municipalities must now decide on a level of cooperation and
participation in a Regional Water System and pursue funding for the next phase of study -
hydrogeological investigation of available deep ground water sources. Mr. Bill Owens
has offered to help in pursuing financial assistance.
Southern Pines, NC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Winston-Salem, NC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Myrtle Beach, SC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]

Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates, P.A. appreciates the opportunity to have worked with
you and hopes to be of further assistance to you in pursuing a Regional Water System.
Sincerely,
HOBBS, UPCHURCH, AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Jay Johnston, E.I.T
JJ/mde
Attachments

Recipients of Final Report: Regional Water Study
John Smith, Manager
Camden County
P.O. Box 190
Camden, NC 27921
Bill Richardson, Manager
Currituck County
P.O. Box 39
Currituck, NC 27979
Bill Owens
803 First Street
Elizabeth City, NC
Clarence Skinner
Route 1, Box 780
Manteo, NC 27954
Randy Keaton, Manager
Pasquotank County
P.O. Box 39
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Dick George, Asst. Director
Albemarle Commission
P.O. Box 646
Hertford, NC 27944
Steven Harrell, Manager
City of Elizabeth City
27909 P.O. Box 347
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Rick Watson
North Carolina, Northeast
P.O. Box 278
Hertford, NC 27944
[phone]
Bob Oreskovich
Dare County Water Dept.
600 Mustian St.
Kill Devil Hills, NC 27948
Les Twible
Rural Center
1300 St. Mary's St.
Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27605

1
Fi
L
1
1
1
1
1
i, I

7
u
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
REGIONAL WATER STUDY
FOR THE
ALBEMARLE WATER RESOURCES TASK FORCE
June, 1996
In September, 1995, the Albemarle Water Resources Task Force commissioned Hobbs,
Upchurch & Associates, P.A. to perform a Regional Water Study. The purpose of the Regional
Water Study was to: 1) evaluate water supply alternatives and options that might mutually
benefit some or all of the systems in the region and 2) analyze water supply alternatives for the
Albemarle Region.
The original Request for Proposals, dated July 14, 1995, stated, "the Contract for a Feasibility
Study will be in cooperation with the Albemarle Commission, the Northeastern North Carolina
Economic Development Commission, the Rural Economic Development Center, Inc. and the
Counties of Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Halifax, Hertford, Hyde, Martin, Northampton,
Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, Washington and the municipalities of Columbia, Creswell,
Edenton, Elizabeth City, Hertford, Kill Devil Hills, Kitty Hawk, Manteo, Nags Head, Plymouth,
Roper, Southern Shores and Winfall. The Feasibility Study will include, as necessary, the
counties of Beaufort, Bertie and Gates. One or more technically sound, politically acceptable
and cost-effective alternatives for the region will be developed".
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A. performed the Regional Water Study as outlined above and
presents the results in this report. The report is to be used as a planning guide for evaluating
regional water supply and distribution. Sections of the report evaluate
Existing conditions of area water supplies
• Growth and population areas
1 • Areas in need of water
• Potential water supplies available to the region.
After identifying the areas in greatest need of water and potential water supplies, the feasibility
analyses evaluate the cost of several water distribution scenarios.
The participating counties and municipalities which operate water systems are in reasonably
good condition with respect to water production and supply. However, certain water systems
face a greater challenge in meeting water demands, usually because community growth has
outpaced water production capacity. Water production capacity is usually limited by the flow
rates (production) available from individual wells and well fields. These challenged areas are
identified as areas in greatest need of water since they are operating at or near their maximum
production rates.
it

' The areas identified as being in the greatest need for water correlate with areas of greatest
population and growth. These areas are Elizabeth City and Pasquotank County, the Currituck
' and Dare County Outer Banks and mainland Currituck County. Camden County, dependent on
Pasquotank County and Elizabeth City for water supply, is also in this group.
This report evaluates potential surface water and groundwater supplies for their viability as a
regional source. Two water source options lie outside of the Albemarle Region: Lake Gaston
(pipeline) and mine depressurization water from PCS Phosphate near Aurora, Beaufort County.
Each of these potential sources can meet most of the demand of the identified needy area.
However, the political feasibility of each source is questionable.
This report considers several potential surface water sources within the region, including sounds,
estuaries and lakes. Poor water quality and low flow/recharge rates prohibit the use of any of the
local lakes. Unpredictable fluctuations in water quality and generally brackish water prevent use
of the estuaries and sounds.
The most feasible water source evaluated for this study may be local groundwater. Although
some existing water systems struggle meeting demands with local groundwater supplies, research
presented in Section 5 of this report suggests that there are more productive aquifer zones
available to the region. These zones are generally deeper and contain elevated chloride
concentrations; however, advanced treatment methods such as reverse osmosis could facilitate
the use of more productive aquifer zones. Section 5 elaborates on the hydrogeologic
' investigation which would be necessary to locate productive aquifer zones for regional water
supply.
Use of local groundwater potentially provides the least politically controversial water source,
although there may be discussion over inter -community transfer of water. Local groundwater
sources also provide the regional water system self governing and independent water production.
Receiving water from an outside source would create dependence on the supplier as would be the
case with the Lake Gaston pipeline or PCS Phosphate.
This report discusses seven water supply and distribution scenarios in Section 6 and Appendix II,
including construction and operation costs for each scenario, reduced to a cost per thousand
gallons of water produced annually. A table summarizing these results is presented on page 49,
Section 7. Scenarios 6 and 7 present the most politically acceptable and cost effective
distribution. These scenarios utilize deep groundwater from the Castle Hayne aquifer in the
Elizabeth City area. Reverse osmosis treatment will remove chlorides and hardness prior to
distribution to Elizabeth City, Pasquotank County, Camden County, Currituck County and Dare
County.
To establish a functioning Regional Water System, the counties of Camden, Currituck, Dare and
Pasquotank and Elizabeth City should open negotiations. The next step would be to establish a
test well project to identify and locate viable aquifer zones capable of providing long term
regional water supply. Section 5 of this report can be used as a planning guide for such a project.
This project should include pilot testing for the treatability of targeted groundwater using reverse
1 osmosis treatment.
L

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION
I
A. Project Background
I
B. Engineering Methodology
I
i. Visit with all Jurisdictions
3
ii. Research Potential Water Sources
3
iii. Regional Distribution Feasibility Analysis
3
2. ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPANT WATER SYSTEMS
5
A. Existing Conditions
5
i. Beaufort County
5
ii. Bertie County
5
iii. Camden County
6
iv. Chowan County & Edenton
6
V. Currituck County
7
vi. Dare County, Kill Devil Hills, Kitty Hawk, Manteo, Nags Head
Southern Shores
8
vii. Gates County
9
viii. Halifax County
9
ix. Hertford County
10
X. Hyde County
10
xi. Martin County
10
xii. Pasquotank County and Elizabeth City
11
xiii Perquimans County, Winfall and Hertford
12.
xiv. Northampton County
13
xv. Tyrrell County and Columbia
13
xvi. Washington County, Creswell, Plymouth and Roper
13
B. Analysis of Water -Challenged Areas
14
3. GROWTH AREAS AND PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS
16
A. Growth Areas 16
B. Projected Water Demands 16

:!
5.
G
POTENTIAL WATER SOURCES FOR NORTHEAST NORTH CAROLINA 19
A.
Lake Gaston Pipeline
19
B.
PCS Phosphate (formerly TexasGulf)
19
C.
Surface Waters in General
20
i. Lakes
20
ii. Estuaries
21
iii. Sounds
22
D.
Groundwater
23
HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE STUDY AREA
24
A.
Hydrologic Overview
24
B.
Finding Adequate Groundwater Sources
25
C.
Water Bearing Zones
27
i. Cretaceous Aquifer System
27
ii Castle Hayne Aquifer
29
iii. Yorktown and Surficial Aquifers
30
D.
Groundwater -Challenged Areas
31
E.
Finding Sufficient Groundwater Sources
32
i. Screening Multiple Zones
32
ii. Screening Exclusively in the Yorktown Aquifer
33
iii. Screening Exclusively in the Deep Aquifers
34
ANALYSIS OF DISTRIBUTION AND SOURCE SCENARIOS
37
A.
Explanation of Distribution and Source Scenarios
37

7. CONCLUSIONS
43
A. Need
for Water Supply Assistance Within the Study Area
43
B. Water Resources Available to the Study Area
44
i.
Surface Water
44
ii.
Groundwater
44
C. Feasibility of Distribution
45
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
48
FIGURES 1
Study Area
2
2
Stratigraphic Column
26
3
Geologic Section of Study Area
28
4
Infiltration Capacity of Soils
35
5
Sample Distribution Schematic and Analysis
39
TABLES 1
Variability of Projected Demands
18
2
Summary of Costs
47
APPENDIX I
Contract for Engineering Services Including Scope of Services
APPENDIX II
Design Data and Cost Analysis Appendix Page
Scenario 1
Lake Gaston Pipeline (10 MGD)
I
Scenario 2
Lake Gaston Pipeline (15 MGD)
10
Scenario 3
Wells in Chowan County (6 MGD)
19
Scenario 4
PCS Phosphate in Aurora (20 MGD)
29
Scenario 5
Wells in Perquimans County (10.5 MGD)
42
Scenario 6
RO Water Treatment Facility (13 MGD)
52
Scenario 7
RO Water Treatment Facility (16 MGD)
69
Figure 6
Scenario 1 Schematic Layout
2
Figure 7
Scenario 2 Schematic Layout
11
Figure 8
Scenario 3 Schematic Layout
20
Figure 9
Scenario 4 Schematic Layout
30
Figure 10
Scenario 5 Schematic Layout
43
Figure 11
Scenario 6 & 7 Schematic Layout
55
Figure 12
Hydraulic Node Map (Scenarios 6&7)
62

1
�l
1
1
1
1
I

1 1. INTRODUCTION
This report is the culmination of the Regional Water Study commissioned by the
Albemarle Water Resources Task Force. The Regional Water Study was performed by
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A. between September, 1995 and May, 1996. The goal
of the Study was to identify long range water supply alternatives for the 16-county region
encompassed by the Study Area (Figure 1). A project outline is included in Appendix 1
describing the scope of services provided to perform the Study.
The Study was accomplished by first researching the conditions of existing facilities
within the Study Area, including obtaining and formulating projections for water
demands in coming years. Next, numerous potential water resources were investigated,
including the proposed Lake Gaston pipeline, excess mine depressurization water from
PCS Phosphate in Beaufort County, various surface water sources and the various
aquifers (groundwater) of the Coastal Plain. Finally, a number of regional and
subregional water distribution scenarios were designed to analyze the feasibility of
distributing water throughout the Study Area.
A. Project Background
Many areas in northeast North Carolina are faced with the constant challenge of
finding sufficient amounts of water of suitable quality to serve their citizens. The
member governments of the Albemarle Commission understand that their future
economies depend largely on good, reliable water sources. Adequate information
on water resources is needed to make decisions regarding long range management
and planning for water systems of northeast North Carolina. To this end, the
Albemarle Water Resources Task Force (Task Force) was formed to evaluate
water resources in the region and to develop potential alternatives for long range
water supply.
The Task Force consists of representatives of the Albemarle Commission,
Northeastern North Carolina Economic Development (NEED) Commission and
the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR). The Task Force
developed a plan and generated funding to perform a Regional Water Study.
Funding was obtained from the Albemarle Commission, the NEED Commission
and the Rural Economic Development Center. The goal of the Regional Water
Study was to identify long range water supply alternatives beneficial to the 16-
county region encompassed by the study (Figure 1).
IB. Engineering Methodology
The engineering methodology used in performing this study strictly followed the
description of services (listed in Appendix I).
11

G
0
P =as
Y
3 P
` = O O
PZ
u
r--
w
�o
W 2r O
y o `V 6cc0
ix W
U z
a
Vl
in
In

i. Visit with all Jurisdictions
Besides a preliminary project briefing with the Albemarle Commission
and efforts to begin gathering data, the first significant task was to
determine the existing conditions of water systems participating in the
Study. This task was accomplished by visiting or communicating with
officials associated with the water system of each participant in the Water
Study. Meetings and telephone conversations were conducted with each
participant to determine concerns, problems, suggestions and projections
of future demands. The results of these efforts are detailed in Section 2 of
this report.
ii. Research Potential Water Sources
The second major phase of performing the Water Study was to perform
adequate research on the many potential water sources for the region. This
research took many forms due to the nature and variety of potential water
sources. Researching groundwater and surface water sources required
both technical/academic research into existing literature and
communication with individuals who have professional experience with
water resources. Such individuals included well drillers, water system
superintendents and hydrogeologists.
Other potential water sources such as the proposed Lake Gaston pipeline
and excess mine depressurization water (DPW) from PCS Phosphate
(formerly TexasGulf) required research into pragmatic and logistical
issues of using each source as well as the mere availability of the source.
Research into the Lake Gaston pipeline reached all the way to the offices
of Senator Marc Basnight and the North Carolina Attorney General. Top
level engineers and public relations officials with PCS Phosphate provided
detailed information regarding excess DPW from the mine.
These topics are addressed in detail in Section 4 of this report.
Regional Distribution Feasibility Analysis
Using information on existing conditions of participating water systems
and the range of possible water sources, a final phase of the Water Study
was to formulate a variety of practical water distribution scenarios.
Distribution scenarios were formulated based on a combination of an
area's need for water and the availability of water source. Each scenario
was formulated with detailed engineering considerations including
obtaining source water, water treatment and discharge (where necessary),
pumping and pressure sources, distribution networks, storage, construction
and financial details.
3

After each scenario was formulated, a construction cost and operation and
maintenance expense was calculated. These costs were then divided
amongst the scenario participants in two ways:
1. Based on percent capacity used -- the cost per 1,000 gallons to each
participant is based on the percent of the flow within the distribution
main that is devoted to that participant. This cost accumulates in each
distribution segment up to the point of delivery to the participant.
2. Divided evenly between participants -- the cost per 1,000 gallons is
based on the total project cost divided by the number of participants.
Here the cost per 1,000 gallons is the same for each participant.
A simplified example is provided in Section 6 of this report.
4

2. ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPANT WATER SYSTEMS
The following section summarizes visits and correspondence with representatives of the
numerous water systems within the Study Area. Where visits with the jurisdiction were
not possible, telephone or written communication was made to suffice. Information
obtained from the visits and correspondence was used to produce a list of concerns,
suggestions and items to be considered in the Study. Water demand projections and each
system's ability to meet these future demands were also discussed. Additional
information regarding individual water systems was obtained from Local Water Supply
Plans (WSPs) provided by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR).
A. Existing Conditions
i. Beaufort County
Beaufort Count did not choose to participate in the Regional Water Stud
Y p p g Y
although they are within the NEED Commission. According to WSPs
submitted to DWR, Beaufort County has seven (7) water districts
proposed. Districts II and III are proposed to purchase water from the
Washington city water system. The remainder of the districts will be
supplied by wells owned and operated by the individual districts.
Beaufort County lies in a geological area where adequate groundwater
supplies can be obtained relatively easily from the Castle Hayne aquifer.
Due to the availability of this groundwater resource, regionalization of
water systems is not considered a necessity or priority for Beaufort
County.
ii. Bertie County
At build -out, Bertie County will have four (4) water districts. Currently,
two (2) of these districts are under construction; the remaining two (2)
districts are in the funding application stage. The water systems will use
groundwater as source. Preliminary results indicate that adequate flow
and good quality can be expected from wells. Wells in the area are
generally around 400 feet deep, screened in the Black Creek aquifer.
District III hopes to obtain 400 gpm per well.
There are eight (8) existing water systems within Bertie County serving
smaller areas and municipalities. Bertie County District III plans to
interconnect with the towns of Windsor and Askewville. However, since
Bertie County's water system is in its very early stages, with hopes of
running successfully for years to come, they are not interested in
participating in a regional water system at this time. None of the towns
� 5

and smaller water systems in Bertie County responded to the Albemarle
Commission's invitation to participate in the Study.
Bertie County Contacts
Jack Williford County Manager
Lester Outlaw Superintendent
iii. Camden County
Camden County is presently building a county -wide water system. The
system is being constructed in two (2) phases. Phase 1 is complete and in
operation, purchasing water from Elizabeth City. Phase 2 is under design.
Negotiations are in progress toward a water purchase agreement with
Elizabeth City to provide water for both phases of the Camden County
Water System. Camden County has no water production facilities.
Camden County expressed concerns for regional interconnections between
water systems for supplemental supply during emergency periods.
Camden County and adjacent counties appear to experience periodic
difficulty meeting water demands. South Mills Water Authority, a water
system within Camden County, is known to have difficulty meeting
system demands with their existing well field. The well field consists of
approximately ten (10) 30 gpm wells screened in the surficial aquifer.
ISouth Mills currently has a moratorium on new taps to the system.
Considering these factors, Camden County is very concerned over water
supply issues and views regionalization as a potential solution. Without
other interconnections and/or reliable water resources, Camden County
could find themselves in an emergency situation if Elizabeth City were
unable to meet their internal demands and the demands of their bulk
customers (Camden and Pasquotank Counties).
Camden County Contacts
IJohn Smith County Manager
iv. Chowan County & Edenton
Chowan County runs a county -wide water system which includes a
recently upgraded water treatment plant with nine (9) production wells,
one of which is recently installed and reportedly capable of operating at
2000-2500 gpm. According to DWR records, the county only uses five
6

I
1
a
I
1
0
1
(5) of their nine (9) wells and apparently does not have problems meeting
present or future system demands. However, Chowan County did express
interest in participating in the Water Study.
The Town of Edenton also expressed interest in the Water Study, although
the Edenton water system does not appear to have pending difficulties
meeting system demands. The Town water system presently has three (3)
wells producing approximately 600,000 gallons per day (gpd). This
quantity adequately meets the system demand. Since there is little area
left around Edenton for growth, additional water demands are not
expected.
Chowan County and Edenton Contacts
Dewey Perry
Anne Marie Kelly
V. Currituck County
Acting Public Works Dir. (Chowan Co.)
Mayor, Edenton
With heavy development on the Currituck Outer Banks and the county's
proximity to Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, Currituck has become one
of the fastest growing counties in North Carolina. However, the county
has great difficulties meeting ever-growing water demands due to
difficulties obtaining adequate quality and quantities of groundwater.
Such problems are inherent in the eastern -most Coastal Plain counties, as
discussed in detail in Section 5 of this report.
Currituck County currently operates a 1.0 mgd water treatment plant
supplied by 26 wells located near the county airport. Eight (8) additional
wells are planned. Most of the wells are screened in the surficial aquifer
(shallower than approximately 70 feet) and produce at very low flow rates
(between approximately 30 and 150 gpm, averaging approximately 85
gpm). The low flow rates and shallow well screens are necessary
primarily because of the threat of salt water intrusion. The only way for
the county to meet increasing system demands is to continue to add these
low efficiency wells and the raw water piping to transmit the water to the
treatment facility. This, in turn, drives up construction and maintenance
costs for the county and its water customers.
With these limitations to system growth, Currituck County needs alternate
solutions to meet water demands. This need is amplified by the
impending necessity of providing water service to their rapidly growing
Outer Banks. Therefore, the county is very interested in regionalization of
water service and has suggested solutions ranging from obtaining water
7

from various Virginia sources to simply interconnecting the surrounding
county water systems.
Currituck County Contacts
Bill Richardson County Manager
vi. Dare County, Kill Devil Hills, Kitty Hawk, Manteo, Nags Head,
Southern Shores
Dare County and the municipalities within continue to face high annual
growth rates and the demands of the peak vacation season. However, the
water systems in Dare County all appear to be in reasonably good
condition and able to meet water demands year-round. The Dare County
Regional Water Supply System is currently completing water main
extensions in Duck and Southern Shores.
Long-term water supply is of great concern for the county and towns since
fresh water resources are extremely limited. The small Cape Hatteras
Water Association alone requires nearly 50 wells to meet its system
demands. The county currently operates one reverse osmosis (RO) water
plant to treat chloride -rich groundwater and is in the process of siting a
second RO plant. With the rapid growth of the county and towns, use of
chloride -rich groundwater and RO treatment may continue to increase.
Along with this increase will be the associated increase in the cost of
water.
Due to the concerns for long-term and peak -season water supply and the
lack of abundant fresh water resources, the county and towns are interested
in alternate water sources. Chloride -rich aquifers have already begun to be
utilized. Utilization of fresh water ponds and the Alligator River on the
mainland has been discussed as well as regional supply scenarios
involving the Lake Gaston pipeline and PCS Phosphate. Various water
conservation methods and policies have also been considered.
Terry Wheeler County Manager
Clarence Skinner Dare County Commissioner
Bob Oreskovich Water Production
Superintendent, Dare Co.
Sammy Midgett Distribution Superintendent,
Dare Co.
8

viii.
Dare County Contacts (Continued)
Darrell Merrell
Bob Nichol
Kermit Skinner
Webb Fuller
Kern Pitts
Diane Henderson
Gates County
Kill Devil Hills Water
Superintendent
Kitty Hawk Town Manager
Manteo Town Manager
Nags Head Town Manager
Southern Shores Mayor
Southern Shores Council
Member
Gates County did not elect to participate in the Water Study although they
are a member of the Albemarle Commission. Gates County feels that it
has more than adequate water supply to meet present and future water
demands. The county water system is supplied by three (3) wells screened
in the lower Cape Fear aquifer, according to DWR records. This is the
same aquifer from which heavy withdrawals in the Franklin, Virginia area
are taken (at the Union Camp paper mill). Tremendous drawdown in the
aquifer caused by the Union Camp withdrawal affects the Gates County
wells by several feet per year (this is discussed further in Section 5 of this
report).
Halifax County
The Halifax County water system is divided into four (4) regions which
either produce water themselves or purchase water from municipal
systems. The water producing regions utilize open -bore wells drilled into
crystalline basement rock. These wells reportedly have low yields. DWR
records indicate yields well below 50 gpm. The remaining regions
purchase water from a combination of Roanoke Rapids, Weldon, Enfield
and Scotland Neck. There have been some disputes over purchase
amounts with the municipalities.
The primary water source for the county system is Roanoke Rapids Lake
and the Roanoke River via the Roanoke Rapids water system. However,
with regard to planning for future demands, studies are being conducted on
ways to increase the supply and capacity of the existing county facilities.
I

ix.
X.
xi.
Halifax County Contacts
Hazen Blodgett
Frank Ralph
Hertford County
Assistant County Manager
Water Director
Hertford County is in the early stages of starting a county -wide water
system. The system is proposed to consist of two districts with raw water
obtained from production wells. Initial indications suggest that there is no
reason to anticipate problems obtaining good quality water and sufficient
quantity. This would be consistent with neighboring Gates County.
Hertford County feels able to meet present and future water demands and
does not have immediate interest in a regional water system.
Hertford County Contacts
Don Croft
Bill Early
Bob Daughtry
Hyde County
County Manager
Construction & Planning
Director
Water System Coordinator
Hyde County has a county -wide water system serving customers in the
Englehard, Fairfield and Swan Quarter areas. According to DWR records,
the county system obtains water from four (4) wells screened in the
Yorktown aquifer. The raw water is high in organics and requires RO
treatment. However, the county meets the demands of the system with
treated water. Furthermore its remote location does not offer feasible
options for regional support.
Hyde County Contact
Geri Pittman Former Interim County Manager
Tyler Pace Current County Manager
Martin County
Martin County does not operate a water system although several
municipalities within the county do have water systems. Martin County is
interested in the regional water supply concept but does not have any
10

distribution mains with which to tie into a supply. Municipal water
systems serve most areas which need water; however, the county could
develop additional areas if water were available.
Martin County Contacts
Mary Lilley Economic Development Director
Ixii. Pasquotank County and Elizabeth City
Pasquotank County operates a county distribution system and a 2.4 mgd
water treatment plant. The system is fed by 19 wells which provide only
1.9 mgd. All county wells are screened in the Yorktown aquifer and
produce poor to moderate flow rates. Additional wells are being
developed to meet system demands. However, low flow rates and the
threat of chlorides are a constant problem with wells in Pasquotank
County. As discussed in Section 5 of this report, the lower Coastal Plain
is challenged in trying to find adequate quantities of groundwater which is
not also high in chloride concentration.
Pasquotank County is tied into the Elizabeth City system and the two
systems mutually supply each other with water when needed. Pasquotank
County is also tied into the Inter -County Water Association system
(straddling the Perquimans and Pasquotank County line) for emergency
supply purposes. Projections of the county's future demands range from
an additional 0.5 mgd to 2.5 mgd. Meeting such demands with the present
well configuration would not be possible and the feasibility of developing
the required additional wells is not certain.
Pasquotank County is growing rapidly and outpacing the water system's
ability to meet demands. Because of this, the county is very concerned
with the development of a regional water supply.
Elizabeth City operates a 5.0 mgd water treatment plant but is limited to
3.5 mgd by moderate production from eight (8) wells. The same
groundwater supply problem plagues Elizabeth City as does Pasquotank
County. Elizabeth City is currently developing two (2) additional wells
with hopes of increasing capacity to 4.5 mgd.
Elizabeth City sells some water to Pasquotank County and provides the
Camden County system with all of its water. With increasing demands
being placed on Elizabeth City by its bulk customers and the increasing
internal demands of a rapidly growing area, Elizabeth City is also quite

I
F1
I
interested in the development of a regional water supply system to offset
their deficiencies in water production.
Pasquotank County Contacts
Randy Keaton
John Gregory
Randy Harrell
Victor Sharpe
Bart Van Nieuwenhuise
Pasquotank County Manager
County Water Superintendent
County Industrial Development
Director
Elizabeth City Interium Manager
Public Works Director
xiii. Perquimans County, Winfall and Hertford
Perquimans County and the municipalities within feel that growth in this
area has not met its potential. Availability of water is viewed as a partial
inhibitor to growth; therefore, regionalization of water systems is
considered a possible solution to stimulating growth. Perquimans County
Water Study participants also realize the regional difficulties in obtaining
adequate water supplies and believe regionalization and interconnection of
water systems to be the key to meeting future water demands.
Presently, neither Perquimans County nor the municipalities experiences
problems with water production. The county is planning a 0.7 mgd water
treatment plant in Bethel. This is in addition to an existing 0.5 mgd plant
near Winfall. Several proposed projects are expected to stimulate growth
and increase water demands. These include development of NC Hwy 17
as a scenic route, a 400 acre industrial park and an additional 600
residential lots in Albemarle Plantation. Winfall has 2 wells with
conventional iron removal and softening treatment. Hertford also has 2
wells with conventional treatment.
Perquimans County
Contacts
Paul Gregory
County Manager
Russ Chapel
Water Superintendent
Robert Baker
County Planning Director
John Christensen
Hertford Town Manager
Parker Newbern
Water Superintendent
Fred Yates
Winfall Mayor
1
12

I
I' xiv. Northampton County
Northampton County operates a water system with connections to several
municipalities including Jackson, Seaboard, Severn and Woodland.
Northampton County is also tied into the Roanoke Rapids water system in
Halifax County. Like Halifax County, Northampton County is in a
geological area where adequate groundwater supplies can be obtained
without great difficulty, making it possible to increase capacities when
necessary. Regionalization of water systems is not considered a priority in
this area.
xv. Tyrrell County and Columbia
Tyrrell County and Columbia are able to meet their system demands;
however, they experience some problems with water quality and THM
residuals. With relatively small population and little growth, no
immediate increases in water demands are expected. There is only
moderate interest in a regional water system if feasible alternatives are
available.
Tyrrell County Contacts
J.D. Brickhouse County Manager
Carlisle Harrell Columbia Town Manager
xvi. Washington County, Creswell, Plymouth and Roper
Creswell and Roper operate small water systems which serve their
respective communities as well as sell water to the county. The larger
Plymouth water system also sells water to the county, which presently has
no water production capability. Each municipality fares well meeting
local demands as well as the county's demand. However, Creswell and
Roper have occasional water quality problems resulting from iron and
hardness and the large demands of the county.
Washington County purchases water in bulk from the municipalities to
distribute to its customers. The county is in the planning stages of
building a 1.0 mgd water treatment plant and extending water mains to
additional areas. However, with moderate population and limited growth
in the area, no difficulties in meeting demands are foreseen and
regionalization of water systems is not considered a priority.
13

I- Washington County Contacts
Lee Smith
Norman Furlough
County Manager
Water Superintendent
David Twiggs
Plymouth Town Manager
James Davenport
Creswell Superintendent
Irvin Hassell
Roper Superintendent
I
B. Analysis of Water -Challenged Areas
' Through visits and interviews with the participant water systems it became
evident that virtually every water system feels some degree of deficiency in their
ability to produce and deliver water. These perceived deficiencies were varied
and included the desire for more water, greater flow rates from wells, more
storage capacity and more service mains to reach additional customers. Some
water systems simply wish for the finances to expand existing systems to
stimulate growth in their areas. Other areas require the means to begin
construction on new water systems.
Most water systems in the Study Area see a clear advantage in regionalization of
water systems, particularly with respect to simple interconnection of systems for
purposes of water supply during emergency conditions. However, a few areas
demonstrate a clear need for help in meeting water needs, for which
regionalization is viewed as a possible long-term solution. Two common factors
emerge in these most water -deficient areas which serve as indicators of serious
water deficiencies.
These factors are:
1. Growth - Some counties and municipalities in the Study Area are
experiencing growth rates which far exceed their capacity for
producing and distributing water. Some areas are actively pursuing
water system improvements which still do not meet increasing
demands or will not meet projected future demands. Some areas have
put community growth on hold due to inability to provide water to new
customers.
2. Water Resources - Some areas recognize the need to expand their
water production capacity but are limited or inhibited by the
availability of reliable water resources. Many portions of the Study
Area are very limited in access to adequate quantities and/or good
quality water. There are essentially no reliable surface water resources
in the Northeast portion of the state. The hydrogeology of the lower
14

Coastal Plain creates generally low well flow rates and the threat of
salt water intrusion.
The Water Study participants which demonstrate the greatest need for water
supply assistance (regionalization) based on the above criteria are listed
below.
Recommended Participant for Regionalization
Camden County
Currituck County
Dare County
Pasquotank County
Elizabeth City
The needs and challenges of these particular areas are summarized in Section
B.1 above. Distribution scenarios to serve these and other areas are presented
in Section 6 of this report.
15

1 3. GROWTH AREAS AND PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS
In the previous section, "growth" was used as one criterion for determining areas of
greatest need for water. Growth is defined here as a combination of residential and
industrial development and the associated increase in population. The following section
elaborates on the various growth areas within the portion of the Study Area which most
need water and the projected water demands associated with this growth.
A. Growth Areas
Understandably, growth within an area corresponds with the popularity of the
area. The popularity of an area can result from a variety of factors including but
not limited to:
job opportunities
affordable or alternative housing
good public utilities/facilities
good schools/hospitals
vicinity to larger cities
recreation/vacation sites
Northeastern North Carolina has many popular and growing areas. Development
is ongoing along the northern Outer Banks, most notably in Currituck County.
Moderate development also continues along the Albemarle Sound and many
rivers of the area. Edenton, Hertford and Elizabeth City have examples of this
sort of shoreline community development.
Various portions of the northeastern counties experience growth stemming from
their proximity to Chesapeake and Virginia Beach. Currituck County is a primary
beneficiary of this type of bedroom community growth; however, Camden and
Pasquotank Counties also have this opportunity.
Elizabeth City and Pasquotank County continue to experience moderate but
steady growth stimulated by the presence of the Coast Guard Station, Elizabeth
City State University, the new prison and a variety of other job opportunities.
B. Projected Water Demands
Water demand projections for the participants of the Water Study vary widely
between sources. The North Carolina Division of Water Resources database of
Local Water Supply Plans (WSPs) was relied upon heavily for this study. The
WSPs are filed by each licensed water system in the state and contain information
on type of water source, connections between systems and projected water
demands. However, these projected demands differ from those stated in other
sources.
16

Table 1 below lists three versions of projected demands, including those listed in
the WSPs. In letters to the Albemarle Commission and Task Force in 1994, the
demands were stated as a supplemental daily volume. In interviews conducted for
this Study, yet different numbers were offered as the projected demand. One
reason for this variability may be that opinions of projections change frequently
due to constantly changing conditions (growth, well production) within each
water district.
This variability in demand projections caused some uncertainty in the demands to
be used in formulating water sources and distribution scenarios for this Study.
' The result is that several demand scenarios were used, based to varying degrees
on the demand projections listed in Table 1. Each water supply scenario
presented in Section 6 of this report is prefaced by the Assigned Demands and the
Design Concept. This portion describes the projected demands along with the
water source and distribution layout. The assigned demands were based on:
1) The amount of water available from the source. In some cases
such as with the Lake Gaston Pipeline or PCS Phosphate, a
limited amount of water is available, which dictates the demand
that can be met.
2) The specified demand. In some cases, such as with well fields,
the source could be designed to meet specified demands.
17

r-I
t
H
11
W
N
Q3
N 0
a
0
N
0
N
Q Q O Q O d Q Q d Q Q Q Q CS, O O Q Q Q d d
z z� z N z z z z z z z z � � n z z z z z
C4 G4 O O O O R! 044 On PG
z z. M z 'n• z z z z z z z z 0 W) O v, z z N z
O N N - O O
N O t- t- O O O t- O vl kn O O to It Itt O - Itt
N ON t` M \O oo 110 O w V 00 O It O t- to M --�
tl- N N O tl 00 O\ t�
M Cl O O M O N It O O O O O O
O O O O M O w D, N O O O M kn O I'O t- .-. N %O O
O O O M Wn C7% all t- O� all N 'IT �• in ON 0� t- kn t- W)
O O O O\ 14: 00 I-O .-. - t` " N M 00 n N O O --� N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - O O O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y �
o
W b .
v�
2 xb�
�0
0
U
d c u U
u
o a� A x
U
00
c� U x z
§ "0
a�i �
0
a`ai ai
wwv)UUA
�xxawax3�H3
cc
,D
Cd
Cc
tg
tg
a
� �
V]
44 t7
3
cd
3
U
L3.
O
y
b
'2
Cd
O
N
b
S.
a;
3 40
0
3
o
Cd
En
•3
o
a��i •�'
"
a
zON
s
O
>
w
Envi
ai
D
b
A
Q °
a
�
U OO U A
}
>
¢a� , a� b
A
y rn
b
a a
�
d
-j
N ri 4
z Q
00

�1
4. POTENTIAL WATER SOURCES FOR NORTHEAST NORTH CAROLINA
' Traditionally, groundwater sources have been relied upon heavily throughout the Study
Area. The aquifer system of the Coastal Plain consists of ten water bearing units which
correlate with geologic formations of marine origins. Each water bearing unit (aquifer) is
tapped with production wells at various locations in the region. Water quality and
available volumes vary between aquifers and within individual aquifers.
' Surface water sources are less common in the Study Area but are used in places in the
upper Coastal Plain. The Roanoke River and Roanoke Rapids Lake are used by the
Roanoke Rapids and Halifax County water systems. Various creeks are used in other
smaller systems. In an anomalous case in the lower coastal plain, the Nags Head water
system on the Outer Banks uses a fresh water pond (Fresh Pond) as a water source.
' This section of the report explores and details some of the potential water sources
available to the Study Area. It includes discussions on locally available groundwater,
' surface water sources and external sources, namely, the Lake Gaston Pipeline and PCS
Phosphate mine depressurizing water.
A. Lake Gaston Pipeline
Many sensitive issues surround the proposed Lake Gaston Pipeline between the
lake and Virginia Beach -- water rights, inter -basin transfer, environmental
impacts, etc. North Carolina and Virginia have attempted negotiations on the
pipeline on several occasions but at present there is no active dialogue. However,
it has been suggested, as part of a compromise to allow the 60 mgd pipeline, that
15 mgd be made available (returned) to northeastern North Carolina. This water
would be made available at, as yet, undetermined locations along the pipeline.
The governments of the two states have not been able to settle the dispute and the
pipeline remains a politically sensitive issue. However, the proposed 15 mgd of
water potentially available can be considered as a future water source should it
become a reality. An interceptor pipeline could be constructed to receive and
' distribute water to supplement systems suffering from deficiencies. Scenarios 1
and 2 in Section 6 outline the possible use of Lake Gaston water in the
northeastern counties.
' B. PCS Phosphate (formerly TexasGu o
' The PCS Phosphate mining operation is located near Aurora on the south shore of
Pamlico Sound in Beaufort County. Phosphate ore is mined from the Pungo
River Formation (also an aquifer) which lies above the Castle Hayne Formation
and below shallower surficial deposits.
19

ii
' In order to mine the ore, the formations above and below the ore body must be
dewatered to prevent flooding of the mine pits. This is done by large-scale
' withdrawal from a series of recovery wells installed in both the surficial aquifers
and the Castle Hayne aquifer. Water withdrawn from the Castle Hayne serves to
"depressurize" the lower aquifer, preventing upwelling of this deeper water into
' the mine pits.
Presently, PCS Phosphate produces an average of 30 mgd of depressurization
' water (DPW). Their Capacity Use Permit allows for up to 70 mgd withdrawal;
however, withdrawal rates this high have not been required for many years and
are not expected to reach this level. The effects of high withdrawal rates in this
area are discussed in Section 5 of this report.
Of the 30 mgd of DPW removed, approximately 10 mgd is utilized by PCS. The
remaining 20 mgd is discharged into Pamlico Sound. The water is hard but could
be used as potable water source with minor treatment and chlorination.
' PCS Phosphate has expressed a willingness to distribute the excess DPW as a
public water supply source if political and community opinion was in favor of
' such. Scenario 5 explores the possibility of obtaining 20.0 mgd from the PCS
Phosphate DPW well fields and distributing the water through several northeast
counties terminating in Dare County.
' C. Surface Waters in General
The North Carolina Coastal Plain contains numerous surface water bodies. These
surface waters occur as ponds, lakes, streams, estuaries and sounds. However,
despite their abundance, these surface waters are rarely useful as potable water
sources due to a combination of poor water quality and slow recharge rates.
' i. Lakes
There are several lakes in northeastern North Carolina large enough to be
' considered for water source. These include Lake Mattamuskeet,
Merchants Mill Pond, Lake Phelps, Pungo Lake and New Lake. However,
several factors prevent these lakes from being reliable, long-term water
' sources.
Water quality varies widely between lakes in the region; however, water
from all the lakes would require treatment prior to use. Most lakes in the
region are situated in swamps and are lined by peat beds. Lake water
usually has very little hardness, likely due to having filtrated through peat
deposits and not having come into contact with carbonate rich soils and
aquifer materials typical of the Coastal Plain. However, due to the
' constant contact with peat, the lakes are high in tannic acid and organics.
20
f

Such constituents require heavy treatment, usually lead to THM
(trihalomethane) residual problems in distribution systems and could cause
fouling of filtration systems. Organic constituents also contribute to the
poor color (tea -colored) of the lake waters. Swampy water in continuous
contact with peat deposits have also been reported to contain mercury
above drinking water standards.
Although water quality is an important issue, the primary drawback of area
' lakes is their limited supply. Most lakes of the region are situated in
swamps, underlain by peat, shallow and are supplied by springs and
precipitation (runoff). Groundwater recharge through the low
permeability peat material is quite slow and precipitation recharge is
partially offset by evaporation.
Further complicating these factors is agricultural drainage which takes
place in vast expanses of Coastal Plain swamp in order to drain and
cultivate farm land. Agricultural drainage is accomplished through the
excavation of extensive ditch systems which locally lower the water table.
Lake levels fluctuate with changes in the water table. Local lowering of
' the water table creates a gradient from area lakes back into the shallow
surficial aquifer. During dry summer months, the water levels of lakes
affected by agricultural drainage have been observed to decline
' dramatically. (Channels carved for agricultural drainage have also, in
instances, opened conduits for salt water intrusion into lakes.)
'
Lake Phelps is a ready example of the limited recharge potential of Coastal
Plain lakes. When the swamp around Lake Phelps was drained for
agricultural use, locals quickly began to fear that the lake was going dry.
'
More recently, fire fighting efforts nearby required large volumes of water
be air -lifted from Lake Phelps. This occurred for a matter of several days.
Still, the lake level was affected dramatically and required nearly three
years to return to mean high water level. Furthermore, North Carolina
State Park regulations state that no activities will be allowed which could
'
alter water levels in State lakes, of which Lake Phelps is one.
ii. Estuaries
'
Due to near sea level ground elevations and low relief of the lower Coastal
Plain, rivers form wide, slow -flowing estuaries at their confluence with the
sounds. Estuaries are fed by fresh water draining from inland seaward. In
the estuaries, fresh water mixes with brackish sound water. The degree of
mixing depends on many factors, mostly seasonal. However, due to
'
negligible currents in the sluggish estuaries there is little flushing from
inland fresh water and water which becomes brackish can remain so for
long periods.
21

' Another factor which contributes to variations in water quality in estuaries
is wind driven current. Wind driven currents can drive brackish water
from the sounds considerable distances inland into estuaries. Then, due to
limited flushing as mentioned above, the slug of brackish water can
remain upstream for periods ranging from days to months. It is difficult to
predict either when these wind events will occur or how long they will
last.
The unpredictability of water quality in estuaries prevents their use as
water sources. This has been seen in Elizabeth City and Edenton. These
two cities each experienced problems with brackish water infiltrating their
water intakes and fouling their treatment plants. The unpredictable nature
of the salt water influxes coupled with indefinite duration of affectation
' caused each city to abandon their river intake for more reliable raw water
sources.
Iiii. Sounds
The North Carolina sounds are vast expanses of open water supplied by
' fresh water draining through the estuaries and mixing with the ocean
through the inlets of the Outer Banks. The water quality of the sounds
varies widely over time and space but is everywhere intermediate between
fresh water and sea water. Flushing of fresh water through estuaries is
minimal due to the relatively low flow compared with the great volume of
' the sounds. Furthermore, net flow is frequently inland due to wind driven
and tidal currents. This effect causes periodic (and unpredictable) surges
of brackish water well into the estuaries.
Some authorities have classified the sounds, or portions of them, as fresh
water bodies; however, from the standpoint of a potable water source, at
no place in the sounds can consistently fresh water be found. Even
estuaries vary in water quality enough so that Elizabeth City and Edenton
have abandoned intakes on the Pasquotank and Chowan Rivers,
respectively. Were sound water to be used for raw source water, measures
(and their expenses) would have to be taken to handle the variability of
water quality. This likely would require extensive membrane treatment
with high pressure requirements to treat the high chlorides present in
sound water..
22

ID. : Groundwater
' Of the potential water sources discussed thus far in this report section, none hold a
great deal of promise due to either political, hydrologic or water quality factors.
Although there are difficulties which must be overcome in order to utilize Coastal
Plain groundwater sources, utilizing local groundwater sources holds the greatest
promise for a long term water source independent of external entities. Because of
this an entire report section has been devoted to presentation of many Coastal
' Plain groundwater issues. The following section discusses in detail the
hydrogeology and potential groundwater source areas of the Study Area and
elaborates on how to pursue reliable, long-term production wells for a regional
water system.
I I
1
1
1
23

1
5. HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE STUDY AREA
' To some degree, hydrogeologic investigations of the North Carolina Coastal Plain date to
the turn of this century. Early studies were performed to record water levels in various
tapped water bearing zones (aquifers) and to attempt to quantify water reserves in an area
of the State that was becoming increasingly more populated. As the geologic
understanding of the Coastal Plain grew and more wells were installed in the various
aquifers, the base of hydrogeologic data grew and thus the quality and scope of
hydrogeologic investigations improved.
By the 1960's there was much interest in understanding the water resources of the Coastal
Plain due to continued civilian population growth and increasing numbers of government
and military establishments. Several agencies devoted funds to studying the Coastal
Plain water resources including the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management Groundwater Section and the Division
of Water Resources. The results of these agencies' efforts through the 1980's can be
observed in numerous reports on the hydrogeologic framework of various sub -regions of
the Coastal Plain. Some of these reports have become the cornerstone for researching and
understanding the hydrogeology of coastal communities. Perhaps every county and
municipal water system east of Interstate 95 has referred to the same research to locate
water sources for their water systems.
' With respect to researching the hydrogeology of the North Carolina Coastal Plain, this
study is no different. Numerous investigations and research papers were reviewed in
order to target areas for reliable and long-term groundwater sources. Certain papers
provide an overview of the entire Coastal Plain, while others are specific to areas
covering just several counties. A bibliography of the materials and conversations used in
researching the hydrogeology of the Albemarle Commission Study Area is provided at
the end of this report.
' A. Hydrologic Overview
The North Carolina Coastal Plain extends from the Fall Line, the division with the
Piedmont Province, to the Atlantic coast and covers approximately 40% of the
State. Coastal Plain geology consists primarily of marine, marginal marine, inter-
tidal and fluvial deposits. These deposits are characterized by alternating and
lenticular (discontinuous) strata of sands, clays, shells, gravels and limestone.
Underlain by crystalline basement rocks, Coastal Plain sediments range from just
a few feet in thickness at the Fall Line to as great as 10,000 feet at Cape Hatteras.
Each strata of sediments is characterized by its depositional environment, which
varied throughout transgressive and regressive cycles of the ancient Atlantic
Ocean.
1 24

11
Several geologic units have been identified and mapped in the North Carolina
Coastal Plain. In hydrogeologic terms these units generally correspond with
' aquifers of the same name; however, it is possible for clayey confining layers to
create multiple water bearing layers within one geologic unit. The geologic units
of the North Carolina Coastal Plain are presented in Figure 2. The "stragraphic
column" is the chronologic order in which each geologic unit was deposited -
oldest at the bottom, youngest at the top.
rB. Finding Adequate Groundwater Sources
Each of the aquifers listed above are capable of producing water to some degree.
However, the viability of obtaining water from any given Coastal Plain aquifer
depends on a variety of factors. Some of these factors are:
1. Aquifer Permeability - the ability or ease at which water can
flow within the aquifer. Generally, courser sands with low clay
content have greater permeability than clays and fine sands.
Porous limestone also has generally high permeability.
Permeability can vary between aquifers and within a single
aquifer.
2. Depth to Aquifer - The cost of well construction is proportional
to aquifer depth. Well construction is more demanding with
depth and larger pumps are required. Also, in the lower Coastal
Plain, water quality generally diminishes with increasing depth
(chloride concentrations increase), pushing the cost and
sometimes the technical feasibility of water treatment above
practical limits.
25

GEOLOGIC UNITS AQUIFERS & CONFINING UNITS
'
Quaternary Deposits: Surficial Deposits
Surficial Deposits
Yorktown confining unit
Tertiary Deposits: Yorktown Formation
Yorktown Aquifer
Eastover Formation
Pungo River confining unit
Pungo River Formation
Pungo River Aquifer
Belgrade Formation
River Bend Formation
Castle Hayne confining unit
Castle Hayne Formation
Castle Hayne Aquifer
Beaufort confining unit
Beaufort Formation
Beaufort Aquifer
Peedee confining unit
'
Cretaceous Deposits: Peedee Formation
Peedee Aquifer
Black Creek Formation
Black Creek confining unit
Middendorf Formation
Black Creek Aquifer
Upper Cape Fear confining unit
& Aquifer
'
Cape Fear Formation
Lower Caper Fear confining unit
& Aquifer
i
Figure 2. Stratigraphic Column showing North Carolina Coastal Plain
geologic units and their corresponding hydrogeologic units.
Modified from Winner and
Coble, 1989.
26

C0M
3. Thickness of Aquifer - Aquifer thickness can play a role in
efficiency of water production. A thin aquifer (water bearing
zone) confined above and below by lower permeability
deposits is limited in its production capacity relative to a
thicker or less confined aquifer. This is due to greater storage
and recharge in thicker and less confined aquifers.
Sometimes, as is the case with the widely utilized Yorktown
aquifer, the overall nature of the aquifer is of lower
permeability than several thin layers of coarser material
contained within the unit. Here the difficulty is finding these
thin zones and successfully screening them to produce enough
water.
4. Degree of Confinement - Recharge to confined aquifers is
inhibited by the confining layer. If the withdrawal rate from
the aquifer is greater than the recharge rate, the aquifer could
eventually "dry up". For thicker or shallower aquifers, this is
not such an issue because storage and recharge is greater; for
thinner or deeper aquifers, the water reserve may be rapidly
depleted due to less storage and insufficient recharge.
Due to these considerations it is often necessary to devote significant time and
effort in siting a well or well field. As many water systems in the northeastern
portion of the Study Area experience, finding an efficient or even sufficient
aquifer to tap is often difficult and costly. This is not so much the case for the
southern, central and western portions of the Study Area. Due to depostional
characteristics and the generally eastward dip of Coastal Plain strata (see Figure
3), these areas are capable of tapping the Castle Hayne aquifer or the deeper
Cretaceous aquifer system. These are more efficient and accessible aquifers with
generally better water quality in the southern, central and western portions of the
Study Area.
Water Bearing Zones
i. Cretaceous Aquifer System
Throughout much of the Study Area, the Cretaceous aquifer system is very
deep and presents an economic challenge to well installation. This aquifer
is also high in chloride concentrations in the eastern portions of the Study
Area. However, in the northwestern Coastal Plain, the Cretaceous aquifer
is quite productive. In Franklin, Virginia, the Cretaceous aquifer has been
pumped heavily for industrial use since the early 1940's. Due to continual
pumpage in Franklin, surpassing 30 million gallons per day (mgd)
27

1
O cn
U Y
Z
Y Q
U m
LLI
I--Z
Df
::D :D
UU
D
O
W
Y
U
Lwi
�W
J
O
z
Q
W_O
ctf
<
zI-
Q
a
a
U
C)
o
r
Q
f--LIJ
o
o
(n
Q
C)
L<ILja
��
_U
CDW
Qf
Q
Li
O
�
W
�
J
0
L
Ofmoo`'
LLJ
j
cn
N
<ry
W
z=
W
O
z
I
i__L.
O
N
(10
W X
J
�
'
Z
O
O �
Q
W
/
W
0
'
(L yL
O
/
Q
w
U
J
v_
CD
X
Q
/
o
LL-
_1
a
w
w
LLLLJ
J
o
0
o
W W
(n J
O
T)
O

in the mid-1960's, drawdown effects in the Cretaceous aquifer extend as
far south as the Albemarle Sound and east into Currituck County.
Despite the significant drawdown, production from the
aquifer appears
q
unchanged. The drawdown effects are generally limited to the Cretaceous
aquifer, although lowering the head (pressure) in the Cretaceous aquifer
does allow for seepage from the shallower aquifer through the confining
layer. However, no significant effects have been reported in the overlying
Beaufort and Castle Hayne aquifers.
ii. Castle Hayne Aquifer
In the central and southern portion of the
e Study Area, the Castle Hayne
aquifer is a prolific water producer. Numerous water systems have wells
screened in the Castle Hayne, which is one of the State's most productive
aquifers. The Castle Hayne is characterized by alternating beds of
limestone, sandy limestone and sand, grading increasingly to sand and
silty or clayey sand toward the bottom of the unit. Although Castle Hayne
water is hard and often high in chlorides, the Castle Hayne also contains
' extensive freshwater -bearing zones, though mostly in the southern Study
Area.
North of the Albemarle Sound, the Castle Hayne contains considerable
less limestone, grading to sandy limestone and silty sand. Here the unit is
much thinner and less permeable than in the southern Study Area. In
Pasquotank County, the Castle Hayne occurs around 450 feet deep and
averages approximately 50 feet thick. The unit is deeper and thicker to the
east. Castle Hayne water quality in the northeastern Study Area is rather
high in chlorides (3000 ppm) and hardness.
As an example of the available water from the Castle Hayne in the central
1 Coastal Plain, consider the mine dewatering process at PCS Phosphate
(formerly TexasGulf) in Aurora, Beaufort County. Since the mine began
operation in 1965, an average of 50 mgd of water has been pumped from
the underlying Castle Hayne to prevent mine pits from flooding with
upwelling water. Despite the extremely large withdrawal rate, the
drawdown effect (cone of depression) is isolated to an approximate 15-20
mile radius around the mine. Furthermore, the cone of depression is at
steady state, that is, it does not increase with continued pumping of the
aquifer. This is likely due to recharge rates to the Castle Hayne estimated
in this area to be between 75-140 mgd and the high permeability of the
limestone aquifer.
There are few reported instances of PCS Phosphate's dewatering process
affecting any nearby wells. Even with the Washington/Beaufort County
Iwell field 20 miles to the northwest and operating at as much as 4.2 mgd,
1 29

surrounding communities appear to be relatively unaffected b the heavy
vy
withdrawals from the Castle Hayne.
iii. Yorktown and Surficial Aquifers
In the northeast portion of the Study Area, the Yorktown Formation and
surficial deposits are commonly tapped for groundwater. The Yorktown is
overlain by surficial sand and clay deposits and averages approximately
460 feet thickness, typical thickness near Pasquotank County, thickening
eastward to greater than 1,000 feet on the Outer Banks.
The Yorktown is predominated by fine sands with varying amounts of clay
and silt, interbedded with thin layers (usually less than 10 feet) of coarse
sands and shell beds. A pebble conglomerate basal layer has been
reported in some areas, usually where the Castle Hayne and Beaufort
aquifers are absent. Generally, the Yorktown is finer -grained in the
shallower portions and coarser in the deeper portions. Overall, Yorktown
deposits are relatively fine-grained with low to moderate permeability.
Considerably higher permeability can be expected in the coarse sand and
shell beds. Shell beds have been reported laterally continuous up to 6
miles.
The Yorktown being predominantly fine-grained and lower permeability,
well yields are often less than desirable for water system production.
Reported well yields range from 5 gallons per minute (5 gpm) to as much
as 400 gpm in the Yorktown aquifer. Typical well yields are 50-150 gpm,
with greater yields occurring in larger diameter wells and those wells
screened in coarser, more permeable zones.
The surficial aquifer overlies the Yorktown throughout Currituck,
Camden, Pasquotank and Perquimans Counties and the eastern portions of
Gates and Chowan Counties. The surficial deposits range between only a
few feet thick in Gates, Perquimans and Chowan Counties to greater than
150 feet in mainland Currituck County.
Surficial deposits consist of interbedded sand, clay, gravel and peat
underlain by a clayey confining layer. The confining bed separates the
surficial and Yorktown aquifers and limits mixing of waters of the two
aquifers. The surficial aquifer is recharged by infiltration of surface and
precipitation water and is, therefore, predominantly fresh except near the
saline sounds and estuaries. The Yorktown, on the other hand, is fresh
water in the upper and westward areas due to flushing by fresh water
through the confining layer. Water quality tends toward higher chloride
concentrations deeper and eastward in the aquifer due to less extensive
flushing. Wells screened near the gradational freshwater - saltwater
interface may draw saline water when over -pumped.
30

; 1�
D. : Groundwater -Challenged Areas
The northeastern -most portion of the Study Area is faced with a unique problem
with respect to siting reliable, long-term groundwater sources. Much of the
remainder of the Study Area is advantaged in that it has better access to the more
productive Castle Hayne aquifer and the Cretaceous aquifer system.
The production capacity of the Castle Hayne aquifer in the Central Coastal Plain
is largely due to its lithology and structure. There the Castle Hayne contains
molluscan mold and bryozoan-echinoid skeletal sandy limestone. This means the
limestone is very porous with abundant void space, making the aquifer highly
permeable.
Unfortunately for the areas north of the Albemarle Sound, this lithology grades to
a sandy, clayey limestone, pinching out near the Virginia border. The Castle
Hayne north of the Albemarle Sound is thinner and less permeable than in the
Central Coastal Plain. However, test well results reported in various literature
indicate that greater individual well yields are available from the Castle Hayne
than from the shallower Yorktown and surficial aquifers.
The western and southern portions of the Study Area have easier access to the
Cretaceous aquifer system. since it is shallower in these areas (see Figure 3). To
the east and northeast the Cretaceous aquifer system grows deeper and higher in
chlorides, reducing its viability as a groundwater source.
Therefore, water systems in the northeastern Study Area typically rely on the
Yorktown and surficial aquifers for groundwater. As described in Section C.iii
above, the Yorktown is the more productive of these two aquifers, with typical
well yields between 50-150 gpm. However, these well yields are troublesome for
municipal or county water systems with water demands sometimes 3.5 mgd and
greater. It would require over 30 wells producing 150 gpm (12 hr/day) to meet a
3.5 mgd demand.
The problem with such a scenario is two -fold.
1. Multi -well well fields require large amounts of land and
plumbing. These requirements lead to expenses which push up
the cost of water.
2. With numerous wells pumping within a localized area of an
aquifer, the drawdown is cumulative and the effects are
recognized in all wells. This effect is amplified in lower
permeability zones characteristic of the Yorktown and surficial
aquifers. To avoid this drawdown effect, wells must be
installed at greater spacing, further increasing costs in
plumbing.
31

' The obvious solution is to find aquifer zones in which wells can be screened to
produce greater yields, thus requiring fewer wells. However, such zones are
difficult to find in the northeastern Study Area. The following section discusses
various possible solutions.
E. Finding Sufficient Groundwater Sources
Water systems in the northeast Study Area understand the difficulty of finding
efficient well screening zones. A few 500 gpm wells would be far more desirable
than many 150 gpm wells. However, few wells in the area produce as much as
400 gpm and some wells produce 30 gpm or less. Therefore, finding sufficient
groundwater sources generally means constructing numerous wells, frequently
leading to the type of problems discussed above.
The solution to these problems is to focus on siting sufficient groundwater sources
in a way which reduces or eliminates the frustrations of a multi -well system.
i. Screening Multiple Zones
It is generally understood that groundwater can be obtained at virtually
any depth below land surface in the Coastal Plain, though the quantity and
quality will vary. With some practical experience and research into
references such as those in this report's bibliography, consultants, well
drillers and water system superintendents learn where to obtain sufficient
quantities of water of acceptable quality. However, when water system
demands outpace production, new wells must be added in water bearing
zones which may be stretched to or near their capacity. The focus must
then be on finding other productive aquifer zones. This could mean
screening wells in multiple aquifers, including deeper ones with elevated
chloride concentrations. In many cases, obtaining greater quantities of
groundwater will mean facing higher degrees of water treatment.
In the northeastern counties, a possible solution to having multiple low
flow wells and chronic drawdown threats is to screen wells in a
combination of the surficial, Yorktown, Castle Hayne and even Cretaceous
aquifers. The key is to carefully log the subsurface lithology while the
well is being drilled in order to accurately locate the thicker and coarser -
grained zones of greatest permeability and greatest potential production
capacity. Single wells may be screened in multiple zones or individual
wells can be screened in shallow, intermediate or deep zones.
As discussed in Section C above, potentially greater yields may be
obtained in the Castle Hay ne and Cretaceous aquifers than the shallower
aquifers. Water systems using relatively low flow wells screened in the
surficial and Yorktown aquifers may considerably increase their raw water
production capacity by installing wells in these zones. This effect may
32

also be achieved by drilling into the basal Yorktown gravels, where
present. The keys to finding productive zones must be stressed:
1. The technical skill must be present to find these zones. A clear
understanding of the lithologies and target depths of the
aquifers must be present when drilling. The productive water
bearing zones are frequently laterally discontinuous, so that
pilot or test holes must be drilled in order to find the zone. In
addition, it is good practice to thoroughly test an aquifer zone
before installing a well permanently. In all, there must be
patience and willingness to finance and perform the
preliminary work necessary to construct a useful well.
2. Targeting deeper and/or more eastward aquifers means
accepting greater water treatment demands due to the increased
chloride concentrations (hardness and iron may also require
more treatment). Higher chloride concentrations generally
require reverse osmosis (RO) treatment. RO treatment is more
costly than traditional aeration, filtration and softening
treatment. RO treatment also comes with the complications of
siting and permitting a discharge point for the saline
concentrate.
ii. Screening Exclusively in the Yorktown Aquifer
It has been suggested that the answer to adequate groundwater supply in
the northeastern Study Area is to utilize numerous wells in the Yorktown
aquifer (references 6 & 14). This is a legitimate solution, especially from
the perspective of water quality and water treatment costs, since fresh(er)
water can be obtained from the Yorktown.
Many water systems in this area utilize wells screened in the Yorktown
with moderately favorable results. However, many of these same water
systems would prefer fewer wells with higher efficiency rather than
additional wells with the same moderate production. This can potentially
be accomplished in the Yorktown aquifer taking the following into
consideration:
1. As with any well construction, particular care must be
taken to find the most permeable and productive zones
in the aquifer. As discussed in Section i. above, the
technical expertise, time, testing, patience and financial
backing must be available to find these zones.
2. Well spacing is important when screening multiple
wells within one aquifer. This is due to the cumulative
33

effect of multiple well drawdowns. Additionally,
multiple withdrawal points in a relatively focused area
can produce "salt water intrusion events". These can be
prevented with adequate well spacing and appropriate
pumping rates. Salt water intrusion events can be
remediated usually by ceasing pumping in the affected
wells to allow the saline intrusion cone to recede or
disperse.
3. Greater well productivity and lesser chloride
concentrations can be expected in areas where the
aquifer recharge rate is higher. This occurs in areas
where both the surface infiltration rate is higher and
where upper confining layers are less affective or
absent. Close attention to borehole lithology may help
to determine this along with attention to the
characteristics of the soil series in the area (with respect
to infiltration). Figure 4 provides a general overview of
infiltration capacities in the Coastal Plain.
W. Screening Exclusively in the Deeper Aquifers
fAlthough
the Castle Hayne has less productive aquifer characteristics
north of the Albemarle Sound than in the southern Study Area, limited
reports suggest it to be more productive than overlying aquifers. Although
there would be more stringent water treatment demands due to higher
chloride concentrations and greater well construction costs for deeper
wells, reliance on the Castle Hayne aquifer may be a solution to long-term
raw water supply without the requirement of an excessive number of
wells.
Since there is limited experience or research in utilizing the Castle
Hayne in this area for water supply, a test well program would
need to be completed prior to any decision to install production
wells. Such a test well program should involve drilling,
exploration and installation of an adequate test well system to
determine the chemistry and productivity of the aquifer. Only after
this should a decision to use the Castle Hayne be made.
34

79 7A 77 76* 75
,N ;•:
Fe// L/ne
r
.icy.. •a y::`;� •:i�=:•`:;. .. inn.
{fin::>ti.?.y. Y?:'?i<.:;i:3.:r , 5�����s� ^,:.�1�t�3i_•ysiv::°•"``
SOUTH
0 s0 100 MILES
0 so 100 KILOMETERS
VIRGINIA
EXPLANATION
COASTAL PLAIN SOILS
gt•'r,cic GOOD INFILTRATION CAPACITY— Mostly webdrained to very well -
drained sandy sod and sandy loam. but including some soils contannq
�•:. significant anwunts of day. sod Permeability 210 20 inches per tour
and may exceed 20 inches per hour in some areas
MODERATE INFILTRATION CAPACITY— Moderately to well -drained
soi: s4 generally contains fine sand. silty loam. and sandy day
loam. and contains sgrwfiant percentage of day. sod permeabity
0.2 to 6 inches per hour
® POOR INFILTRATION CAPACITY— Poorly drained day. day loam and
sandy day. soi permeaG4ty 0.06 to 2 inches per how
PIEDMONT SOILS
® UNDIFFERENTIATED
I it
Figure 4. Infiltration Capacities of Surface Soils in the
North Carolina Coastal Plain
Excerpt from Winner and Coble, 1989
35

n
I
17
L]
Ej
Little is known of the water production capacity of the Beaufort and
deeper Cretaceous aquifers in the northeastern Study Area. The lithology
of these units (interbedded sands, clays and shell beds) suggests that
permeable zones exist in the deeper aquifers. The thickness of the aquifers
suggests great water reserve potential. As discussed in Section C.i. above,
the Franklin, Virginia area obtains tremendous water volumes from the
deeper aquifer system.
The obvious drawbacks of utilizing the deeper aquifer system are the cost
of siting permeable zones, installing deep wells and treating saline water.
However, limited research suggests that there are zones with chloride
concentrations less than 1000 ppm. As with the Castle Hayne, a thorough
test well program should be executed prior to the installation of production
wells in any of the Cretaceous aquifers. It must also be accepted that RO
treatment would be required to treat water from either of the deeper
aquifers.
36

1 6. ANALYSIS OF DISTRIBUTION AND SOURCE SCENARIOS
11
The previous sections of this report have presented and discussed the existing water
supply and demand conditions within the Study Area. The areas most in need of
additional water supply have been sited as well as potential water sources to meet area
demands.
This report section analyzes several distribution and source scenarios, focusing on the
areas of greatest water need and the potentially feasible water sources. Each scenario was
formulated with detailed engineering considerations including obtaining source water,
water treatment and discharge (where necessary), pumping and pressure sources,
distribution networks, storage, construction and financial details.
After each scenario was formulated, a construction cost and operation and maintenance
expense was calculated. These costs were then divided amongst the scenario participants
in two ways:
1. Based on percent capacity used -- the cost per 1,000 gallons to each
participant is based on the percent of the flow within the distribution main that
is devoted to that participant. This cost accumulates in each distribution
segment up to the point of delivery to the participant.
2. Divided evenly between participants -- the cost per 1,000 gallons is based on
the total project cost divided by the number of participants. Here the cost per
1,000 gallons is the same for each participant.
A simplified example is provided below in Figure 5. Each scenario is presented showing
first the demands of the participants and the design concept of the distribution layout. A
schematic distribution layout is provided with each scenario. An itemized cost estimate
is then presented for each segment of distribution main , the water treatment and
production facilities, where applicable. Segments are separated by the points of delivery
to the participants (see distribution schematics). Each point of delivery includes a ground
storage tank, booster pump station and master meter for delivery of water into each
participant's existing system.
All the project costs are appropriately distributed as described above amongst the
P J � g
scenario participants, the debt service is calculated and the water cost per 1,000 gallons is
calculated based on the assigned demand. Following this presentation is commentary on
key points of the scenario including it's overall feasibility.
A. Explanation of Distribution and Source Scenarios
Seven scenarios are presented in Appendix II covering various distribution and
water source alternatives. A general description of each scenario is as follows:
37

Scenario 1 - 10 MGD total flow from Lake Gaston pipeline.. Service to
Camden County, Currituck County, Elizabeth City and Pasquotank
County.
Scenario 2 - 15 MGD total flow from Lake Gaston pipeline. Service to Camden
County, Currituck County, Dare County, Elizabeth City and
Pasquotank County.
Scenario 3 -
6 MGD total flow from 14 wells drawing water from the Yorktown
Aquifer in Chowan County area. Service to Camden County,
Chowan County, Currituck County, Elizabeth City, Pasquotank
County and Perquimans County.
Scenario 4 -
20 MGD total flow from the mine dewatering operation at PCS
Phosphate. Service to Beaufort County, Camden County, Chowan
County, Currituck County, Dare County, Elizabeth City,
Pasquotank County, Perquimans County and Washington County.
Scenario 5 -
10.5 MGD total flow from 25 wells drawing water from the
Yorktown Aquifer with a well field system along Hwy. 37
beginning in Winfall and extending north toward Gates County.
Service to Camden County, Currituck County, Elizabeth City,
Perquimans County and Pasquotank County.
Scenario 6 -
13 MGD total flow from 35 wells drawing water from the Castle
Hayne Aquifer in the Elizabeth City Area with RO water treatment.
Service to Camden County, Currituck County, Dare County,
Elizabeth City and Pasquotank County. Costs are also presented for
not servicing the Outer Banks in Currituck County and Dare
County.
Scenario 7 -
Same as Scenario 6 except 16 MGD total flow.
1
38

10 MGD WTP
$5,000,000
FIGURE 5
EXAMPLE DISTRIBUTION SCENARIO
PARTICIPANT A
6 MGD
(60%)
SEGMENT 1 SEGMENT 2
$4,000,000 $2,000,000
Cost Breakdown
(Percent Capacity)
PARTICIPANT B
4 MGD
(40%)
Participant A
Participant B
10 MGD WTP (60% / 40%)
$ 3,000,000
$ 2,000,000
Segment 1 (60% / 40%)
$ 2,400,000
$ 1,600,000
Segment 2 (0 % / 100%)
$ -0-
$ 2,000,000
Total
$ 5,400,000
$ 5,600,000
Debt Service
(20-yr, 5.15%)
$ 438,840
$ 455,091
Annual Water Use
(1000 gallons)
2,190,000
1,460,000
Cost / 1000 gallons
$ 0.20
$ 0.32
Cost Breakdown
(Divided Evenly)
Total Project Cost
$ 11,000,000
Debt Service
(20-yr, 5.15%)
$ 893,929
Total Annual Water Use
(1000 gallons)
3,650,000
Cost / 1000 gallons to
Participants A & B
$ 0.25
39

i
Each scenario culminates in a final cost per 1000 gallons of treated water to each
participant. Cost per 1000 gallons of water is based on a debt service and an
operation and maintenance cost. Treated water is delivered to a selected point of
delivery for each participant. Each point of delivery utilizes a ground storage
tank, booster pump station and master meter. A finished water pump station
located at the central treatment facility will maintain water in each ground storage
tank. The booster pump station will draw water from the ground storage tank and
be sized to fill each participant's elevated storage tank(s). Telemetry will be
utilized to operate the booster pumps, maintaining tank water levels. Points of
delivery were selected to optimize use of each participant's existing infrastructure
with minimal upgrades.
Sizing for ground storage tanks was based on 6 hours of demand, or one -quarter
of the average daily demand. Basic pipe sizing was provided to maintain a pipe
velocity between 2 feet per second and 4 feet per second. Hydraulic modeling was
performed for several scenarios utilizing the KYPIPE computer model
"CYBERNET". Debt service calculations were based on a 20 year loan at an
interest rate of 5.15%. No grant monies were considered in this study.
Section 4 of this report discusses the possible water sources for the Albemarle
region. Among those discussed, the most feasible of them, based on water quality
and available quantity, were considered in distribution scenarios. These potential
water sources were the Lake Gaston pipeline, PCS Phosphate depressurizing
water and groundwater from the Yorktown and Castle Hayne aquifers.
Two scenarios are presented utilizing wells in the Yorktown Aquifer in the
Chowan County area and the Perquimans County area. Scenario 3 utilizes a well
field in Chowan County based on previous research which indicated potentially
higher well yields in the Valhalla area. Although individual wells yields in the
Winfall area are reportedly low, Scenario 5 utilizes Yorktown -screened wells in
northwestern Perquimans County extending toward Gates County. This scenario
was selected based on previous research which indicated potentially higher well
yields in this area and generally increasing well yields westward from Pasquotank
County. Higher permeability surface soils are present in this area which may
allow greater aquifer recharge.
Scenarios 6 and 7 are devoted to drilling wells in the Castle Hayne aquifer and
utilizing RO water treatment. Much of the treatment requirements were obtained
from a study prepared by Piedmont Olsen Hensley entitled "Reverse Osmosis
Water Treatment Pilot Study" dated August, 1995. Their study analyzed results
of a test well with a pilot RO treatment plant. A 4" gravel packed well was
constructed at the Elizabeth City well field to a depth of 469' followed by 25' of
screen. A pilot -scale RO plant, supplied by Filmtec Corporation, was used to
40

jtreat
the saline groundwater. The raw water tested in the RO pilot plant contained
an average of 6,200 ppm TDS (total dissolved solids) and 3,300 ppm chlorides.
(Note: ppm = parts per million = milligrams per liter.) The pilot study indicated
this water to be fully treatable with the proposed design and operating parameters
(applicable to a full-scale plant) as follows:
Sulfuric Acid Dose: 150-180 mg/1
Anti-Scalant Dose: 2-4 mg/1
Design Feed Pressure: 350 psi
Design Flux Rate: 15 gdf
Design Recovery Rate: 75%
TDS Rejection: 98%
These parameters and the associated costs of treatment are subject to change with
any changes in raw water quality. Water with lower chloride concentrations was
observed in a test well in Morgans Corner with a similar screened depth.
Variability in groundwater quality over small distances and depths is common
throughout the region.
The Study also presented projected operating expenses for a new membrane
filtration system as follows:
Power: $0.42/1000 gal
Chemicals: $0.26/1000 gal
Maintenance: $0.10/1000 gal
Cartridge Filter Replacement: $0.01/1000 gal
Membrane Filter Replacement: $0.10/1000 gal
These figures from the Piedmont Olsen Hensley pilot study were used in part to
formulate operation and maintenance costs for the RO treatment scenarios
presented in this study.
An issue with RO treatment that is considered in this study is concentrate
disposal. Reverse osmosis treatment of chloride -rich water produces wastewater
that is very concentrated in chlorides. This wastewater must be disposed. Under
Scenarios 6 and 7, the concentrate is discharged to the Pasquotank River, a typical
disposal method. Several discussions were held with the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR) regarding concentrate
disposal. Key issues of concern in the Pasquotank River are anoxic salinity
wedges, salinity and chloride levels, salinity tolerant species and toxicity.
DEHNR first indicated that the proposed discharge could not be located on the
Pasquotank River north of the Coast Guard Base. DEHNR later indicated that it
may be possible to locate a discharge as far north as Knobbs Creek on the
Pasquotank River. Discharge scenarios are presented for both locations.
41

�J
i�
i
1
The RO treatment facility scenarios are presented in a fashion to illustrate the
effects of construction in phases. The cost structure is shown with the treatment
facility built to 50% capacity and 100% capacity. Construction to 50% capacity
includes the site, site structures, process piping, etc. Treatment facility
construction is performed such that it is readily expandable from 50% to 100%
capacity without need for upgrades. Transmission mains are sized and installed
for 100% capacity since it would be impractical and very expensive to upgrade
the lines as plant capacity increases.
Because the most feasible water sources are on the mainland, a water main across
the Currituck Sound would be necessary in order to provide water service to the
Currituck and Dare County Outer Banks. The scenarios incorporating service to
the Outer Banks illustrate a Currituck Sound crossing at Aydlett. This crossing is
shown as both subaqueous (installed along the bottom of the sound) and bridge -
attached on the proposed Mid -County Bridge. The Department of Transportation
has indicated that the bridge design can accommodate a maximum of two (2) 12"
attached water mains The bridge attachment installation is more economical than
a subaqueous crossing, however, flow is limited by pipe size. Scenarios presented
for the Outer Banks illustrate maximum possible flow available by bridge
attachment with two (2) 12" water mains as well as a subaqueous crossing
through a 24" water main.
42

1 7. CONCLUSIONS
I
1
I
A. Need for Water Supply AssistanceWithinthe Study Area
In the early stages of this Study, each participant was interviewed to discuss the
particular needs and concerns of each participating water system. Results of these
interviews are presented in Section 2 of this report. Through these efforts it
became clear that certain portions of the Study Area need help in meeting present
and future water demands while other areas do not. Much of this report has
focused on those areas determined most in need of water resources:
Currituck County
Camden County
Pasquotank County
Elizabeth City
Dare County
Due to continuing growth and declining fresh water resources, these are areas of
particular concern with respect to long-term water supply.
The remaining participants of the Water Study, for a variety of reasons, do not
have the same concerns with respect to long-term water supply. Primary among
the reasons are 1) limited growth and 2) existing adequate water resources to meet
projected water demands. The Study participants for which long-term water
supply does not appear to be an immediate concern, at least at present, are listed
below.
Bertie County
Chowan County
Edenton
Halifax County
Hertford County
Hyde County
Martin County
Perquimans County*
Hertford, Winfall
Northampton County
Tyrell County
Columbia
Washington County
Creswell, Plymouth, Roper
* Perquimans County is on the borderline of needing water supply assistance and
is therefore included in several of the distribution scenarios.
NOTE: Beaufort and Gates Counties are included in the Study Area but did not
elect to participate in the Study.
43

IB. : Water Resources Available to the Study Area
Considerable research into potential water sources for northeastern North Carolina
was conducted for this Study. Generally, the potential water resources are surface
water and groundwater. Specifically, this report addresses lakes, estuaries and
sounds under the surface water category and the many aquifers of the region under
the groundwater category.
i. Surface Water
The lakes, estuaries and sounds within the Study Area hold little promise
for long-term water supply due to poor and erratic water quality.
Additionally, the lakes of the region may simply not contain sufficient and
replenishable volumes of water. Use of estuaries and sounds as water
source would require advanced (and expensive) water treatment
techniques such as reverse osmosis. With reverse osmosis comes the
difficulties of managing a discharge for the concentrate effluent.
Another surface water source potentially available to northeast North
Carolina is Lake Gaston via the proposed pipeline to Virginia Beach.
Since the idea for the pipeline originated, there has been persistent
political opposition preventing its construction. A final decision on the
pipeline is pending approval by the Federal Energy Resource Commission
and further political negotiations between North Carolina and Virginia.
As part of the negotiations between the two states a concession has been
offered where 15 mgd of the proposed 60 mgd total flow be given back to
northeastern North Carolina to be used in water deficient areas. Two
scenarios using Lake Gaston pipeline water were presented. However,
since the time frame for construction of the pipeline or the final conditions
of agreement are unknown, it cannot be assumed that Lake Gaston
pipeline water is an available option.
ii. Groundwater
As discussed in considerable detail in Section 5 of this report there are
numerous water bearing units within the aquifer system of the lower
Coastal Plain. The major aquifers are illustrated in Figure 3. Even the
deepest of the aquifers (1000 - 2000 feet) are available to Coastal Plain
communities with the construction of deep production wells.
Water quality and available quantities vary within and between aquifers.
Historically, the deeper and more eastern aquifers have been considered
too high in chlorides to be useful as drinking water source. At the same
44

I
time, the shallower and fresher aquifers often yield very low volumes or
flow rates.
■ With improving membrane treatment technology, techniques such as
reverse osmosis have made more raw water sources available for use
despite high chloride concentrations. Increased productivity from many
well fields may be recognized by supplementing with deeper wells and
providing reverse osmosis treatment.
Hydrogeological research (a test well program) would be necessary to
confirm the feasibility of utilizing deeper aquifers. However, existing
research suggests the deeper aquifer system to be a viable option if the
chloride levels can be managed. The Castle Hayne, Beaufort and
Cretaceous aquifers appear to have potential for long-term water sources
for northeast North Carolina.
The Castle Hayne, in areas south of the Albemarle Sound, is a very
productive aquifer. Some interest has been expressed in utilizing excess
water from mine depressurization (dewatering) at PCS Phosphate near
Aurora, Beaufort County. Mine operations remove approximately 30 mgd
of groundwater from the Castle Hayne to prevent flooding of mine pits.
Approximately 20 mgd of this water is discharged to Pamlico Sound.
Some suggestions have been offered to distribute this wasted water to
areas of the Coastal Plain in need of water. Politically, this may not be
feasible due to opposition to distributing local water reserves to non -local
receivers. The question of the legalities of inter -basin transfer of water
also lingers. However, for the sake of comparison, a scenario for
distribution of PCS Phosphate water was presented.
C. Feasibility of Distribution
Several water sources and distribution scenarios were presented in the previous
section. From an engineering and construction perspective, each of these
scenarios are feasible. However, certain of these scenarios are less feasible than
others due to political and hydrogeologic reasons.
The Lake Gaston pipeline scenarios (1 and 2) are unlikely to occur (anytime soon)
due to political differences between North Carolina and Virginia. Participation in
these scenarios would also mean that the regional water system would be reliant
on the pipeline to maintain water supply. The regional water system would be
better served to control their own water source.
The PCS Phosphate scenario (4) could face considerable local opposition to
distributing such a large quantity of water away from the area. The question of
45

11
inter -basin transfer of water could also play a role in such a scenario.
Additionally, there are many unanswered questions regarding arrangements which
would need to be made with PCS: who runs the facility, will mine dewatering be
maintained such that 20 mgd will be reliably supplied and how long will mine
operations last in Aurora?
Two scenarios (3 and 5) utilize groundwater sources which are outside of the area
of greatest water needs. Although water is supplied in a supplemental capacity
within the source area, there could still be community/political resistance to
distributing water away from the locality of the source. Additionally, the stated
well flow rates were assumed based on existing but limited research and may be
overstated. The ability of these targeted aquifer zones to serve as a viable long
term water source would have to be borne out with hydrogeologic investigation.
However, if such investigation indicated lower than stated flow rates, then
additional wells would be required along with associated raw water piping. This
could create additional community resistance and would create increased water
costs.
The scenarios likely to present the least political resistance and promote the most
regional self-reliance are the ones using groundwater sources within the area of
greatest water needs, more specifically, within the area to be supplied the greatest
amount of water. These are Scenarios 6 and 7 which utilize groundwater in the
Elizabeth City/Pasquotank County area, receivers of the most water, and
distribute to Camden, Currituck and Dare Counties.
By producing the water within the area in which it would be distributed,
community/political opposition may be minimized. Furthermore, having water
production facilities within the area to be served provides for independence and
control of water production.
The following table presents a summary of the water costs/1000 gallons for each
participant in each scenario. The ranking of scenarios from least expensive to
most expensive is: Lake Gaston pipeline, Yorktown aquifer wells in Perquimans
County, Yorktown aquifer wells in Chowan County, RO treatment of deep wells
in Elizabeth City area and PCS Phosphate water.
46

bo
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
M
M
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
.'T
N
M
00
N
tn
tV
kn�
N
M
0
0
0
0
[--
t�
M
N
P«i
N
N
N
M
"O
r-
N
n
N
N
n
N
N
O
O
O
O
10
M
c+1
M
M
M
M
Mpq:
MM�
N
N
.0
00
-
10,
00
N
h
M
'^
'n
'n•
O
O
O
O
1.0
1t
N
N
N
'n
b00
00�'n%0G
N
O
O
�O
0
0
0
0
N
N
N
N
cn
O
O
O
O
z
w
co
00
N�
M
M
(CO
O
N
o
0
VN
•--i
-
-
.r
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C3
00
O
en
M
00
cli
N
N
N
M
N
N
-+
O
O
Rf
t
009
O�O
O\ l'o'q,
O
M
Cy
.--�
.-•�
r-i
r-i
.D
M
en
M
cM
Ci
0
0
0
0
N
N
;
-
-
0
0
0
0
N
N
N
N
O
P
P
00
'U"
UUU'U
"Uca
o
aF
d
p
Cj
c�
,o
.
d�
Cd
UUW
aAUa.a13
U
bA
� O cq rn
O cr
¢' O O t O O
bA to �bo O O
O O Ei +
"d c O O o o
W
O r +
~ ~ —03
O O�
WO
O 0 O O
r+
to to
O C2•--
O
O .o �
b b"o�
U '3 "3 O O O o O o
0 0
0 0 0 Cd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N ~kn ~kn
U
O
U UUry O _4 � 'dO 'GCS Rd7 "0 "o '0 "�C+ RJ
Nb•1
O O
Coll
Ca ^ bii Ti Ti �i
o O bA bA " •' M M M M \O "O \O "o
bA to bA
to U U �'Al
N N .. X >C .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
O O 'n
kn rn w
cd 03 cd at 0Y of N cd
1p 4,4 U N N U N sw � N" � N" N
cU
0 0 0
0Bcd
0 0
a�i a�i
a�i
cn C*0
aaa��aa>.>-
aP4 4P4P44P4P44941:4
id id ..6 cd .b id .b id .6 id .E u 'C cd . b u -6
'--� •- N N M M * t cn cn %c "o "O ko t-- t� r� [,
t-
IT

1 8. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is clear from this study that the most water -deprived portions of the Study Area
could benefit from combining water production efforts to form a Regional Water
System. The most feasible option for forming such a system, based on political,
financial, independence of operation and water availability aspects, is to pursue
deep well water production with reverse osmosis (RO) treatment in the Elizabeth
City area. Distribution should begin with the counties of Camden, Currituck,
Dare and Pasquotank and Elizabeth City. Therefore, it is the recommendation of
this study that the Albemarle Water Resources Task Force pursue formation of a
regional water system as described in Scenarios 6 and 7.
The system should be sized to provide the Outer Banks with the greatest amount
of water possible (Scenario 7) in order to meet ever-increasing water demands
there. This also increases the cost effectiveness of providing water. Negotiations
should be initiated between Camden County, Currituck County, Dare County,
Pasquotank County and Elizabeth City to create a governing water district. The
Institute of Governments can provide the needed guidance in the formation of a
governing entity.
W
The Task Force should establish a test well drilling project to identity aquifer
zones capable of producing adequate water supplies for long term regional
This
planning. project should place extensive focus on long term water quality
and long term aquifer yield (available quantity). Scenarios 6 and 7 include test
-
wells at a cost of $60,000 each. However, these test wells are for basic
reassurance that the correct aquifer zone is reached prior to installation of the full-
scale production wells. A test well program (hydrogeologic investigation)
adequate for designing a well field capable of long term water supply must
involve very focused and comprehensive investigation. It will be necessary to
design a scope of work for a test well program to include at a minimum
1.
Expertise and coordination in site selection -- this report has utilized
existing research to choose the an area near Elizabeth City to site Castle
Hayne or deeper wells. Other local areas may serve equally well such the
area around Morgans Corner where a Division of Water Resources test
well has been drilled. Some consideration must also be given to the
availability and cost of land. The Camden County peninsula between the
Pasquotank and North Rivers, mostly farmland, may be a good area to site
wells. It has also been suggested that land may be available in the
Pasquotank County Commerce Park area.
2. Expert well drilling and construction -- from previous experience, it is
evident that some low yield wells are the result of improper well
installation and construction. Any test well program must be performed
by qualified and conscientious well drillers supervised by an experienced
geologist with a clear focus on the goal of the project.
48

3. Proper
pump sizing and usage -- the appropriate pumps must be used for
drawdown tests to obtain optimum results from aquifer drawdown testing.
Additionally, pumps must be operated at appropriate flow rates,
continually and for an adequate length of time.
4. Proper monitoring and instrumentation -- this must include all necessary
monitor wells auxiliary to the pumping well, in adequate numbers and
appropriately spaced, equipped with the proper flow and water level
monitoring instrumentation.
5. Expertise in compiling and modeling test
pump results -- experienced
personnel must be present to receive and compile data including accurate
well drilling logs and aquifer drawdown data. This data is necessary for
creating a computer model to predict aquifer performance over the lifetime
of the well field. Computer modeling must be performed appropriately by
experienced and qualified operators.
6. Proper and thorough chemical analysis -- prior to performing any pilot
treatment studies, the quality of raw water must be known. Chemical
quality must be obtained by experienced personnel using accepted
sampling protocol, sampling at appropriately selected intervals and times.
C This project should also incorporate pilot testing to determine treatability of any
targeted groundwater. Pilot testing will help determine the required design
parameters for RO treatment. Based on our experience with the time required to
receive such permits, it is recommended to formally apply for a NPDES permit
for concentrate discharge as soon pilot test results are available.
i
I
1
l�
�
49

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Brown, P.M., Miller, J.A., and Swain, F.M., 1972, Structural and stratigraphic
framework, and spatial distribution of permeability of the Atlantic Coastal Plain,
North Carolina to New York: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 796.
2. Domenico, P.A., Schwartz, F.W., 1990, Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
3. Floyd, E.O., 1996, Personal Communication. (Ed Floyd is a former U.S. Geol. Survey
groundwater investigator and author of Groundwater Resources of Craven
County, North Carolina: U.S. Geol. Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-
343.)
4. Giese, G.L., Eimers, J.L., Coble, R.W., 1991, Simulation of Ground -Water Flow in the
Coastal Plain Aquifer System of North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Open -
File Report 90-372.
5. Groundwater Management Associates, Inc., 1994, Elizabeth City Water Supply Project:
Results of Deep Well Testing and Evaluation of Existing Shallow Well Field,
prepared for Piedmont, Olson, Hensley, Inc.
6. Harris, W.H., and Wilder, H.B., 1966, Geology and ground -water resources of the
Hertford -Elizabeth City area, North Carolina: North Carolina Dept. Water
Resources Ground -Water Bull. 10.
7. Hazen and Sawyer, P.C., 1993, TexasGulf Pipeline to the North Albemarle Region,
prepared for TexasGulf, Inc.
7. Heath, Ralph C., 1975, Hydrology of the Albemarle -Pamlico region, North Carolina:
U.S. Geol. survey Water Resources Inv. 9-75.
8. Heath, Ralph C., 1996, Personal Communication.
9. Horton, J.W., Zullo, V.A., 1991, The Geology of the Carolinas: The University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
10. Lindskov, K.L., 1973, Water Resources of Northeast North Carolina above Cape
Lookout, interim report: U.S. Geol. Survey open -file report.
11. North Carolina Geological Survey, 1988, Preliminary Explanatory Text for the 1985
Geologic Map of North Carolina.
12. North Carolina Division of Water Resources, 1991, Currituck County Outer Banks Water
Supply Study.
50

1
13. Peek, H.M., Register, L.A., and Nelson, P.F., 1972, Potential groundwater supplies for
Roanoke Island and the Dare County beaches: North Carolina Ground Water
Div., Report of Investigation No. 9
14. Peek, H.M., 1977, Interim Report on Groundwater Conditions in Northeastern North
Carolina: North Carolina Div. of Environmental Management, Groundwater
Section, Report of Investigation No. 15.
15.
Piedmont Olsen Hensley, Inc., 1995, Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment
Pilot Study for Elizabeth City, North Carolina.
16.
ProjectEAST Profiles, 1993: The Chancellor's Forum, East Carolina University.
17.
Reynolds, J.W., Spruill, R.K., 1995, Ground -Water Flow Simulation for Management of
Ia
Regulated Aquifer System: A Case Study in the North Carolina Coastal Plain:
GROUND WATER, Vol. 33, No. 5.
18.
Statistical Abstract of North Carolina Counties, 1991: State Data Center, Management
and Information Services.
19.
Walton, W.C., 1991, Principles of Groundwater Engineering: Lewis Publishers, Inc.,
Chelsea, Michigan.
20.
Wilder, H.B., Robison, T.M., Lindskov, K.L., 1978, Water Resources of Northeast North
Carolina: U.S. Geol. Survey, Water Resources Investigation 77-81.
21.
Wilder, H.B., 1996, Personal Communication.
22.
Winner, M.D., Jr., 1975, Ground -water resources of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore,
North Carolina: U.S. Geol. Survey Hydrol. Inv.
23.
Winner, M.D., Coble, R.W., 1989, Hydrogeologic Framework of the North Carolina
Coastal Plain Aquifer System: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 87-690.
I
1
�j
51

APPENDIX I
Contract for Engineering Services
Including
Scope of Services

1
CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
Regional Water Study
For The
Albemarle Water Resources Task Force
This AGREEMENT made this 21st _ day of September, 1995, by and between the
ALBEMARLE COMMISSION, hereinafter called the OWNER, and HOBBS,
' UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A., hereinafter called the ENGINEER.
WHEREAS, the OWNER intends to perform a "Regional Water Study" to identify
' long-range water supply alternatives beneficial to the region, hereinafter called the
' PROJECT.
NOW, THEREFORE, the OWNER and ENGINEER, for the consideration
hereinafter named, agree as follows:
The ENGINEER agrees to perform for the above named PROJECT professional
' services as hereinafter set forth.
The OWNER agrees to compensate the ENGINEER for services as hereinafter
provided.
I. ENGINEERING SERVICES:
The ENGINEER agrees to perform for the above named PROJECT professional
' services as herein set forth.
' HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. will address the issues to evaluate
water supply alternatives and options that might be mutually beneficial to some or all of the
systems in the region and prepare an analysis of water supply alternatives for the Albemarle
' Region. As proposed in the original Request for Proposals dated July 14, 1995, the
1

' Contract for a Feasibility Study will be in cooperation with the Albemarle Commission, the
' Northeastern North Carolina Economic Development Commission, the Rural Economic
Development Center, Inc. and the Counties of Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Halifax,
' Hertford, Hyde, Martin, Northampton, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, Washington; and
' the municipalities of Columbia, Creswell, Edenton, Elizabeth City, Hertford, Kill Devil Hills,
Kitty Hawk, Manteo, Nags Head, Plymouth, Roper, Southern Shores and Winfall. The
Feasibility y ilit Stud will include, as necessary, the Counties of Beaufort, Bertie and Gates. One
or more technically sound, politically acceptable and cost-effective alternatives for the region
will be developed.
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES (General Scope of Responsibilities
The Feasibility Study will include the following:
1. Project Briefing
Meet with the Albemarle staff and representatives from the region and the
State of North Carolina to discuss the project objectives and identify available
information and assistance to be provided by the Commission and others.
2. Visit with all Jurisdictions
The consulting engineering firm (ENGINEER) will visit or correspond with
officials of each participating system. These visits will produce a listing of
concerns, suggestions, and items to be considered in the Feasibility Study.
3. Preliminaryy Data Review
Following the visits with the system, the ENGINEER will perform a
preliminary review of documents which the regional governments or the N.C.
Division of Water Resources has available. Prepare and furnish to the
Commission a list of documents that are required for further analysis and
reference.
4. Acquisition of New Data
The acquisition of any new data that requires more than a very modest cost
will probably not be practical due to the limited funds available for this study.

5. ' Review of Current Capacities and Projected Needs
Projections of raw and finished water needs for all public water systems will
be provided by the Commission staff and the North Carolina Division of
Water Resources. The location and capacities of existing water and
wastewater plants will be furnished by the Commission staff. The
ENGINEER will review this data and determine the need for any additional
'
existing information. The existing information will be provided by the
Commission staff.
6. Review of Hydrological Data
The ENGINEER will review and evaluate existing hydrological data as
appropriate.
7. Alternatives to be Considered
'
A. Ground Water
Use of Good Quality Local Aquifers. Most systems within the area
'
currently use ground water. (Elizabeth City and Nags Head use or
have used surface water in whole or in part.) Obtaining good quality
water from suitable aquifers is becoming more difficult. This
for and
alternative source may meet the long-range need some systems
not for others.
B. Surface Water
Elizabeth City at one time used large amounts of surface water. It will
completely abandon this emergency source in 1995. During adverse
weather conditions, the Pasquotank River became an unsuitable source
due to high salinity. There were also problems with total organic
carbons. Hertford has used the Perquimans River as a source of water
and Nags Head uses local surface water lakes as a source to
supplement their water supply.
C. Importing Water From Other Areas
1) Texasgulf Surplus via Pipeline. Feasibility Study by the firm of
Hazen and Sawyer has addressed this alternative to some extent.
(A copy of this report will be made available). The
ENGINEER would use this report and tailor it as a water
supply alternative for the systems in the Albemarle Region.
2) As a result of recent developments regarding the Lake Gaston
pipeline, 15 mgd of water may be available from southeastern
Virginia. The feasibility of importing water from the cities of
'
Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and Norfolk are to be determined.

fl
�j
D. Desalinization
The upper reaches of Currituck Sound, as well as Back Bay, are
possible sources. During a high percentage of time, Back Bay is
virtually a fresh -water source. Moreover, it is relatively unpolluted and
has a very large volume. There are also saline ground water sources
on the outer banks and in other locations in the region.
North Carolina has considerable experience with desalinization at
Ocracoke Island and in Dare County. Plants are also being considered
elsewhere on the North Carolina coast. Determining the potential of
desalinization for specific areas would be the focus for evaluating this
alternative.
' E. Conjunctive Use
The option of using ground water and surface water in a unified
regional management system in the Albemarle Region may be a
satisfactory long-range alternative. Several years ago, the N.C. Division
of Water Resources studied the possibility of a limited unified system.
This study showed that sufficient water was available for Virginia
Beach by using only the Norfolk and Portsmouth Lakes, the existing
pumping facilities on the Nottoway and Blackwater Rivers, and
intermittent pumping from existing wells during critical drought
periods.
In the last few years, the City of Chesapeake has explored the
possibility of recharging local aquifers with freshwater, which could
then be recovered during dry periods. This option has been evaluated
and acted upon by the City of Chesapeake. Pilot facilities have been
constructed in the Chesapeake area. The addition of a ground water
recharge -withdrawal capability would make a conjunctive use system
even more attractive. This alternative could provide additional system
capability.
F. Regional Opportunities
The ENGINEER will review opportunities for regional cooperation in
water purchases and in raw and finished water production. The
possibility that some of the water systems might reduce their water
supply costs by joint cooperation and/or privatization or a large
regional water treatment plant is to be explored. Both the advantages
and disadvantages of such an alternative will be discussed. Cost
estimates of regional versus individual town water supply development
are to be developed. Any identified economies of scale should be

L�
documented based on similar savings (examples) in other North
Carolina systems.
G. Other Alternatives
After addressing alternatives listed above, the ENGINEER can
evaluate other options that have a reasonably high potential for
providing an economical water supply.
8. Development of Alternatives
Enough work will be done on each alternative to distinguish between
alternatives. A rough comparison of each alternative's cost and technical
considerations will be prepared. The alternatives will be defined as the
ENGINEER sees them.
The ENGINEER and the Commission staff will interactively scrutinize the
alternatives concerning technical, political, legal, and implementation aspects.
9. Report on Evaluation
The ENGINEER will prepare a description and a cost estimate of each
alternative. The final report will also consider feasibility of alternatives,
' evaluation of environmental impacts, and other factors that would affect
feasibility of the alternatives. The report will recommend long-range
alternatives for the region's water systems outlining the rationale for each
recommendation.
II. PAYMENT:
The OWNER agrees to pay the ENGINEER for services noted in Section I as herein
' set forth.
Total lump sum fee for the PROJECT is $42,000.00.
The ENGINEER shall receive progress payments based on monthly estimates as
Isubmitted to the OWNER by the ENGINEER.
III. ADDITIONAL SERVICES:
Should the ENGINEER be required to render "additional services" in connectionwith
' related work upon which the scope does not apply, the ENGINEER shall receive additional
compensation for such additional services at the hourly rates as specified on the Standard

n
Fee Schedule attached hereto in Exhibit "A" for the hours actually worked by the
appropriate classification of employee or at a subsequently negotiated lump sum fee. Such
"additional services" shall not be undertaken without prior written approval of the OWNER.
IV. CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS AND PROVISIONS
It is agreed by the parties hereto that the appropriate adjustments in any fixed and/or
lump sum payments shall be made in the event that the physical scope of the PROJECT,
time for completion, or services required are materially increased or decreased beyond that
contemplated at this time.
In the event such changes are necessary, the ENGINEER shall be paid for those
completed to the date of notification for change b
services compl g Y the OWNER. If such
anotification occurs during the interim, the ENGINEER and OWNER shall negotiate the
level of work effort accomplished and the associated sum due the ENGINEER for payment.
In the event the ENGINEER has not performed according to the terms of the
AGREEMENT for any reason including but not limited to substantial and unjustified delays
in work without approval of the OWNER, the ENGINEER is found incapable of
performing the class of work specified, or breach of the terms of the contract, the OWNER
may in its sole discretion declare the ENGINEER in default of the terms of the
AGREEMENT. Upon declaration by the OWNER of the default of the ENGINEER, the
ENGINEER shall be furnished written notice of such default at the last known address
which ENGINEER has provided to the OWNER. If the ENGINEER has not satisfied such
' default within ten (10) days from the date of the default, the OWNER shall consider the
AGREEMENT terminated and in such termination agree to pay the ENGINEER for work

performed on or before the date of such termination. Said payment to be for manhours
performed at the hourly rate herein specified in Exhibit "A". The failure of the OWNER
at any time to require performance by the ENGINEER of any provision hereof shall in no
way affect the right of the OWNER hereafter to enforce same.
IIV. DURATION OF PROJECT
The ENGINEER will furnish the completed feasibility study within 300 days from the
idate of the executed Contract.
1
The OWNER and ENGINEER each binds himself, his partners, successors,
executors, administrators and assigns to the other party to the AGREEMENT and to the
p,
artners successors executors, administrators and assigns of each other party in respect to
all covenants of the AGREEMENT.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto each herewith subscribe the same in
triplicate this day of 1995.
1_ ,
HOBBS, UPCHURCH &
ASSOCI S, P.A. ALBEMARLE COMMISSION
BY: BY: 4C-X-
lt�{y--�-
Fr M. Hobbs, P.E., President Hal Walker, Executive Director
Witness: C Witness: 1
Eric T. Weatherly, P.E., Ruth Mengel, Office Manage
Project Manager
7

i -
EXHIBIT "A"
HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1 FEE SCHEDULE
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates is pleased to offer our clients a competitive rate structure.
Our firm aggressively pursues the ocntrol of overhead and quality in an effort to maintain
the highest level of professional service at the most reasonable project costs.
ENGINEER - GRADE IV $75.00/HOUR
ENGINEER - GRADE III $65.00/HOUR
ENGINEER - GRADE II $52.00/HOUR
ENGINEER - GRADE I $45.00/HOUR
REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT $45.00/HOUR
SURVEYOR - GRADE II $48.00/HOUR
SURVEYOR - GRADE I $42.00/HOUR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER $55.00/HOUR
COMPUTER SYSTEMS SPECIALIST $55.00/HOUR
TECHNICIAN - GRADE IV $40.00/HOUR
TECHNICIAN - GRADE III $35.00/HOUR
TECHNICIAN - GRADE II $30.00/HOUR
TECHNICIAN - GRADE I $25.00/HOUR
SURVEY CREW $65.00/HOUR
SECRETARY - GRADE II $30.00/HOUR
SECRETARY - GRADE I $25.00/HOUR
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A. hourly rates are inclusive of all expenses and are
reflective of our competitive pricing.
Specific projects may be addressed through the hourly rate format or based on mutually
agreed upon lump sum fees as may be negotiated based on a well defined scope of services.
The ultimate aim of our services and fees is to provide the client with professional assistance
in a timely and cost conscious basis.
1

APPENDIX II
Design Data and
Cost Analysis

ISCENARIO 1 a
10.0 mgd raw water obtained from Lake Gaston pipeline at Chesapeake
Treatment provided in North Carolina by regional water association
Service to Currituck Co., Camden Co., Pasquotank Co. & Elizabeth City
Assigned Demand for Year 2020:
Currituck Co. = 1.0 mgd
g
' Camden Co. = 1.0 mgd
Elizabeth City 3.0 mgd
Pasquotank Co. = 5.0 mgd
10.0 mgd
Design Concept:
Water will be obtained from the pipeline near Chesapeake, Virginia and brought to a 3 million
gallon ground storage tank in northern Currituck County. Here treatment will be provided at a
new 10 mgd water treatment plant. A booster pump station will force treated water through the
distribution system to selected points of delivery (shown in schematic). At each point of
delivery, a ground storage tank, meter vault and booster pump station will be installed to
maintain water levels in each participant's elevated storage tank.
The transmission main is broken into segments extending between points of delivery. Cost to
each participant is based on percent capacity of each segment from the Virginia tie-in to their
point of delivery.
Operation and Maintenance costs for Scenario 1 are derived as follows:
Power $0.14
Chemicals 0.10
Salary 0.05
Maintenance Costs 0.05
Total $0.34/1000 gallons
I
1
F1
1

TIE-IN WITH
LAKE GASTON PIPELINE
(CHESAPEAKE AREA)
VIRGINIA
NORTH CAROLINA
O
Z
Co
CAMDEN CO.
(CAMDEN AREA)
ELIZABETH CITY
O(BROAD ST. & 17 BYPASS AREA)
13 '_
PASQUOTANK CO.
(CENTRAL SCHOOL AREA)
O
0
CURRITUCK CO.
(SLIGO AREA)
NOTE:
OPIPELINE SEGMENT.
COST ESTIMATE/SEGMENT
IS PRESENTED IN REPORT.
HOBBS, UPCHURCH do ASSOCIATES, P.A.
""Yo 1990
CONSULTM ENGINETAS '
SOUTHERN PINES, NORTH CAROLMN 28387
a.rOW
REGIONAL WATER STUDY
a Elw
ALBEMARLE COMMISSION
rW,
(�
11996
HERTEOM, NMTN CMOU-
Nf5
�
DISTRIBUTION SCHEMATIC
6
T .cN
SCENARIO 1

Transmission Main Cost Estimate:
Segment 1
21,000 LF 30" Water Main @ $90.00/LF
500 LF River Crossing @ $350.00/LF
2,500,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
10 mgd Booster Pump Station
Segment 2
51,500 LF 30" Water Main @ $90.00/LF
800 LF River Crossing @ $350.00/LF
Segment 3
58,200 LF 30" Water Main @ $90.00/LF
3,500 LF River Crossing @ $350.00/LF
Segment 4
16,600 LF 24" Water Main @ $60.00/LF
800 LF River Crossing @ $325.00/LF
Segment 5
15,000 LF 24" Water Main @ $60.00/LF
200 LF River Crossing @ $325.00/LF
$1,890,000
175,000
580,000
500,000
$3,145,000
$4,635,000
280,000
$4,915,000
$5,238,000
1,225,000
$6,463,000
$996,000
260,000
$1,256,000
$900,000
65,000
$965,000
3

SCENARIO 1
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4
Segment 5
Currituck Co.
10.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Camden Co.
10.00%
10.00%
11.11%
0.00%
0.00%
Pasquotank Co.
50.00%
50.00%
55.56%
62.59%
100.00%
Elizabeth City
30.00%
30.00%
33.33%
37.50%
0.00%
Dare Co.
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
% Currituck Co.
$314,500
$491,500
$0
$0
$0
% Camden Co.
$314,500
$491,500
$718,039
$0
$0
% Pasquotank Co.
$1,572,500
$2,457,500
$3,590,843
$785,000
$965,000
%Elizabeth City
$943,500
$1,474,500
$2,154,118
$471,000
$0
% Dare Co.
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,145.00
$4,915,00
$6,463,000
$1,256,000
$965,000
Water Treatment Plant Cost:
10 mgd Water Treatment Plant = $8,000,000
Currituck Co. (10%) = 800,000
Camden Co. (10%) = 800,000
Elizabeth City (30%) = 2,400,000
Pasquotank Co. (50%) = 4,000,000
4

Total Cost to Participants:
Currituck Co.
Transmission Main
$806,000
Water Treatment
800,000
300,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
167,000
1.0 mgd Booster Pump Station
125,000
Meter Vault
35,000
$1,933,000
Engineering & Administration (20%)
386,600
Contingencies (10%)
193300
$2,512,900
Camden Co.
Transmission Main
$1,524,100
Water Treatment
800,000
300,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
167,000
1.0 mgd Booster Pump Station
125,000
Meter Vault
35.00
$2,651,100
Engineering & Administration (20%)
530,200
Contingencies (10%)
265,100
$3,446,400
Elizabeth City
Transmission Main
$5,043,200
Water Treatment
2,400,000
750,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
278,000
3.0 mgd Booster Pump Station
225,000
Meter Vault
50.000
$7,996,200
Engineering & Administration (20%)
1,599,200
Contingencies (10%)
799,600
$10,395,000
s

Pasquotank Co.
Transmission Main
$9,370,900
Water Treatment
4,000,000
1,250,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
361,000
5.0 mgd Booster Pump Station
250,000
Meter Vault
50,000
$14,031,900
Engineering & Administration (20%)
2,806,400
Contingencies (10%)
1,403,200
$18,241,500
Total Project Cost
$34,595,800
6

Debt Service: loan
5.15% interest)
(20 year @
Participant
Total Cost
Yearly Debt Service
Currituck Co.:
$2,512,900
=>
204,300/yr
Camden Co.
3,446,600
=_>
280,200/yr
Elizabeth City
10,395,000
=_>
845,150/yr
Pasquotank Co.
18,241,500
=>
1,483,050/yr
Cost/1000gallons:
Currituck Co.
Debt Service
$0.56
O& M
0.34
$0.90
Camden Co.
Debt Service
$0.77
O& M
0.34
$1.11
Elizabeth City.
Debt Service
$0.78
O& M
0.34
$1.12
Pasquotank Co.
Debt Service
O& M
$0.82
0.34
$1.18
7

SCENARIO lb
COST/1000 GALLONS DIVIDED EQUALLY
Assigned Demands for Year 2020:
Currituck Co. = 1.0 mgd
Camden Co. = 1.0 mgd
Pasquotank Co. = 3.0 mgd
Elizabeth City = 5.05.O mgd
10.0 mgd
Design Concept:
The design concept for Scenario lb is the same as Scenario la. This scenario illustrates a
different method to calculate the cost per 1000 gallons of water. Instead of calculating the cost
per participant based on percent capacity, the cost is divided equally between the participants.
Total Project Cost: _
Debt Service: (20 year loan @ 5.15% interest)
Cost per/1000 gallons: (based on 10 mgd)
Debt Service $0.78
O&M $0.34
$1.12
$ 34,595,800
$ 2,812,650/yr
8

1
I I
I I
I
1
Commentary on Scenario 1
• This scenario provides quite low water costs while meeting the projected total water demands
of the stated participants; i.e., the regional water supply could virtually replace the existing
county and municipal water supply systems.
• The low water costs result from obtaining raw water free of charge from the Lake Gaston
pipeline. This is a concession that Virginia has proposed in order to receive approval for the
pipeline project. Under the proposal, up to 15 mgd would be returned to northeast North
Carolina.
• The feasibility of this scenario rests primarily on the political negotiations (stalemate)
lingering over this issue. It is not known the length of time required to resolve this issue and
thus when such a project could be executed.
• It was assumed the point of water delivery from Virginia is on Highway 168 approximately 4
miles north of the state line. This is subject to change depending on the location of the Lake
Gaston pipeline.
l-i
9

SCENARIO 2a
15 mgd raw water obtained from Lake Gaston pipeline at Chesapeake.
Treatment provided in North Carolina at a new 15 mgd plant in Currituck Co.
Service to Currituck Co., Camden Co., Pasquotank Co., Dare Co., & Elizabeth City.
Assigned Demands for Year 2020:
Currituck Co.
Camden Co.
Pasquotank Co.
Dare Co.
Elizabeth City
Design Concept:
3.0 mgd (2.0 mgd to Outer Banks)
1.0 mgd
3.0 mgd
3.0 mgd
5.0 mgd
15.0 mgd
The same as Scenario la, except that 15 mgd is drawn from Virginia via the Lake Gaston
pipeline and distributed amongst the previously served counties as well as Dare Co. The 15 mgd
is based on the proposed compromise of returning some Lake Gaston water back to North
Carolina, as discussed previously in Section 4. Delivery to the Currituck and Dare County Outer
Banks is provided through a 24" subaqueous -installed water main across the Currituck Sound at
Aydlett. Operation and Maintenance cost are assumed the same as Scenario 1.
10

CURRITUCK CO.
(NEAR COUNTY AIRPORT)
CURRITUCK
OUTER BANKS
PE
DARE COUNTY
(DUCK ELEVATED
STORAGE TANK)
NOTE:
OPIPELINE SEGMENT.
COST ESTIMATE/SEGMENT
IS PRESENTED IN REPORT.
HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
slow
CO►SULYIN0 ENGINEFM
SOUTHERN PINES. NORTH CAROLMU 28387
jw
er..�
`Nti.
REGIONAL WATER
L'"
ALBEMARLE COMMISSION
GSTUDY
HERITORD. H ROLNA
ce a�
T
DISTRIBUTION SCHEMATIC
7
rE��'
SCENARIO 2

LI
ITransmission Main Cost Estimate:
ISegment 1
21,000 LF 36" Water Main @ $130.00/LF $ 2,730,000
500 LF River Crossing @ $450.00/LF 225,000
5,000,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank 945,000
15 mgd Booster Pump Station 750,000
4,650,000
Segment 2
51,500 LF 36" Water Main @ $130.00/LF $6,695,000
800 LF River Crossing @ $450.00/LF 360,000
$7,055,000
Segment 3
58,200 LF 30" Water Main @ $90.00/LF $5,238,000
3,500 LF River Crossing @ $350.00/LF 1,225,000
$6,463,000
Segment 4
16,600 LF 30" Water Main @ $90.00/LF $1,494,000
1,000 LF River Crossing @ $350.00/LF 35U00
$1,844,000
Segment 5
15,000 LF 24" Water Main @ $60.00/LF $900,000
200 LF River Crossing @ $325.00/LF 65,000
$965,000
Segment 6
32,100 LF 24" Water Main @ $60.00/LF $1,926,000
500 LF River Crossing @ $325.00/LF 162,500
$2,088,500
Segment 7
52,700 LF 24" Water Main @ $60.00/LF $3,162,000
23,500 LF Currituck Sound Crossing @ $325.00/LF 7,637,500
5 mgd Booster Pump Station 250,000
$11,049,500
Segment 8
60,000 LF 20" Water Main @ $55.00/LF $3,300,000
12

00
0
o
O
O
O
CD69
O
O
O
O
69
69
69
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
M
M
69
M
69
[�
O
CD
O
r
O
CD
O
O
O
O
p
01
O
O
O
C
CDO
O
O
O
CD
69
69
69
N
0
O
O
6�9
Os
69
�o
O
o
O
N
t!1
O
l
O
O
O
O
GS�IsN
V
00O
O
D
o
O
O
O
O
CD
00
CD
69
69
N
69
k
lil
o
O
O
c
\
p
\
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
O
69
04
69
Gs
o
0
0
0
0
�
Iwo,
6G9
6�9
o
o
\
\
o
N
o
00
N
O
O
OC�
O
O
O
0
69
69
CD
V
69
Zh
O
O
00
M
N
�0
O
00
69
69
69
M
o
0
0
o
o
O
O
CD
\
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
69
C)
CV
M
c\
O
69
M
"o
d
~
M
vl
69
69
69
69
N
0
0
0
o
o
O
O
0
O
0
W)
o
o
O
0
o0
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
.--i
M
.--i
N
.--kn
kn
O
O
M
O
V
'ct
M
'cf
o
ai
N
N
M
N
-
Cq
n
69
69
69
69
69
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
O
00
o'
o
0
0
o
O
O)
O
D
O
O
o
O
O
M
O
yb�
N
M
�
M
ON�^
69
69
69
69
-i
U69
o
U
U
U
U
U
0
U
o
o
a�
ae
U
alo
o
own
U
E
6
N
2
U
U
U
U
W
O
O O O O O
O
O O O O O
O
0 0 0 0 0
O
0 0 0 0 0
O
O d O \O O
O
It 00 It C\ I-
N
N N M N
69
.d
a
\ M
o o N
cq
.. ..
o U
UuWa(�
bb
.2

Total Cost to Participants
Currituck Co.
Transmission Main
$7,805,100
Water Treatment
2,400,000
300,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
167,000
1.0 mgd Booster Pump Station
125,000
1.0 mgd Meter Vault
35,000
500,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
229,000
2.0 mgd Booster Pump Station
200,000
2.0 mgd Meter Vault
40,000
$11,001,100
Engineering & Administration (20%) 2,200,300
Contingencies (10%) 1,100,100
$14,301,500
Camden Co.
Transmission Main $1,530,300
Water Treatment 840,000
300,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank 167,000
1.0 mgd Booster Pump Station 125,000
Meter Vault 35,000
$2,697,300
Engineering & Administration (20%) 539,500
Contingencies (10%) 269,700
$3,506,500
Elizabeth City
Transmission Main $5,174,600
Water Treatment 2,400,000
750,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank 278,000
3.0 mgd Booster Pump Station 225,000
Meter Vault 50,000
$8,127,600
Engineering & Administration (20%) 1,625,500
Contingencies (10%) 812,800
$10,565,900
14

Pasquotank Co.
Transmission Main
$9,590,300
Water Treatment
3,960,000
1,250,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
361,000
5.0 mgd Booster Pump Station
250,000
Meter Vault
50,000
$14,211,300
o
Engineering & Administration (20 /o)
2,842,300
Contingencies (10%)
1 A21,200
$18,474,800
Dare Co.
Transmission Main
$13,315,000
Water Treatment
2,400,000
750,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
278,000
3.0 mgd Booster Pump Station
225,000
Meter Vault
50,000
$16,268,000
Engineering & Administration (20%)
Contingencies (10%)
3,253,600
1,626,800
$21,148,400
Total Project cost
$67,997,100
15

Debt Service: loan
(20 year @ 5.15% interest)
Participant
Total Cost
Yearly Debt Service
Currituck Co.
$14,301,500
=_>
$1,162,750/yr
Camden Co.
3,506,500
=_>
285,100/yr
Elizabeth City
10,565,900
=_>
859,000/yr
Pasquotank Co.
Dare Co.
18,474,800
21,148,400
=>
=_>
1,502,000/yr
$1,719,400/yr
Cost/1000gallons:
Currituck Co.
Debt Service
$1.07
O& M
0.34
$1.41
Camden Co.
Debt Service
$0.79
O& M
0.34
$1.13
Elizabeth City
Debt Service
$0.79
O& M
0.34
$1.13
Pasquotank Co.
Debt Service
$0.82
O& M
0.34
$1.16
Dare Co.
Debt Service
$1.57
O& M
0.34
$1.91
16

SCENARIO 2b
COST/1000 GALLONS DIVIDED EQUALLY
Assigned Demands:
Currituck Co.
= 3.0 mgd
Camden Co.
= 1.0 mgd
Elizabeth City
= 3.0 mgd
Pasquotank Co.
= 5.0 mgd
Dare Co.
3.0 mgd
15.0 mgd
Total Project Cost:
$67,997,100
Debt Service: (20 year loan
@ 5.15% interest)
$ 5,528,200/yr
Cost/1000 gallons: (Based on 15 mgd)
Debt Service
$1.01
O& M
0.34
$1.35
17

Commentary on Scenario 2
• This scenario again provides quite low water costs using essentially "free" water from the
Lake Gaston pipeline.
• The projected total water demands for the year 2020 are met for Currituck, Camden and
Pasquotank Counties and Elizabeth City. The regional water supply could virtually replace
their existing water production systems.
• Dare County is provided a supplementa13.0 mgd to offset the County's northern Outer Banks
demand.
• The same political difficulties discussed in Scenario 1 apply here which adversely affect the
feasibility of this project. Additionally, use of Lake Gaston pipeline water means reliance on
an outside entity to maintain flow to the region. It is more practical that a water system be
independent and self reliant.
• Additional upgrades would be required to the Dare County water infrastructure to utilize the
additiiona13.0 mgd.
18

Ll
ISCENARIO 3a
Well field installed in Chowan County, producing 6.0 mgd.
Water distribution to Chowan, Perquimans, Pasquotank, Camden and Currituck Counties and
Elizabeth City.
Treatment provided at new water treatment plant (WTP) in Chowan County.
Assigned Demands for Year 2020:
Chowan Co. = 0.5 mgd
Perquimans Co. 0.5 mgd
Pasquotank Co. = 2.5 mgd
Elizabeth City _ 1.5 mgd
Camden Co. 0.5 mgd
Currituck Co. = 0.5 mgd
6.0 mgd
Design Concept:
Chowan County reportedly has some very good producing wells, one of which is said to produce
in excess of 1000 gpm. Past research indicates potential for high well yields in the Chowan
County area. In this scenario, 14 - 600 gpm wells are installed in Chowan County, supplying 6.0
mgd. The water is treated at a new WTP located in the County and distributed to the above
participants. Construction of such a well field would necessarily require exploration into the
technical feasibility prior to its undertaking.
Operation and Maintenance costs for Scenario 3 are derived as follows:
Power
Chemicals
Salary
Maintenance Costs
Total
$0.20
0.10
0.05
0.10
$0.45/1000 gallons
R

WELL
FIELDS
CURRITUCK CO.
(COUNTY AIRPORT AREA)
O
CAMDEN CO.
(CAMDEN AREA)
O�
ELIZABETH CITY
(BROAD ST. &
OHWY. 17 BYPASS AREA)
3
4�
Q-: A
PASQUOTANK CO.
(CENTRAL SCHOOL AREA)
O n
PERQUIMANS CO.
(HWY. 17 & S.R. 1227 AREA)
O �
CHOWAN CO. & EDENTON
(COUNTY LINE AREA)
WATER SOURCE:
CHOWAN CO. WELLS
NOTE:
OPIPELINE SEGMENT.
COST ESTIMATE/SEGMENT
IS PRESENTED IN REPORT.
HOBBS, UPCHURCH do ASSOCIATES, P.A.
�Y• 1"s
DRI
CONSUt3M ENGINEOM
SOUTHERN PINES. NORTH CAROLINA 2&387
Dms
`4
REGIONAL WATER STUDY
ALBEMARLE COMMISSION
m,
I(IS
ecu
1996
NERVORD. NORM cmou N
DISTRIBUTION SCHEMATIC
SCENARIO 3
A
8
C' rtrt

Transmission Main Cost Estimate:
Segment 1
81,000 LF 24" Water Main @ $60.00/LF
3,300 LF River Crossing @ $325.00/LF
Segment 2
62,300 LF 24" Water Main @ $60.00/LF
3,500 LF River Crossings @ $325.00/LF
Segment 3
15,000 LF 18" Water Main @ $50.00/LF
1,000 LF River Crossings @ $250.00/LF
Segment 4
16,600 LF 12" Water Main @ $25.00/LF
1,000 LF River Crossings @ $150.00/LF
Segment 5
49,000 LF 12" Water Main @ $25.00/LF
3,000 LF River Crossing Pipe @ $150.00/LF
$ 4,860,000
1.072.500
5,932,500
$3,738,000
1,137,500
$4,875,500
$750,000
25000
$ 1,000,000
$415,000
150,000
$565,000
$1,225,000
450,000
$1,675,000
21

1
7
I
u
1
C�
L
C
SCENARIO 3
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4
Segment 5
Chowan Co.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Perquimans Co.
9.1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Pasquotank Co.
45.4%
50.0%
0%
$0
0%
Elizabeth City
27.3%
30.0%
60.0%
$0
0%
Camden Co.
9.1%
10.0%
20.0%
50.0%
0%
Currituck Co.
9.1%
1 10.0%
1 20.0%
1 50.0%
1 100.0%
Chowan
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Perquimans Co.
$539,858
$0
$0
$0
$0
Pasquotank Co.
$2,693,355
$2,437,750
$0
$0
$0
Elizabeth City
$1,619,573
$1,462,650
$600,000
$0
$0
Camden Co.
$539,858
$487,550
$200,000
$282,500
$0
Currituck Co.
$539,858
$487,550
$200,000
$282,500
$1,675,000
TOTAL SEGMENT
$5,932,500
$4,875,5067
$1,000,000
$565,000
$1,675,000
1
22

Well Field and Water Treatment Plant Cost:
6.0 mgd Water Treatment Plant $4,000,000
1,500,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank 422,000
6.0 mgd Booster Pump Station 450,000
2 Test Wells @ $15,000 30,000
14 - 500 gpm Wells @ $150,000 2,100,000
Raw Water Transmission Main
35,000 LF 24" Water Main @ $60.00/LF 2,100,000
$9,102,000
Chowan Co. (8.3%)
= 755,500
Perquimans Co. (8.3%)
= 755,500
Pasquotank Co. (41.8%)
= 3,804,500
Elizabeth City (25.0%)
= 2,275,500
Camden Co. (8.3%)
= 755,500
Currituck Co. (8.30%)
= 755,500
23

Total Cost to Participants
Chowan Co.
Transmission Main
Water Production and Treatment
100,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
0.5 mgd Booster Pump Station
Meter Vault
Engineering & Administration (20%)
Contingencies (10%)
Perquimans Co.
Transmission Main
Water Production and Treatment
100,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
0.5 mgd Booster Pump Station
Meter Vault
Engineering & Administration (20%)
Contingencies (10%)
Pasquotank Co.
Transmission Main
Water Production and Treatment
600,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
2.5 mgd Booster Pump Station
Meter Vault
Engineering & Administration (20%)
Contingencies (10%)
$0.0
755,500
100,000
100,000
30.000
$ 985,500
197,100
98,600
$1,281,200
$539,900
755,500
100,000
100,000 -
30,000
$ 1,525,400
305,100
152,600
$1,983,100
$5,131,100
3,804,500
250,000
300,000
45,000
$ 9,530,600
1,906,100
953,100
$12,389,800
24

Elizabeth City
Transmission Main $3,682,300
Water Production and Treatment 2,275,500
400,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank 198,000
1.5 mgd Booster Pump Station 180,000
Meter Vault 40,000
$ 6,375,800
Engineering & Administration (20%) 1,275,200
Contingencies (10%) 673,600
$8,288,600
Camden Co.
Transmission Main $1,509,900
Water Production and Treatment 755,500
100,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank 100,000
0.5 mgd Booster Pump Station 100,000
Meter Vault 30,000
$ 2,495,400
Engineering & Administration (20%) 499,100
Contingencies (10%) 249,600
$3,244,100
Currituck Co.
Transmission Main $3,185,000
Water Production and Treatment 755,500
100,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank 100,000
0.5 mgd Booster Pump Station 100,000
Meter Vault 30,000
$ 4,170,500
Engineering & Administration (20%) 834,100
Contingencies (10%) 417,100
$5,421,700
Total Project Cost $32,608,500
P41

Debt Service: (20 year loan @ 5.15% interest)
Participant Total Cost Yearly Debt Service
Chowan Co.
$ 1,281,200
= $ 104,200/yr
Perquimans Co.
1,983,100
= 161,300/yr
Pasquotank Co.
12,389,800
= 1,007,300/yr
Elizabeth City
8,288,600
= 673,900/yr
Camden Co.
3,244,100
= 263,800/yr
Currituck Co.:
5,421,700
= 440,800/yr
Cost/1000 gallons:
Chowan Co.
Debt Service
$0.58
O& M
0.45
$1.03
Perquimans Co.
Debt Service
$0.89
O& M
0.45
$1.34
Pasquotank Co.
Debt Service
$1.11
O& M
0.45
$1.56
Elizabeth City.
Debt Service
$1.24
O& M
0.45
$1.69
Camden Co.
Debt Service
$1.45
O& M
0.45
$1.90
Currituck Co.
Debt Service
$2.42
O& M
0.45
$2.87
26

SCENARIO 3b
COST/1000 GALLONS DIVIDED EQUALLY
Assigned Demands for Year 2020:
Chowan Co. =
0.5 mgd
Perquimans Co. =
0.5 mgd
Pasquotank Co. =
2.5 mgd
Elizabeth City =
1.5 mgd
Camden Co. =
0.5 mgd
Currituck Co. =
0.5 mgd
6.0 mgd
Total Project Cost:
Debt Service: (20 year loan @ 5.15% interest)
Cost/1000 gallons: (Based on 6.0 mgd)
Debt Service
O& M
$32,608,500
$ 2,651,100/yr
$1.22
0.45
$1.67
27

1
1
1
11
Commentary on Scenario 3
• This scenario provides a supplemental amount of water to each of the participants. In order
to met projected demands for 2020, each participant would necessarily have to continue
operating their water treatment facilities. (Camden County would continue purchasing
water). However, the supplemental regional supply would allow for wells and treatment
plants to be "throttled back" to comfortable, easily maintained levels.
• A liberal flow rate per well (600 gpm) based on limited existing research was chosen for this
scenario. It is not known whether flow rates this high can be achieved. Lower actual flow
rates would necessitate installation of more wells and raw water piping, raising the cost of
water. Hydrogeologic investigation would be necessary to determine actual potential flow
rates prior to final design of such a project.
• The feasibility of such a project would also hinge on political and community willingness to
distribute water out of the county.
1
28

SCENARIO 4a
20.0 mgd obtained from mine dewatering operation at PCS Phosphate. Treatment provided by
new water treatment plant near Aurora.
Treated water is distributed through Beaufort, Washington, Chowan, Perquimans, Pasquotank,
Camden, Currituck and Dare Counties.
Assigned Demands for Year 2020:
Beaufort Co.
= 1.5
mgd
Washington Co.
= 0.5
mgd
Chowan Co.
= 1.5
mgd
Perquimans Co.
= 1.5
mgd
Pasquotank Co.
= 5.0
mgd
Elizabeth City
= 3.0
mgd
Camden Co.
= 1.0
mgd
Currituck Co.
= 3.0
mgd (2.0 mgd to Outer Banks)
Dare
= 3.0 mgd
20.0
mgd
Design Conceit:
PCS Phosphate generates approximately 30 mgd of good quality groundwater through
dewatering and depressurizing activities. PCS is permitted for up to 70 mgd groundwater
withdrawal. The depressurizing water (DPW) flows through open channels, discharging
approximately 20 mgd of unused water into the Pamlico River.
In this design concept, a collection basin is constructed in a downstream position on the DPW
channel. Treatment provided by new 20 mgd plant; booster pumps will charge the distribution
main and transport water to northeastern North Carolina participants.
Operation and maintenance costs for Scenario 4 are derived as follows:
Power
Chemicals
Salary
Maintenance Costs
Total
$0.20
0.10
0.05
0.05
$0.45/1000 gallons
29

CURRITUCK CO.
(NEAR COUNTY AIRPORT)
CAMDEN CO.
(CAMDEN AREA)
ELIZABETH CITY O
(BROAD ST. &
HWY. 17 BYPASS AREA) v �
O�
O ��4z-
PASQUOTANK CO. �O
(CENTRAL SCHOOL AREA)
O
PERQUIMANS CO.
(HWY. 17 & ,\IN
S.R. 1227 AREA)
O
CHOWAN CO.
(EDENTON AREA)
O
1ALBEEMARLE SOUND CROSSING
WASHINGTON CO.
OMN (PLYMOUTH AREA)
BEAUFORT CO.
y (NEAR BUNYAN)
92
O
PAMLICO RIVER CROSSING
PCS PHOSPATE
(NEAR AURORA)
PROPOSED
MID -COUNTY
O BRIDGE
�68 CURRITUCK
OUTER BANKS
AYDLETT
CURRITUCK 10
SOUND CROSSING
N
DARE CO.
(DUCK ELEVATED
STORAGE TANK)
NOTE:
OPIPELINE SEGMENT.
COST ESTIMATE/SEGMENT
IS PRESENTED IN REPORT.
HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
CONSLA31MI ENGWEER5 I
SOUTHERN PINES. NORTH CAROLING 28387
19"
asy.
(3,
REGIONAL WATER STUDY
COMMISSIONROHERIfO. NORM CNtOUM
EALBEMARLE
NIS
DISTRIBUTION SCHEMATIC
SCENARIO 4
9

Transmission Main Cost Estimate:
Segment 1
81,500 LF 48" Water Main @ $175.00/LF
$ 14,262,500
21,000 LF River Crossing @ $500.00/LF
10.500,000
24,762,500
Segment 2
140,700 LF 48" Water Main @ $175.00/LF
$24,622,500
Segment 3
63,700 LF 42" Water Main @ $155.00/LF
$9,873,500
27,700 LF River Crossings @ $450.00/LF
12,465,000
$23,338,500
Segment 4
80,600 LF 42" Water Main @ $155.00/LF
$12,493,000
3,300 LF River Crossings @ $450.00/LF
1,485,500
$13,978,000
'
Segment 5
62,300 LF 42" Water Main @ $155.00/LF
$9,656,500
3,500 LF River Crossings @ $450.00/LF
1,575,000
$11,231,500
Segment
15,000 LF 30" Water Main @ $90.00/LF
$1,350,000
1,000 LF River Crossing Pipe @ $350.00/LF
350,000
$1,700,000
Segment
'
16,600 LF 30 Water Main @ $90.00/LF
"
1 4 4 000
9
$ , ,
1,000 LF River Crossing Pipe @ $350.00/LF
350,000
$1,844,000
Segment 8
49,000 LF 24" Water Main @ $60.00/LF
$2,940,000
3,000 LF River Crossing Pipe @ $325.00/LF
975,000
$4,015,000
31

iJ
11
L!
E
rl,
1
1
I
Fi
1
Segment 9 -
57,000 LF 24" Water Main @ $60.00/LF
24,000 LF Currituck Sound Crossing Pipe @ $325.00/LF
5 mgd Booster Pump Station
Segment 10
60,000 LF 20" Water Main @ $55.00/LF
$3,420,000
7,800,000
250,000
$11,470,000
$3,300,000
32

1]
17
1 L
1
0
'
z
U
1
I
d
0
0
O
0
O
O
o
0
o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 o O o 0 o O
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 0
0
Op
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�
M
69
M
69
O O
O O
O
0
i
o o o o o
O CD
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 N
O
O O O O O O O O O
69 69 69 69 4n os 69
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -I' -o
kn
Vl
69 69
O CD CD
O
o 0 0 o o o o
I I
O
O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p
O O O O O O O t- t-
69 69 69 69 - 69 69 O O
kn
--�
b00000(noo-nW)
cqN
�
Opp
o
0 0 0 0 0 0
to N N
p
O
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O M M
O O O O O O
rq
69 69 69 fA 69 kn O00 N\ ON
0 0 0 0 0 0
0000
cn
�� GS
CD O CD CDCD
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
o O
O O O O
O O O 0
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
p 00000�00
O O O O O
6,,000
`'`���690
p
9
O
O O O O O M M M
;; 1 Vl V1
69 69 69 69
to
rq
to
0 0 0 0 \ o o
o
kn O O 0
O kn O O
M M N cn M
�o \o \D �D
C.
OD
.--�
O O CD o 0 0 O O
O o 0 0 t+l 0 0 0"S
CD O O O
6q 6s"S 0 d' OHO
M
N
0 0 0 0 M N N
64
N O \O I'o �.o
M O 0\ O O\ O\
00
O
0
D
C06
0
0 0 0\ o o\ o o
0 0 0 0 O o
N N
O\ O\ O\ all
O CD O M M M M M
E
O O C. N O
O 00 0o
69 69 69 .--� 01 M
O\
CD
0 0 0 M - .--i �'
M4 N N N
Cn
69 69 69 69 69
64
M
O 00 O O
O\ O\ O m M M
O
0
kn
O
0 0 0
t1 t-
M
I V�
O O l� t- 00 t- M t- t�
00
CDO DD r
O [� �D \p \0
Vl
69 69 M M a0 ON w (ONO\
01 On V oo
N 00 00M^
M
m
�
00 00
M M
N
C�
69 69 69 69 69 69 69
b9
N
O M M kn kn tn kn tn kn tn
O
C\
O
o 0 0 0 0
O \ N N
O 00 � 00 00
O d' o0 00 a1 CO 00
N
00 r-' O N
N 00 00 t` N \O \O
69 O\ O\ O> � 00 N DD 00
00 O a w a n M a^ a n
N
O
y
p N
\O m m M
N
V]
69 69 69 69 69 69 64
69
00 00 00 kn kn Xn kn In
00 N t� t-
p
O
p
N
o 0 0 0
0 0 O O
t-
N
In In In In 0
kn v1 In O\ M�
w— o0 0o t n N [ t
Gq .--i
69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Vi
69
69
O O O
U U U 0
6�9
0 0 0
U UU 6
0 0 o o U
U 0U �Ux
c
O U U U
D
O bA cC O Y U O
5
to
cn ,� Y 0
o c� . o a� U
� ,d
o a a
o N
aa3u4 aWuuA
C
=3Cc :u 0. uu
.0
H
M
M

Water Treatment Plant Cost:
20 mgd Water Treatment Plant $18,000,000
(with softening bypass)
Piping, Pumps, Power Transformers 9,500,000
5 MG Ground Storage Tank 945,000
Pumping Station (pumps, motors, control valves) 1,700,000
Chemical Feed Station 280,000
Emergency Power 350,000
SCADA System 300.000
$30,130,000
Cost Distribution
Beaufort Co. (7.5%)
_ $2,259,800
Washington Co. (2.5%)
= 753,300
Chowan Co. (7.5%)
= 2,259,800
Perquimans Co. (7.5%)
= 2,259,800
Pasquotank Co. (25%)
= 7,532,500
Elizabeth City (15%)
= 4,519,500
Camden Co. (5.0%)
= 1,506,500
Currituck Co. (15%)
= 4,519,500
Dare Co. (15%)
= 4,519,500
$30,130,000
34

Total Cost to Participants:
Beaufort Co.
Transmission Main
Water Production and Treatment
500,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
1.5 mgd Booster Pump Station
Meter Vault
Engineering & Administration (20%)
Contingencies (10%)
Washington Co.
Transmission Main
Water Production and Treatment
200,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
0.5 mgd Booster Pump Station
Meter Vault
Engineering & Administration (20%)
Contingencies (10%)
Chowan Co.
Transmission Main
Water Production and Treatment
500,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
1.5 mgd Booster Pump Station
Meter Vault
Engineering & Administration (20%)
Contingencies (10%)
$1,857,200
2,259,800
229,000
165,000
40.000
$ 4,551,000
910,200
455,100
$5,916,300
$1,308,500
753,300
145,000
100,000
35,000
$ 2,341,800
468,400
234,200
$3,044,400
$5,789,000
2,259,800
229,000
165,000
40,000
$ 8,482,800
1,696,600
848,300
$11,027,700
35

Perduimans Co.
Transmission Main
Water Production and Treatment
500,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
1.5 mgd Booster Pump Station
Meter Vault
Engineering & Administration (20%)
Contingencies (10%)
Pasduotank Co.
Transmission Main
Water Production and Treatment
1,250,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
5.0 mgd Booster Pump Station
Meter Vault
Engineering & Administration (20%)
Contingencies (10%)
Elizabeth City
Transmission Main
Water Production and Treatment
750,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
3.0 mgd Booster Pump Station
Meter Vault
Engineering & Administration (20%)
Contingencies (10%)
$7,103,000
2,259,800
229,000
165,000
40,000
$ 9,796,800
1,959,400
979,700
$12,735,900
$27,227,000
7,532,500
361,000
250,000
50,000
$ 35,420,500
7,084,100
3,542,100
$46,046,700
$16,901,000
4,519,500
278,000
225,000
50,000
$ 21,973,500
4,394,700
2,197,400
$28,565,600
36

Camden Co. -
Transmission Main $5,904,500
Water Production and Treatment 1,506,500
300,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank 225,000
1.0 mgd Booster Pump Station 125,000
Meter Vault 35.000
Currituck Co.
Dare
$ 7,796,000
Engineering & Administration (20%) 1,559,200
Contingencies (10%) 779,600
$10,134,800
Transmission Main
$24,289,500
Water Production and Treatment
4,519,500
300,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
167,000
1.0 mgd Booster Pump Station
125,000
1.0 mgd Meter Vault
35,000
500,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
229,000
2.0 mgd Booster Pump Station
200,000
2.0 mgd Meter Vault
40,000
$ 29,605,000
Engineering & Administration (20%) 5,921,000
Contingencies (10%) 2,960,500
$38,486,500
Transmission Main $29,883,500
Water Production and Treatment 4,519,500
750,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank 278,000
3.0 mgd Booster Pump Station 225,000
Meter Vault 50,000
$ 34,956,000
Engineering & Administration (20%) 6,991,200
Contingencies (10%) 3,495,600
$45,442,800
Total Project Cost $201,400,800
37

Debt Service: (20 year loan @ 5.15% interest)
Participant
Total Cost
Beaufort Co.
$ 5,916,300
=
Washington Co.
3,044,400
=
Chowan Co.
11,027,700
=
Perquimans Co.
12,735,900
=
Pasquotank Co.
46,046,800
=
Elizabeth City
28,565,600
=
Camden Co.
10,134,800
=
Currituck Co.;
38,486,500
=
Dare Co.
45,442,800
=
Cost/1000 gallons:
Beaufort Co.
Debt Service
$0.89
O& M
0.45
$1.34
Washington Co.
Debt Service
$1.36
O& M
0.45
$1.81
Chowan Co.
Debt Service
$1.64
O& M
0.45
$2.09
Perquimans Co.
Debt Service
$1.89
O& M
0.45
$2.34
Pasquotank Co.
Debt Service
$2.05
O& M
0.45
$2.50
Elizabeth City
Debt Service
$2.12
O& M
0.45
$2.57
Yearlv Debt Service
$ 480,800/yr
247,400/yr
896,200/yr
1,035,000/yr
3,742,100/yr
2,321,500/yr
823,700/yr
3,128,950/yr
3,693,000/yr
38

Camden Co.
Currituck Co.
Dare Co.
Debt Service $2.26
O& M 0.45
$2.71
Debt Service $2.86
O& M 0.45
$3.31
Debt Service $3.38
O& M 0.45
$3.83
39

SCENARIO 4b
COST/1000 GALLONS DIVIDED
EQUALLY
Assigned Demands for Year 2020:
Beaufort Co. =
1.5 mgd
g
Washington Co. =
Chowan Co. =
0.5 mgd
1.5 mgd
Perquimans Co. =
1.5 mgd
Pasquotank Co.
5.0 mgd
Elizabeth City _
3.0 mgd
Camden Co. =
1.0 mgd
Currituck Co.
3.0 mgd (2.0 mgd to Outer Banks)
Dare Co. —
3.0 mgd
20.0 mgd
Total Project Cost:
$201,400,800
Debt Service: (20 year loan @ 5.5%)
$ 16,373,900/yr
Cost/1000 alg lons:(based on 20 mgd)
Debt Service
O& M
$2.25
0.45
$2.70
40

Commentary on Scenario 4
• This scenario meets the projected total demands for 2020 for Currituck, Chowan,
Perquimans, Camden and Pasquotank Counties and Elizabeth City. These counties could
virtually shut down their water production facilities and utilize solely regionally supplied
water.
• A supplemental amount is provided to Beaufort, Washington and Dare Counties. These
counties could "throttle back" their water production facilities to comfortable, easily
maintained levels.
• The primary difficulty with this scenario is again political. Community willingness and
questions of interbasin transfer could inhibit such a project. Arrangements between PCS
Phosphate and a regional water system would need to be forwarded. Additionally, it is not
known how long PCS Phosphate will mine this area and, thus, operate the dewatering
facility.
1 • The issue of self reliance exists here as with the Lake Gaston pipeline scenarios.
Ci
I
III
41

ISCENARIO 5a
10.5 mgd ultimate available capacity from a well field system along Hwy 37 beginning in
Winfall and proceeding north toward Gates County. Wells screened in the Yorktown aquifer.
Assigned Demands for Year 2020:
Pasquotank Co. _ 5.0 mgd
Camden Co. 1.0 mgd
Currituck Co. = 1.0 mgd
Perquimans Co. = 0.5 mgd
Elizabeth City 3.0 mad
10.5 mgd
Design Concept:
Water quality and available quantity from wells in the Yorktown is better here than areas to the
east. A flow of 600 gpm per well is assumed for this scenario with well spacing at 2500 feet. A
raw water main of the required length will be constructed along Hwy 37 with a proposed
treatment facility near Winfall.
The 10.5 mgd water treatment facility will contain conventional iron removal and water
softening equipment. A transmission main will be constructed along Hwy 17 to each point of
delivery.
Operation and maintenance costs for Scenario 4 are derived as follows:
Power $0.20
Chemicals 0.25
Salary 0.05
Maintenance Costs 0.05
Total $0.5511000 gallons
NOTE: The assumed well flow of 600 gpm is very liberal. Actual flow rates in this area lie in the
' 200 gpm range. It was assumed that improved well construction in a basal Yorktown
gravel could produce better flow rates. FURTHERMORE, the feasibility of this scenario
may be questionable since community opinion may be against distributing a greater
percentage of Perquimans County water out of the county.
I
1
1
42

WELL FIELD AND
RAW WATER MAIN
CAMDEN CO. O
(CAMDEN AREA)
HWY. 158
OJ
ELIZABETH CITY
(NEAR WELL FIELD RD)
O �"Z-
OJ
PASQUOTANK CO.
(NEAR CENTRAL SCHOOL)
O
PERQUIMANS CO.
O(NEAR EXISTING WTP)
1
MAIN STREET EXTENSION
(HERTFORD)
CURRITUCK COUNTY
(NEAR AIRPORT)
NOTE:
OPIPELINE SEGMENT.
COST ESTIMATE/SEGMENT
IS PRESENTED IN REPORT.
HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
CasULna o GINEEM I
' 1996
SOUTHERN PINES. "TH CAROUNA 28M7
oA..D-S
mow,
REGIONAL WATER STUDY
ALBEMARLE COMMISSION
HERUM. NORM CAROLW
we NiS
SFx
t.BB6
DISTRIBUTION SCHEMATIC
0
10
wc���
SCENARIO 5

Transmission Main Cost Estimate:
Segment 1
11,600 LF 36" Water Main @ $130.00/LF $ 1,508,000
Segment 2
63,700 LF 36" Water Main @ $130.00/LF $ 8,281,000
Segment 3
10,400 LF 24" Water Main @ $60.00/LF $ 624,000
200 LF 24" River Crossings @ $325.00/LF 65,000
$ 689,000
Segment 4
22,000 LF 16" Water Main @ $45.00/LF $ 990,000
1,000 LF 16" River Crossings @ $200.00/LF 200,000
$ 1,190,000
Segment 5
24,500 LF 16" Water Main @ $45.00/LF $ 1,102,500
1,500 LF 16" River Crossings @ $200.00/LF 300,000
24,500 LF 12" Water Main @ $25.00/LF 612,500
1,500 LF 12" River Crossings @ $150.00/LF 225,000
$ 2,240,000
44

O
H
1
1
1
1
0
C)
0
�„000
4)
E
p o 0 0 0
OO O O p
o p p p 0
696RQqoN
p
N
pC�
O O CD CD O
Ci(OS
0 o
O O
CD
O
O
O O O O O
O O O O O
0 0 0 C
69 69 64 V,�
0
CN
O O O 0
kn
kn in
M
O
0 0 0
O O O
00
0
O
O
C:)\ 0 0 0
O CD0 0 0�
00
6 M t- [-
G,
OOD
p O N ON
.M-. .M-�
�
69 69 64
69
N
o o o o
O O p 0
(DC:) 0 0
O
Op
O
C
O O O O
CD O O O
0 0
yq 't 00 00 co
r"
op
pD
p 0 0 0 0
V� N
N
V]
M ~
Nt cl 69 6H9 6
69
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 "O 'IT 0 0
t- N 00 00
0
0
O
CD O O O O'
op N O O
00
O O O O O
t- O N v1 kn
O
(- oo O O
69 69 64 69 69
6A
U U a
69
VU
oU
xUU
o 0
obD
O
a
y �
aaWUU
:�
V)
wcd
4 W U U
o 0 0 0 o
H

Production and Treatment Cost Estimate:
10.5 Water Treatment Plant
500,000,000 Ground Storage Tank
10.5 MGD Booster Pumping Station
25-600 GPM Wells @ $140,000
62,500 LF Raw Water Main
15,625 LF 30" @ $90.00 =
15,625 LF 24" @ $60.00 =
15,625 LF 20" @ $55.00 =
15,625 LF 16" @ $45.00 =
Cost Distribution
$ 8,000,000
1,000,000
500,000
3,500,000
$1,406,250
$ 937,500
$ 859,375
$ 703,125
$ 3 906.250
$16,907,000
Camden Co. (10%)
= 1,690,700
Currituck Co. (10%)
= 1,690,700
Elizabeth City (28%)
= 4,733,960
Pasquotank Co. (47%)
= 7,946,290
Perquimans Co. (5%)
= 845,350
$16,907,000
46

Total Cost to Participants:
Camden Co.
Transmission Main $1,711,700
Water Production and Treatment 1,690,700
300,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank 167,000
1.0 mgd Booster Pump Station 125,000
Meter Vault 35,000
$3,729,400
Engineering & Administration (20%) 745,900
Contingencies (10%) 373,000
$ 4,848,300
Currituck Co.
Transmission Main $ 3,951,700
Water Production and Treatment 1,690,700
300,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank 167,000
1.0 mgd Booster Pump Station 125,000
Meter Vault 35.000
$5,969,400
Engineering & Administration (20%) 1,193,900
Contingencies (10%) 597,000
$ 7,760,300
Elizabeth City
Transmission Main $ 3,319,940
Water Production and Treatment 4,733,960
750,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank 278,000
3.0 mgd Booster Pump Station 225,000
Meter Vault 50,000
$8,606,900
Engineering & Administration (20%) 1,721,400
Contingencies (10%) 860,700
$11,189,000
47

Pasquotank Co.
Transmission Main $ 4,849,260
Water Production and Treatment 7,946,290
1,250,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank 361,000
5.0 mgd Booster Pump Station 250,000
Meter Vault 50,000
$13,456,550
Engineering & Administration (20%) 2,691,310
Contingencies (10%) 1,345,655
$17,493,600
Perquimans Co.
Transmission Main $ 75,400
Water Production and Treatment 845,350
200,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank 145,000
0.5 mgd Booster Pump Station 100,000
Meter Vault 35,000
$1,200,750
Engineering & Administration (20%) 240,150
Contingencies (10%) 120,075
$1,561,000
TOTAL $42,852,200
48

i
'
Debt Service: (20 year loan @ 5.15% interest)
Participant
Total Cost
Yearly Debt Service
Camden Co.
$4,848,300
=>
394,200/yr
'
Currituck Co.:
$7,760,300
=>
630,950/yr
Elizabeth City
11,189,000
=>
909,700/yr
Pasquotank Co.
17,493,600
=>
1,422,250/yr
Perquimans Co.
1,561,000
=_>
126,950/yr
'
Cost/1000
gallons:
i
Camden Co.
Debt Service
$1.08
O& M
0.55
$1.63
Currituck Co.
Debt Service
$1.73
O& M
0.55
Elizabeth City
$2.28
Debt Service
$0.84
O& M
0.55
$1.39
Pasquotank Co.
Debt Service
$0.78
O& M
0.55
$1.34
Perquimans Co.
'
Debt Service
$0.70
O& M
0.55
$1.25
49

SCENARIO 5b
COST/1000 GALLONS DIVIDED EQUALLY
Assianed Demands for Year 2020:
Camden Co. =
1.0 mgd
Currituck Co. =
1.0 mgd
Elizabeth City =
3.0 mgd
Pasquotank Co. =
5.0 mgd
Perquimans Co. =
0.5 mgd
10.5 mgd
Total Project Cost:
$42,852,200
Debt Service: (20 year loan @ 5.15% interest)
$ 3,483,900/yr
Cost/1000 gallons:(based on 10.5 mgd)
Debt Service $0.91
O& M 0.55
$1.46
50

1
Commentary on Scenario 5
• This scenario would provide the total 2020 demand for Camden County, Pasquotank County,
Elizabeth City and the Currituck mainland. Supplemental water supply would be provided to
Perquimans County and it's interconnected systems.
• A liberal flow rate �
well we per 600 gpm) based on limited existing research was chosen for this
p
scenario. Actual flow rates of wells in the county are more in the range of 200 gpm. It was
assumed that improved well construction in basal Yorktown gravels may achieve
significantly higher flow rates. This would need substantiating by hydrogeologic
investigation. However, lower flow rates would necessitate installation of more wells and
raw water piping, raising the cost of water.
• The feasibility of such a project would also hinge on political and community willingness to
distribute water out of the county.
1
1
1
IL
L
1
r
1 51

n
1
SCENARIO 6a
Well field and RO treatment facility constructed north of Elizabeth City. Wells will be located in
the Castle Hayne aquifer.
Distribution to Elizabeth City, Pasquotank, Camden, Currituck and Dare Counties. Service to
Currituck and Dare Outer Banks provided by 2-12" water mains attached to the proposed Mid -
County bridge at Aydlett.
iAssigned Demands for Year 2020:
Elizabeth City — 3.0 mgd
Pasquotank Co. 5.0 mgd
Camden Co. = 1.0 mgd
Currituck Co. 2.0 mgd
Dare Co. 2.0 mgd
13.0 mgd
Design Concept:
A test well into the Castle Hayne aquifer has been piloted with R.O. treatment by Elizabeth City.
This information was used to develop a centrally located well field and treatment facility north of
Elizabeth City.
A 13.0 MGD RO water treatment plant is proposed in the area of the existing Elizabeth City
WTP. The discharge point for saline concentrate is assumed to be on the Pasquotank River south
' of the Coast Guard Station.
1
The well field will be installed along roads north and west of the Elizabeth City WTP. Well
depths were assumed at 500-550 feet with a well spacing of 2500 feet. Well yield was assumed
at 700 gpm each for a total of 35 wells.
Cost of water is presented with 2 phases of construction, providing 50% of demand and then
100% of demand listed above. The well field was broken down with half in the initial phase and
the remaining in the final phase. The R.O. treatment facility was sized to 6.5 mgd in the initial
phase while the remaining facilities were sized for 13.0 mgd in the initial phase.
52

INOTE: A hydraulic model for this distribution network is presented at the end of this scenario.
II Operation and maintenance costs for Scenario 4 are derived as follows:
Power
R.O. Process
$0.42
Well Field
0.05
'
Finished Water
Chemicals
0.10
0.25
Maintenance
0.13
Cartridge Filter Replacement
0.01
Membrane Filter Replacement
0.10
Salary
0.05
Total
$1.11 / 1000 gallons
1
L�
L
1
1
1
53

CURRITUCK CO.
(NEAR COUNTY AIRPORT)
C
ELIZABETH CITY
a'd, OUTERCK
(AT CITY WTP)
O BANKS
WELLFIELD
RD.
CAMDEN
CO. O o O
\�
(CAMDEN
AREA)
b
O J�
DARE CO.
(NEAR COUNTY LINE)
PASQUOTANK
CO.
(NEAR CENTRAL
SCHOOL)
NOTE:
OPIPELINE SEGMENT.
COST ESTIMATE/SEGMENT
IS PRESENTED IN REPORT.
HOBBS, UPCHURCH d[ ASSOCIATES, P.A.
�'• 19°°
casuuM o+arIExs
SOUTHERN PINES, NORTH CMOIINA 28387
REGIONAL WATER STUDY
ALBEMARLE COMMISSION
so.o
�
1 �996
NCRIFORO, NORM/ cwaNu
NTS
.a
DISTRIBUTION SCHEMATIC
SCENARIO 6
� �

Transmission Main Cost Estimate:
Segment 1
7,600 LF 30" Water Main @ $90.00/LF $ 684,000
Segment 2
32,400 LF 20" Water Main @ $55.00/LF $ 1,782,000
1,200 LF 20" River Crossings @ $300.00/LF 360,000
$ 2,142,000
Segment 3
49,000 LF 18" Water Main @ $50.00/LF $ 2,450,000
3,000 LF 18" River Crossings @ $250.00/LF 750,000
$ 3,200,000
Segment 4
53,900 LF 16" Water Main @ $45.00/LF $ 2,425,500
1,000 LF 16" River Crossings @ $200.00/LF 200,000
23,000 LF 12" Mid -County Bridge Attachment @ $125.00/LF x 2 Pipes 5,750,000
3 mgd (150 hp) Booster Pump Station 250,000
8,625,500
Segment 5
43,300 LF 16" Water Main @ $45.00/LF $ 1,948,500
55

1
1
1
1
1
�
z
y
fl
r�I
1
„ r,
o,00 0
O
Vi 00
O
0000C�
0 0 0 0 0
OO0000
69 69 fA 69 r
00
I
�0000�
�C�,
cn
kn kn
- oo
O
O
0O
kn
00 00 O O
� GS 64� V-
N
M t�
V1
N9 Gq 6
69
M
O O
O O
O
O
y
o 0 0 0 0
C)C)
0 0 0 0 0
O
O
0 0 0
69 69 69 O O
bap
O O O kn W)
M
C/]
69 69
69
N
CD O
O
O
0 0 0 o
o
\0
O O O
'ITCD
00
��•+y,
O 0 O 0
ON �
0 0
0 �
N
N
U
CD O -,t
VCD
o�0 OHO
69 69
4"09
0 0 0
C. O
0
O
N
o 0 0 o
o \ 0 0
CD C>
O •dam
O
0
O C>
64
M M M�
bA
O N N
knV]
N
69 cot) y
69
U69
o
' U p
U ' U
U U
g v o
U
,p chi O
o
-o U
a°Ai
N a E
W a U U ()
c0 cco
WaUU�I
0 0 0 o
o
F-
kn

Production and Treatment Cost Estimate: at 100% Build -Out
1. 13 MGD RO Water Treatment Plant
a. Membranes
$3,000,000
b. Skid Assemblies
2,300,000
c. Building
4,500,000
d. Electrical
2,500,000
e. Instrumentation & Controls
1,000,000
f. Booster Pumps
2,300,000
g. Degasifier
650,000
h. Process Piping
1,000,000
i. Yard Piping
1,500,000
j. Chemical Storage & Feed
800,000
k. Cartridge Filter
350,000
1. Membrane Cleaning Equipment
800,000
m Site Work
800,000
n. Generator
500,000
22,000,000
2.
5,000,000 Ground Storage
1,000,000
3.
13 MGD Booster Pump Station
600,000
4.
Test Wells (4 @ $60,000)
240,000
5.
700 GPM Wells (35 @ $165,000
5,775,000
6.
Raw Water Transmission Main
13,000 LF 16" @ $45.00/LF
585,000
53,000 LF 20" @ $55.00/LF
2,915,000
27,000 LF 24" @ $60.00/LF
1,620,000
5,120,000
7.
Concentrate Discharge Main
53,000 LF 30" @ $90.00/LF
4,770,000
Header Assembly
250,000
5,020,000
Total Construction $39,755,000
Cost Distribution
Elizabeth City. (23.1 %) _ $9,183,400
Pasquotank Co. (38.4%) = 15,265,900
Camden Co. (7.7%) = 3,061,100
Currituck Co. (15.4%) = 6,122,300
Dare Co. (15.4%) = 6,122,300
57

Total Cost to Participants:
Elizabeth City
Transmission Main
Water Production and Treatment
750,000 Gallon Ground Storage
3 MGD Booster Pump Station
Meter Vault
Engineering & Administration (20%)
Contingencies (10%)
Pasquotank Co.
Transmission Main
Water Production and Treatment
1,250,000 Gallon Ground Storage
5 MGD Booster Pump Station
Meter Vault
Engineering & Administration (20%)
Contingencies (10%)
Camden Co.
Transmission Main
Water Production and Treatment
300,000 Gallon Ground Storage
1 MGD Booster Pump Station
Meter Vault
Engineering & Administration (20%)
Contingencies (10%)
$0
9,183,400
278,000
225,000
50,000
$9,736,400
1,947,300
973,700
$12,657,400
$ 342,000
15,265,900
361,000
250,000
50.000
$16,268,900
3,253,800
1,626,900
$21,149,600
$ 496,800
3,061,100
167,000
125,000
35,000
$3,884,900
776,900
388,600
$ 5,050,400
58

Currituck C6.
Transmission Main $ 5,440,000
Water Production and Treatment 6,122,300
2-300,000 Gallon Ground Storage (2 @ $167,000) 334,000
2-1 MGD Booster Pump Station (2 @ $125,000) 250,000
2-Meter Vault (2 @ $35,000) 70,000
$12,216,300
Engineering & Administration (20%) 2,443,300
Contingencies (10%) 1,221,600
$ 15,881,200
Dare Co.
Transmission Main $ 10,321,200
Water Production and Treatment 6,122,300
2-300,000 Gallon Ground Storage (2 @ $167,000) 229,000
2-1 MGD Booster Pump Station (2 @ $125,000) 250,000
2-Meter Vault (2 @ $35,000) 40,000
$16,962,500
Engineering & Administration (20%) 3,392,500
Contingencies (10%) 1,696,300
$ 22,051,300
Total Project Cost $76,789,900
Debt Service: 20-year loan @ 5.15% interest
Participant
Total Cost
Yearly Debt Service
Elizabeth City
$125657,400
= 1,029,050/yr
Pasquotank Co.
21,149,600
= 1,719,500/yr
Camden Co.
5,050,400
= 410,600/yr
Currituck Co.:
15,881,200
= 1,291,150/yr
Dare Co.
22,051,300
= 1,792,800/yr
59

Cost/1000 gallons:
Elizabeth City
Pasquotank Co.
Camden Co.
Currituck Co.
Dare Co.
Debt Service $0.94
O& M 1.11
$2.05
Debt Service $0.95
O& M 1.11
$2.06
Debt Service $1.13
O& M 0.11
$2.24
Debt Service $1.77
O& M 1.11
$2.88
Debt Service $2.46
O& M 1.11
$3.57
1
60
�

i
t
�
1
1.
c:
y
w
O O
.iS
<�
€
30 Z
LAJ
02
gg
xpg
0w
�
gov
01
x
U z
'o
Q S
3�fr
Igo
inm
m
O
S

1
IFLOWRATE IS EXPRESSED IN U.S. GPM AND PRESSURE IN PSIG
1 SUMMARY OF THE ORIGINAL DATA FOLLOWS
I
PIPE NO. NODE NOS. LENGTH DIAMETER ROUGHNESS MINOR LOSS K FIXED GRADE
(FEET) (INCHES)
1
0
1
1000.0
30.0
140.0
2
1
2
7600.0
30.0
140.0
3
1
10
100.0
16.0
140.0
4
2
11
100.0
20.0
140.0
5
2
3
33600.0
20.0
140.0
6
3
12
100.0
12.0
140.0
7
3
4
52000.0
18.0
140.0
8
4
13
100.0
12.0
140.0
9
4
5
100.0
16.0
140.0
THERE
IS A CHECK VALVE IN LINE
NUMBER
9
10
4
5
100.0
16.0
140.0
THERE
IS A PUMP
IN
LINE 10 WITH
USEFUL
POWER =
11
5
6
54900.0
16.0
140.0
12
6
7
24000.0
12.0
140.0
13
6
7
24000.0
12.0
140.0
14
8
9
100.0
16.0
140.0
THERE
IS A CHECK VALVE IN LINE NUMBER
14
15
8
9
100.0
16.0
140.0
THERE
IS A PUMP
IN
LINE 15 WITH
USEFUL
POWER =
16
17
7
7
14
8
100.0
43300.0
12.0
16.0
140.0
140.0
18
9
15
23500.0
12.0
140.0
.00 250.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
110.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
60.00
.00
.00
.00
JUNCTION NUMBER
DEMAND
ELEVATION
CONNECTING
PIPES
1
.00
5.00
1
2
3
2
.00
5.00
2
4
5
3
.00
3.00
5
6
7
4
.00
2.00
7
8
9
5
.00
2.00
9
10
11
6
.00
4.00
11
12
13
7
.00
2.00
12
13
16
8
.00
2.00
14
15
17
9
.00
2.00
14
15
18
10
2083.00
5.00
3
11
3472.00
5.00
4
12
13
694.00
694.00
3.00
2.00
6
8
14
694.00
2.00
16
15
1388.00
138.00
18
OUTPUT
SELECTION:
ALL RESULTS ARE OUTPUT
EACH
PERIOD
10
17

V
ITHIS SYSTEM HAS 18 PIPES WITH 15 JUNCTIONS 3 LOOPS AND 1 FGNS
IITHE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 3 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00000
PIPE
NO.
NODE
NOS.
FLOWRATE
HEAD LOSS
PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS
VELOCITY
HL/1000
1
0
1
9025.00
1.50
.00
.00
4.10
1.50
2
1
2
6942.00
7.01
.00
.00
3.15
.92
3
1
10
2083.00
.21
.00
.00
3.32
2.12
4
2
11
3472.00
.18
.00
.00
3.55
1.84
5
6
2
3
3
12
3470.00
694.00
61.82
.11
.00
.00
.00
.00
3.54
1.97
1.84
1.12
7
3
4
2776.00
105.72
.00
.00
3.50
2.03
8
4
13
694.00
.11
.00
.00
1.97
1.12
THE
CHECK VALVE
IN LINE NUMBER 9 IS
CLOSED
10
4
5
2082.00
.21
209.02
.00
3.32
2.12
11
5
6
2082.00
116.27
.00
.00
3.32
2.12
12
13
6
6
7
7
1041.00
1041.00
57.15
57.15
.00
.00
.00
.00
2.95
2.95
2.38
2.38
THE
CHECK
VALVE
IN LINE NUMBER 14 IS
CLOSED
15
8
9
1388.00
.10
171.02
.00
2.21
1.00
16
7
14
694.00
.11
.00
.00
1.97
1.12
17
7
8
1388.00
43.28
.00
.00
2.21
1.00
18
9
15
1388.00
95.34
.00
.00
3.94
4.06
JUNCTION
NUMBER
DEMAND
GRADE LINE
ELEVATION
PRESSURE
1
2
.00
.00
248.50
241.49
5.00
5.00
105.52
102.48
3
.00
179.67
3.00
76.56
4
.00
73.94
2.00
31.17
5
.00
282.75
2.00
121.66
6
.00
166.48
4.00
70.41
7
.00
109.33
2.00
46.51
8
.00
66.05
2.00
27.76
9
.00
236.97
2.00
101.82
10
2083.00
248.29
5.00
105.42
11
3472.00
241.30
5.00
102.40
12
694.00
179.55
3.00
76.51
13
694.00
73.83
2.00
31.13
14
694.00
109.22
2.00
46.46
15
1388.00
141.63
138.00
1.57
THE NET SYSTEM
DEMAND = 9025.00
SUMMARY OF
INFLOWS(+)
AND OUTFLOWS(-) FROM FIXED GRADE
NODES
PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE
1 1 9025.00
THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 9025.00
,THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = .00

SCENARIO 6b
Scenario 6b presents water costs at 50% build -out. The
distribution network will be built for
ultimate capacity but the system will be put on-line with the WTP at one-half capacity. Water
delivery is one-half the assigned demand in Scenario 6a.
6.5 MGD Initial Phase
1. 6.5 mgd RO Water Treatment Facility (expandable to 13
MGD)
a. Membranes
$1,500,000
b. Skid Assemblies
1,120,000
c. Building
4,000,000
d. Electrical
2,000,000
e. Instrumentation & Controls
800,000
f. Booster Pumps
1,130,000
g. Degasifier
h. Process Piping
650,000
700,000
i. Yard Piping
1,500,000
j. Chemical Storage & Feed
600,000
k. Cartridge Filter
200,000
1. Membrane Cleaning Equipment
500,000
m Site Work
800,000
n. Generator
500,000
17,000,000
2. 5,000,000 Ground Storage
1,000,000
3. 6.5 MGD Booster Pump Station
400,000
4. Test Wells (2 @ $60,000)
120,000
5. 700 GPM Wells (18 @ $165,000
2,970,000
6. Raw Water Transmission Main
6,500 LF 16" @ $45.00/LF
297,000
27,000 LF 20" @ $55.00/LF
14,000 LF 24" @ $60.00/LF
1,485,000
840,000
2,622,000
7. Concentrate Discharge Main
53,000 LF 30" @ $90.00/LF
4,770,000
Header Assembly
250,000
5,020,000
Total Construction
$29,132,000
Engineering & Administration (20%)
5,826 400
Contingencies (10%)
2,913,200
$ 37,872,000
1 64

Debt Service: @
loan 20- ear 5.15% interest
Y
Participant
Total Cost
Yearly Debt Service
Elizabeth City
9,458,550
$ 769,000/yr
Pasquotank Co.
15,870,100
_
1,290,250/yr
Camden Co.
3,984,150
=
323,950/yr
Currituck Co.:
13,748,700
1,117,800/yr
Dare Co.
19,918,800
_
1,619,400/yr
Cost/1000 gallons:
Elizabeth City.
Debt Service
$1.41
O& M
1.11
$2.52
Pasq uotank Co.
Debt Service
O& M
$1.42
1.11
$2.53
Camden Co.
Debt Service
$1.78
O& M
1.11
$2.89
Currituck Co.
Debt Service
$3.07
O& M
1.11
$4.18
Dare Co.
Debt Service
$4.44
O& M
1.11
$5.55
65

SCENARIO 6c and 6d
Scenario 6c presents water at 50% and full build -out with the total project cost divided evenly
amongst the participants.
50% Initial Phase
Transmission $25,108,200
Production & Treatment 37,872,000
$62,980,200
Yearly Debt Service 20-year loan @ 5.15% interest $5,120,300
Cost/1000 gallons:
100% Build -Out
Debt Service $2.16
O& M 1.11
$3.27
Transmission $25,108,200
Production & Treatment 51,681,700
$76,789,900
Yearly Debt Service 20-year loan @ 5.15% interest $6,243,050
Cost/1000gallons:
Debt Service $1.32
O& M 1.11
$2.43
1
t
1
66

SCENARIO 6e
Scenario 6e presents water costs if the RO saline concentrate discharge is constructed just south
of Knobbs Creek near Roanoke Bible College in Elizabeth City. This would . shorten the
discharge main by 32,000 LF and would result in a savings in the cost of water.
Saving = 32,000 LF 30" Water Main @ $90.00/LF $2,880,000
Engineering & Administration (20%) 576,000
Contingencies (10%) 288,000
$ 3,744,000
Yearly Debt Service (20-year loan @ 5.15% interest) $ 304,400
Savings in Cost/1000 gallons:
at 50% build -out (6.5 mgd): $0.13
at 100% build -out m 13 d ( g) $0.07
67

1
�J
Commentary on Scenario 6
• This scenario provides water to meet the total 2020 demand for Elizabeth City, Pasquotank
County, Camden County and Currituck mainland. Supplemental amounts of water are
provided to the Currituck and Dare County Outer Bank.
• Water is produced from within the area most in need of additional water supply, relieving
some of the political pressure and resistance. with the local water source also comes self
reliance and independence of water production.
• Water service to the Outer Banks can be provided in conjunction with the proposed Mid -
County Bridge, via 2-12" water mains attached to the bridge. This would be less costly than
a subaqueous crossing.
• Potential drawbacks to this scenario are the politics of distributing water across county lines
and the hydrogeologic unknowns with respect to well construction and well yields.
Thorough hydrogeologic investigation must be performed before making final well field
designs. If the stated well yields cannot be met or if drawdown cannot be managed in such a
large well field, different plans must be made at higher cost, affecting water costs
accordingly.
68

SCENARIO 7a
Scenario 7a presents the same distribution network (see Figure 11, Scenario 6 for schematic) as
the previous scenario with the following exceptions:
1. Increased water delivery to Currituck and Dare Outer Banks.
2. Sub -aqueous pipeline (24") across the Currituck Sound..
3. 16 mgd water treatment plant (WTP).
A hydraulic model is provided at the end of this scenario.
Assigned Demands for Year 2020:
Elizabeth City 3.0 mgd
Pasquotank Co. 5.0 mgd
Camden Co. = 1.0 mgd
Currituck Co. = 4.0 mgd (3.0 mgd to Outer Banks)
Dare = 3,0 mgd
16.0 mgd
69

Transmission Main Cost Estimate:
Segment 1
7,600 LF 30" Water Main @ $90.00/LF
$ 684,000
Segment 2
32,400 LF 24" Water Main @ $60.00/LF
$ 1,944,000
1,200 LF 24" River Crossings @ $325.00/LF
390•.,000
$ 2,334,000
Segment 3
49,000 LF 24" Water Main @ $60.00/LF
$ 2,940,000
3,000 LF 24" River Crossings @ $325.00/LF
975,000
$ 3,915,000
Segment 4
53,900 LF 24" Water Main @ $60.00/LF
$ 3,234,000
24,000 LF 24" Currituck Sound Crossing @ $325.00/LF
7,800,000
5 mgd (200 hp) Booster Pump Station
250,000
11,284,000
Segment 5
43,300 LF 18" Water Main @ $50.00/LF
$ 2,165,000
70

I
r
W
V 1
1
d
I
1
o
0
o o CD o
o
0
00000
0000tn
kn
O O O O O
69 69 69 69 �o
�o
a�cq c
64
v
o 0
0
o \ o 0 o
0
CD O N N
d'•
�,"••�
O 0
�. �.
69 69 69
�
08
O O O
�O �o
N
N
69 69
69
M
tell to
110 m
O
O
a)
Ei
O O O as
O t,: N
O O O ten 01
69 69 69 M t-
V1
—
to
O O O wl ch
N �o
(1)
cn
N
69 69
M
69
N
O O O
O
o \ o o
vl O vl
[� O N
O
O
a)
CD tell O te1
O
O O — l- l!1
69 69 N
bA
O .j M
DD
M
69 69 69
69
110 00 c
O
CS
O
CS
00 O M
Cl 00
69 "0 W) N kn
00
�o
bq
O M M N
N
69 69 6y 69
69
IL
U o
GOS
U 0 U
U o
U x o U
U
o 0 o
U
y Y o U O
U
O
on
N
aUUA
+�
W a, U U A
o 0 0 0 o
E�
I

Production and Treatment Cost Estimate: at 100% Build -Out
1. 16.0 mgd RO Water Treatment Facility
a.
Membranes
$3,700,000
b.
Skid Assemblies
2,830,000
c.
Building
5,408,000
d.
Electrical
3,080,000
e.
Instrumentation & Controls
1,240,000
f.
Booster Pumps
2,840,000
g.
Degasifier
800,000
h.
Process Piping
1,240,000
i.
Yard Piping
1,850,000
j.
Chemical Storage & Feed
990,000
k.
Cartridge Filter
432,000
1.
Membrane Cleaning Equipment
990,000
m
Site Work
990,000
n.
Generator
610,000
2. 6,000,000 Gallon Ground Storage Tank
3. 16 MGD Booster Pump Station
4. 4 Test Wells @ $60,000
5. 43 - 700 GPM Wells @ $165,500
6. 114,200 LF Raw Water Transmission Main
16,000 LF 16" @ $45.00/LF 720,000
65,000 LF 24" @ $60.00/LF 3,900,000
33,200 LF 30" @ $90.00/LF 2,988,000
7. Concentrate Discharge Main
53,000 LF 36" @ $130.00/LF 6,890,000
Header Assembly 300,000
Cost Distribution:
Elizabeth City (18.8%) 9,603,600
Pasquotank Co. (31.2%) 15,937,900
Camden Co. (6.2%) 3,167,200
Currituck Co. (25.0%) 12,770,800
Dare Co. (18.8%) 9,603,600
27,000,000
1,200,000
750,000
240,000
7,095,000
7,608,000
7.190.000
$51,083,000
72

Total Cost to Participants:
Elizabeth City
Transmission Main $ 0
Water Production and Treatment 9,603,600
750,000 Gallon Ground Storage 278,000
3 MGD Booster Pump Station 225,000
Meter Vault 50,000
$10,156,600
Engineering & Administration (20%) 2,031,300
Contingencies (10%) 1,015,700
$13,203,600
Pasquotank Co.
Transmission Main $ 262,700
Water Production and Treatment 15,937,900
1,250,000 Gallon Ground Storage 361,000
5 MGD Booster Pump Station 250,000
Meter Vault 50,,000
$16,861,600
Engineering & Administration (20%) 3,372,300
Contingencies (10%) 1,686,200
$21,920,100
Camden Co.
Transmission Main $ 344,500
Water Production and Treatment 3,167,200
300,000 Gallon Ground Storage 167,000
1 MGD Booster Pump Station 125,000
Meter Vault 35,000
$3,838,700
Engineering & Administration (20%) 767,700
Contingencies (10%) 383,900
$ 4,990,300
73

u
Currituck Co.
Transmission Main
$ 9,255,200
Water Production and Treatment
12,770,800
1-300,000 Gallon Ground Storage
167,000
1-1 MGD Booster Pump Station
125,000
1-3 MGD Booster Pump Station
225,000
2-Meter Vault (1 @ $35,000 & 1 @ $50,000)
85,000
1 500,000 Gallon Ground Storage
229,000
$22,857,000
Engineering & Administration (20%) 4,571,400
Contingencies (10%) 2,285,700
$ 29,714,100
Dare Co.
Transmission Main $ 10,519,800
Water Production and Treatment 9,603,600
750,000 Gallon Ground Storage 278,000
3 MGD Booster Pump Station 225,000
Meter Vault 50,000
$20,676,400
Engineering & Administration (20%) 4,135,300
Contingencies (10%) 2,067,700
$ 26,879,400
Total Project Cost $96,707,500
Debt Service: 20-year loan @ 5.15% interest
Participant
Total Cost
Yearly Debt Service
Elizabeth City (23.1%)
13,203,600 =
$1;073,500/yr
Pasquotank Co. (38.4%)
21,920,100 =
1,782,150/yr
Camden Co. (7.7%)
4,990,300 =
405,750/yr
Currituck Co. (15.4%)
29,714,100 =
2,415,800/yr
Dare Co. (15.4%)
26,879,400 =
2,185,300/yr
I
74

Cost/1000 gallons:
Elizabeth City.
Debt Service
$0.99
O& M
1.11
$2.10
Pasquotank Co.
Debt Service
$0.98
O& M
1.11
$2.09
Camden Co.
Debt Service
$1.12
O& M
1.11
$2.23
Currituck Co.
Debt Service
$1.66
O& M
1.11
$2.77
Dare Co.
Debt Service
$2.00
O& M
1.11
$3.11
75

21,45IQ N
a
vi Oo an
�o zo
I,i U
W � 10,
a �
0
v "
m
m
o

I
i
IF LOWRATE IS EXPRESSED IN U.S. GPM AND PRESSURE IN PSIG
1pSUMMARY OF THE ORIGINAL DATA FOLLOWS
PIPE NO. NODE NOS. LENGTH DIAMETER ROUGHNESS MINOR LOSS K FIXED GRADE
(FEET) (INCHES)
1
0
1 1000.0
30.0
140.0
2
1
2 7600.0
30.0
140.0
3
1
10 100.0
16.0
140.0
4
2
11 100.0
20:0
140.0
5
2
3 33600.0
24.0
140.0
6
3
12 100.0
12.0
140.0
7
3
4 52000.0
24.0
140.0
8
4
13 100.0
12.0
140.0
9
4
5 100.0
24.0
140.0
THERE IS
A CHECK VALVE IN LINE
NUMBER
9
10
4
5 100.0
24.0
140.0
THERE
IS A PUMP
IN LINE 10 WITH USEFUL
POWER =
11
5
6 54900.0
24.0
140.0
12
6
7 24000.0
24.0
140.0
LINE
12
IS CLOSED
13
6
7 24000.0
24.0
140.0
14
THERE IS
8 9 100.0
A CHECK VALVE IN LINE
16.0
NUMBER
140.0
14
15
8
9 100.0
16.0
140.0
THERE IS A PUMP
IN LINE 15 WITH
USEFUL
POWER =
16
7
14 100.0
16.0
140.0
17
7
8 43300.0
18.0
140.0
18
9
15 23500.0
16.0
140.0
JUNCTION
NUMBER
DEMAND ELEVATION
CONNECTING
1
2
.00
.00
5.00
5.00
1
2
2
4
3
.00
3.00
5
6
4
.00
2.00
7
8
5
.00
2.00
9
10
6
.00
4.00
11
12
7
.00
2.00
12
13
8
.00
2.00
14
15
9
.00
2.00
14
15
10
2083.00
5.00
3
11
3472.00
5.00
4
12
694.00
3.00
6
13
694.00
2.00
8
14
2083.00
2.00
16
15
2083.00 138.00
18
.00 250.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
100.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
75.00
.00
.00
.00
PIPES
3
7
9 10
11
13
16 17
17
18
OUTPUT SELECTION: ALL RESULTS ARE OUTPUT EACH PERIOD

THIS SYSTEM HAS 18 PIPES WITH 15 JUNCTIONS 3 LOOPS AND 1 FGNS
I'HE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 3 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00000
PIPE
NO. NODE NOS.
FLOWRATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD
MINOR LOSS
VELOCITY
HL/1000
1
2
0
1
1
2
11109.00
9026.00
2.20
11.40
.00
.00
5.04
2.20
.00
.00
4.10
1.50
3
1
10
2083.00
.21
.00
.00
3.32
2.12
4
2
11
3472.00
.18
.00
.00
3.55
1.84
5
2
3
5554.00
60.79
.00
.00
3.94
1.81
6
3
12
694.00
.11
.00
.00
1.97
1.12
7
3
4
4860.00
73.48
.00
.00
3.45
1.41
8
4
13
694.00
.11
.00
.00
1.97
1.12
THE
CHECK
VALVE IN
LINE NUMBER
9 IS
CLOSED
10
4
5
4166.00
.11
94.97
.00
2.95
1.06
11
INE
5
12 IS
6
CLOSED
4166.00
58.32
.00
.00
2.95
1.06
13
6
7
4166.00
25.49
.00
.00
2.95
1.06
THE
CHECK
VALVE IN
LINE NUMBER
14 IS
CLOSED
15
8
9
2083.00
.21
142.45
.00
3.32
2.12
16
7
14
2083.00
.21
.00
.00
3.32
2.12
17
7
8
2083.00
51.72
.00
.00
2.63
1.19
18
9
15
2083.00
49.81
.00
.00
3.32
2.12
JUNCTION NUMBER
DEMAND
GRADE LINE
1
.00
247.80
2
.00
236.40
3
.00
175.60
4
.00
102.12
5
.00
196.98
6
.00
138.66
7
8
.00
.00
113.17
61.45
9
.00
203.69
10
2083.00
247.58
11
3472.00
236.21
12
694.00
175.49
13
694.00
102.01
14
2083.00
112.96
15
2083.00
153.87
THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 11109.00
tUMMARY OF INFLOWS(+) AND OUTFLOWS(-)
PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE
1 11109.00
ELEVATION
5.00
5.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
138.00
PRESSURE
105.21
100.27
74.79
43.39
84.49
58.35
48.17
25.76
87.40
105.12
100.19
74.75
43.34
48.08
6.88
FROM FIXED GRADE NODES
,THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 11109.00

SCENARIO 7b
Scenario 7b presents water costs at 50% build -out. The distribution network will be built for
ultimate capacity but the system will be put on-line with the Water Treatment Plant at one-half
capacity. Water delivering is one-half the assigned demand in Scenario 7a.
1. 8 MGD RO Water Treatment Plant (expandable to 16 MGD)
a.
Membranes
$1,850,000
b.
Skid Assemblies
1,380,000
c.
Building
4,807,000
d.
Electrical
2,464,000
e.
Instrumentation & Controls
992,000
f.
Booster Pumps
1,396 000
g.
Degasifier
800,000
h.
Process Piping
868,000
i.
Yard Piping
1,850,000
j.
Chemical Storage & Feed
743,000
k.
Cartridge Filter
247,000
1.
Membrane Cleaning Equipment
620000
m
Site Work
990,000
n.
Generator
610,000
19,617,000
2.
6,000,000 Ground Storage Tank
1,200,000
3.
8 MGD Booster Pump Station
500,000
4.
Test Wells (2 @ $60,000)
120,000
5.
700 GPM Wells (22 @ $165,000)
3,630,000
6.
57,100 LF Raw Water Transmission Main
8,000 LF 16" @ $45.00/LF
360,000
32,500 LF 24" @ $60.00/1,17
1,950,000
16,600 LF 30" @ $90.00/LF
1.494,000
7.
Concentrate Discharge Main
3,804,000
53,000 LF 36" @ $130.00/1,17
6,890,000
Header Assembly
300,000
7,190,000
Total Construction $36,061,000
Engineering & Administration (20%) 7,212 200
Contingencies (10%) 3,606,100
$46,879,300
WE

Debt Service: (20 Year Loan @ 5.15% interest)
Participant
Total Cost
Yearly Debt Service
Elizabeth City
Pasquotank Co.
9,532,250
15,827,200
=>
=>
775,000/yr
1,286,750/yr
Camden Co.
3,779,500
=>
307,300/yr
Currituck Co.
19,101,450
=_>
1,552,950/yr
Dare Co.
17,852,300
=>
1,451,400/yr
Cost/1000 Gallons:
Elizabeth City
Debt Service
$1.42
O& M
1.11
$2.53
Pasquotank County
Debt Service
$1.42
O& M
1.11
$2.53
Camden County
Debt Service
O& M
$1.69
1.11
$2.80
Currituck County
Debt Service
$2.13
O& M
1.11
$3.24
Dare County
Debt Service
$2.66
O& M
1.11
$3.77
80

SCENARIO 7c and 7d
Scenario 7c presents water costs at 50% and full build -out with the total project cost divided
evenly amongst participants.
1 50% Initial Phase
Transmission $30,299,400
Production & Treatment 46,879,300
$77,178,700
Yearly Debt Service: (20 Year Loan @ 5.15% interest) $6,274,650
Cost/1000 gallons:
Debt Service $1.96
O& M 1.11
$3.07
100% Build -Out
Transmission $30,299,400
Production & Treatment 66,407,900
$96,707,300
Yearly Debt Service: (20 Year Loan @ 5.15% interest) $7,862,350
Cost/1000gallons:
Debt Service $1.35
O& M 1.11
$2.46
81

Commentary on Scenario 7
• Comments on this scenario follow essentially the same line as those for Scenario 6. The
differences are:
1. This scenario provides for the total 2020 demand for Currituck County - mainland
and Outer Banks. Dare County still receives a supplemental amount.
2. The Currituck Sound crossing is a 24" subaqueous installation which will provide
significantly greater flow to the Outer Banks than the dual 12" bridge -attached
crossing.
3. Dare County will be required to install a new 16" water main from their point of
delivery to fill the Duck elevated water tank at a flow of 4 MGD. Estimated cost for
23,500 LF 16" water main is $1,374,750 or an additional debt service of $0.11/1000
gallons.
82