Snow Camp Quarry Report Final 12-17-19

SNOW CAMP QUARRY
HYDROGEOL OGwAL SITE EVALUATION AND
ANALYTICAL GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL
SNOW CAMP, ALAMANCE COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
Latitude: N 360 04' 28.3"
Longitude: W 770 56' 06.0"
GMA Project #: 163101
PREPARED FOR:
Alamance Aggregates LLC
Mr. Chad Threatt, Vice President
PO Box 552
Snow Camp, North Carolina 27349
PREPARED BY:
Groundwater Management Associates, Inc.
4300 Sapphire Court, Suite 100
Greenville, North Carolina 27834
December 17, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND FIELD RECONNAISSANCE DISCUSSION .......................................... 1
2.0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND GEOLOGIC SETTING ................................................. 1
3.0 GMA'S SITE INVESTIGATION.................................................................................... 2
3.1 EXISTING WATER -SUPPLY WELLS ON THE SITE ........................................................ 3
3.2 OBSERVATION WELL CONSTRUCTION.................................................................... 4
3.3 GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION OF THE SITE.............................................................. 5
4.0 AQUIFER TESTING.................................................................................................... 6
4.1 VARIABLE -RATE STEP-DRAWDOWN TESTING AND DATA EVALUATION ............................ 6
4.2 CONSTANT RATE PUMPING AQUIFER TEST AND DATA EVALUATION ............................... 7
5.0 SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND ANALYTICAL CALCULATIONS ......................................... 9
5.1 CONE OF DEPRESSION FROM THE PUMPING TEST AND INDICATIONS OF HETEROGENEITY ..10
5.2 ANALYTICAL MODELING OF GROUNDWATER INFLUENCE FROM THE QUARRY ...................11
5.3 PROJECTED PUMPING RATES FROM INITIAL QUARRY OPERATIONS...............................12
5.4 ESTIMATED ZONE OF INFLUENCE FROM THE INITIAL QUARRY.....................................13
6.0 MONITORING PLAN FOR QUARRY DEVELOPMENT........................................................14
7.0 MITIGATION PLAN FOR RESIDENTIAL WATER -SUPPLY WELLS.....................................15
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................17
9.0 REPORT CERTIFICATION..........................................................................................18
10.0 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Well Construction Information for Existing Water -Supply Wells Located
OnSite.................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2. Water -Bearing Zones and Estimated Yields for Observation Wells ............................ 4
Table 3. Summary of Static Water Levels and Corrected Drawdown..................................... 8
Table 4. Theoretical Maximum Drawdown at Steady State Conditions.................................11
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Site Location Map
2. Site Map Showing Well Locations and Site Geology
3. Distance-Drawdown Analysis of Pumping Test Data
4. Site Conceptual Model of the Snow Camp Quarry Setting
5. Contour Map of Drawdown from the Constant Rate Pumping Aquifer Test
6. Estimated Initial Zone of Influence Resulting from Quarry Withdrawals
7. Proposed Monitoring Well Locations for the Groundwater Monitoring Plan
LIST OF APPENDICES
I. Geologic Logs of Observation Wells.
II. Aquifer Test Data Sheets
III. Aquifer Test Data Plots and Analytical Modeling Calculations
Page

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND FIELD RECONNAISSANCE DISCUSSION
Groundwater Management Associates, Inc. (GMA) is pleased to provide this report evaluating
the hydrogeology of the proposed quarry near Snow Camp, Alamance County, North Carolina
(Figure 1). The purpose of this work is to address a request from the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) for additional information regarding a mining
permit application they received for the site. The NCDEQ letter was dated June 21, 2019.
Particularly, Alamance Aggregates, Inc. contracted GMA to address item #3 in the NCDEQ
letter, which requested the following: "Provide results of an on -site pump test and
modeling of groundwater movement. Determine the possible impact of the diabase
dikes may have on the area ground water wells with respect to the dewatering
activities "
2.0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND GEOLOGIC SETTING
Robert Christian Reinhardt (2018a) (Reinhardt) described the geology of the quarry site.
Reinhardt (2018b and 2019) also prepared groundwater monitoring plans for the quarry site.
Tyler Clark (2019) conducted a geophysical survey across the site to investigate diabase that
may be located at or below land surface. All of those reports reference geologic reports by
Carpenter (1982), the North Carolina Geologic Map (NCGS, 1985), and Schmidt and others
(2006). In general, those reports describe the lithology of the area surrounding the site, and
the entire subject site itself, as being underlain by Cambrian to Late Proterozoic age felsic meta -
volcanic rock (FVR). FVR is described by Carpenter (1982) as medium- to light -gray, fine-
grained, dense felsic tuffs and felsic crystal tuffs containing, in places, subhedral to euhedral
feldspar crystals. Cleavage and foliation is commonly well developed in the FVR. Schmidt and
others (2006) identified the rock formation at the quarry site and surrounding area as the
Reedy Branch Tuff, with the western portion described as strongly altered and locally heavily
sheared. The eastern portion of the site was described as slightly to moderately
altered/sheared. The boundary between those two parts of the Reedy Branch Tuff was mapped
(Schmidt, et al., 2006) roughly in the middle of the quarry property along a northeast to
southwest trending contact (Figure 2).
The second rock type mapped near the site is Jurassic age diabase. Diabase is a hard, dense,
black fine-grained intrusive igneous rock that cuts across existing rocks or layers of rocks.
Diabase is often mapped as a long, narrow, linear feature that is nearly vertical, called a dike.
Diabase dikes are located where the diabase was injected into fractures. Diabase in the region
is often associated with enhanced fracturing of the surrounding rocks due to intrusion of
magma, thermal alteration of the adjacent rocks, and fracturing of the diabase during cooling of
the rock. Diabase has a mafic composition, and it tends to weather more quickly that felsic to
intermediate rocks. Thus, the presence of diabase can be important for evaluating preferential
groundwater flow pathways. Diabase was mapped west of the site by Carpenter (1982) and

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 2
the NCGS (1985). Clark (2019) also identified the same diabase rock type just west of the site.
Although diabase occurs in the region, no diabase has been mapped on the quarry site.
The third rock type of interest is Cambrian to Late Proterozoic age intermediate meta -volcanic
rock (IVR), which was described by Carpenter (1982) as medium to dark grayish -green, dense,
fine-grained tuffs of probable andesitic composition. Although this rock type has not been
mapped by others on the site, it has been identified both northeast and southwest of the site
(Carpenter, 1982). Clark (2019) conducted a magnetic survey of the site with the purpose of
investigating the presence and orientation of diabase at the quarry site. Clark identified a
magnetic anomaly on the quarry site, which trends northeast to southwest across the site (see
Figure 2). However, Clark (2019) reported that the magnetic anomaly is likely IVR and not
diabase. GMA observed two outcrops of IVR on the quarry site during our field investigation,
and one of the outcrops was within the anomaly identified by Clark (2019), and these outcrops
appear to support Clark's conclusion that the magnetic anomaly is IVR and not diabase.
3.0 GMA's SITE INVESTIGATION
A team of GMA Geologists visited the site and conducted a field reconnaissance investigation of
the quarry property on October 3, 4, and 30, 2019. The proposed pit area is 28.29 acres
(Figure 2), with a maximum depth ranging from 270 to 332 feet below land surface (BLS). The
initial quarry operation will be in the southeast corner of the proposed pit area, and the pit will
expand toward the northwest. The quarry site is either wooded or is pasture land, and there is
easy access across the site. There is site access off Clark Road (at 342 Clark Road at an old
collapsing house with no address marker). That road extends into the site and can reach the
north side of the property. A second access is on the north side of the site off of Quakenbush
Road. The quarry property boundaries and the proposed pit boundary are shown in Figure 2.
During the reconnaissance, GMA observed four existing inactive water -supply wells located on
the property. The GMA field team also reviewed site specific information provided in previous
reports by Clark (2019) and Reinhardt (2019). GMA selected final sites for exploratory drilling
to support aquifer testing. Stakes were set in the ground marking potential drilling sites, and
GPS coordinates of the potential drill sites were established.
Four new observation wells were constructed. The area chosen for the wells is close to a major
stream system on the northern side of the property and within the magnetic anomaly identified
by Clark (2019). The drilling contractor, Derry's Well Drilling (DWD) constructed these wells
and estimated well yields for the existing inactive water -supply wells and the newly installed
observation wells. Videos were also made of each well borehole by DWD. These well data
provide critical baseline information about the nature of the bedrock aquifer, fracture
occurrences, and yield characteristics of the aquifer.
Upon completion of well drilling, a 6-hour variable rate step-drawdown test and a 24-hour

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 3
constant rate aquifer pumping test were conducted using observation well OW-2 as the
pumping well. Data collected from these tests were evaluated along with the geologic
information obtained from GMA's field investigations. Together, these data were used by GMA
to prepare a site conceptual model and to perform analytical calculations to predict the
response of the groundwater system to future withdrawals from the proposed quarry. GMA
elected to perform analytical calculations using specific observation well water -level data to
predict groundwater impacts associated with the proposed quarry. Analytical calculations using
assumptions of aquifer homogeneity, isotropy, and equivalent porous media provide
conservative assumptions for predicting the area of drawdown impact associated with the
proposed quarry. The details of analytical calculations, and supporting field data, are presented
in the following sections.
3.1 EXISTING WATER -SUPPLY WELLS ON THE SITE
There are four existing inactive water -supply wells on the site, and all are accessible (Figure 2).
Prior to GMA's investigation, there was no well construction information available for these
wells. Wells WSW-1 (a 6-inch diameter well with steel casing, 94 feet deep) and WSW-4 (a six-
inch diameter well with steel casing, 405 feet deep) are accessed from Clark Road (Figure 2).
Well WSW-1 was modified during the investigation by adding a piece of PVC casing to extend
the top of the well casing to approximately 2 feet above ground. WSW-1 is located near the
site entrance off Clark Road, about 100 feet north of Clark Road and about 20 feet east of
barbed wire fencing. WSW-4 is located in tall grass about 200 feet southeast of WSW-1 inside
a concrete ring cover.
On October 30, 2019, the water levels were measured in both wells. The water level in WSW-1
was 19.9 feet below the top of PVC casing. The water level in WSW-4 was 15.5 feet below the
top of the steel casing, which is about 1 foot above land surface.
Water -supply wells WSW-2 and WSW-3 are accessed from Quackenbush Road (Figure 2).
Water -supply well WSW-2 is 96 feet depth and is equipped with a 6-inch diameter steel casing.
Well WSW-3 is a dug well about 2 to 3 feet in diameter, stone lined, and located about 10 feet
northwest of WSW-2. On October 30, 2019, the water levels were measured in both wells.
The water level in WSW-2 was 30.35 feet below the top of the casing, which is about 7 inches
(about 0.6 feet) above land surface. The water level in WSW-3 was 29.38 feet below the top of
the concrete slab/foundation which is about 2 feet above land surface.
DWD also characterized the casing depth and well yield of the four existing water -supply wells
identified on site, including performing a video log of each well. Table 1 summarizes well
construction information for the existing water -supply wells.

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 4
Table 1. Summary of Well Construction Information for
Existing Water -Supply Wells Located On Site
Well
Name
Depth
BLS
Casing
Diameter
(inches)
Static Water
Level Depth in
Feet BMP
(10/30/19)
Height of
Measuring Point
above Land
Surface in Feet
Well Yield
Estimated by
Driller
(GPM)
WSW-1
94
6
19.9
2
1
WSW-2
96
6
30.35
0.7
2.5
WSW-3
38.5
30-36
29.38
2
---
WSW-4
405
6
15.5
1
3
BLS = Below Land Surface. BMP = Below Measuring Point. GPM = Gallons per Minute.
--- = Not Measured.
3.2 OBSERVATION WELL CONSTRUCTION
DWD installed four observation wells (OW-1 through OW-4) at the site (Figure 2). For each
observation well, DWD advanced a 14-inch boring (using air -rotary drilling methods) into
bedrock, set an 8-inch PVC casing, and grouted the annulus of the well casing with cement
grout. The following day, DWD drilled a 6-inch diameter boring into the rock below the casing.
Each well was drilled to a depth of 350 feet below land surface (BLS). DWD collected and
bagged samples of cuttings for every 10 foot depth drilled, and they provided those bagged
samples to GMA for inspection. DWD also documented when fracture zones were encountered
in each boring and approximated the well yield periodically during drilling. A GMA geologist was
present to inspect the drilling of two of the well borings: OW-3 and OW-4.
Fracture zones and well yields were identified/estimated by the driller during drilling operations,
and geologic logs were prepared by GMA based on boring cuttings and notes from the driller.
Those logs are included in Appendix I. Estimated well yields for each of the four new
observation wells ranged from 2.5 gallons per minute (gpm) to 10 gpm. Water -bearing zones
are described in the geologic logs and summarized on the Table 2.
Table 2: Water -Bearing Zones and Estimated Yields for Observation Wells
Well
Name
Well Depth
(Feet BLS)
Depth of Water -Bearing
Zones Determined During
Drilling (Feet BLS)
Total Well Yield
Estimated by Driller
0W-1
350
77, 145-165, 185-205, 248-255
10 gpm
OW-2
350
25-45, 50, 56, 70, 272
2.5 gpm
OW-3
350
56,97
4 gpm
OW-4
350
39-40, 80-85, 290-300
3 gpm
BLS = Below Land Surface. GPM = Gallons per Minute.

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 5
All new wells and existing water supply wells on the property are located within the slightly
sheared portion of the Reedy Branch Tuff identified by Schmidt and others (2006).
3.3 GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION OF THE SITE
GMA traversed all of the stream valleys and pasture areas during site reconnaissance, and we
identified several rock outcrops. The majority of the rock types encountered in these outcrops
was a gray meta -volcanic rock with feldspar phenocrysts and minor quartz veins. These rocks
correspond to the FVR identified by Carpenter (1982). Schmidt and others (2006) described
these rocks as the Reedy Creek Tuff. Some rocks were described as heavily sheared and other
rocks were described as slightly sheared.
One stream valley had exposed bedrock where field measurements of rock structure could be
obtained. The stream is located on the north side of the property, with its headwaters near the
old house at the Quackenbush Road entrance in the vicinity of existing water -supply wells
WSW-2 and WSW-3. Hard FVR is located at the higher elevations in the stream valley and over
the majority of the site, which is mapped as being within the slightly sheared portion of the
Reedy Branch Tuff (Schmidt and others, 2006). The stream in those areas with outcrops had
ponded water. The stream was dry in the upper reaches where saprolite/overburden were
present. To the northwest, downstream along this creek, outcrops exhibited weaker, friable,
heavily sheared rocks, and the streambed was dry. These rocks correspond the FVR identified
by Carpenter (1982) and the heavily sheared Reedy Branch Tuff identified by Schmidt and
others (2006). The dry streambed observed in this area suggests that the sheared rocks are
more permeable than the less -altered rocks at the site, and the sheared zone may result in a
losing stream condition in this reach of the intermittent stream. No major fractures or faulting
were observed in outcrops along the stream bed or in other outcrops on the quarry site.
A dense, greenish- to dark -gray meta -volcanic rock was observed at the land surface on the
site, and in drill cuttings from all of the new observation wells. That rock appears to have a
fine-grained dark -green matrix. GMA interprets these rocks as the IVR identified by Carpenter
(1982). These rocks were also included in the slightly sheared zone of the Reedy Creek Tuff
identified by Schmidt and others (2006). One outcrop of IVR was observed in the northwest
corner of the site in the stream valley near the property boundary and near the power line and
gas line right-of-ways (Figure 2). This outcrop of IVR is about 1,000 feet east of the diabase
dike that has been mapped in the area (Carpenter, 1982; Clark, 2019). The stream in this area
had ponded water.
A second outcrop of IVR identified by GMA is located about 235 feet south of well OW-4, which
places that outcrop in the center of the magnetic anomaly identified by Clark (2019). All of the
observation wells are within the boundary of the magnetic anomaly identified by Clark (2019)
as well. The magnetic anomaly has the same northeast to southwest orientation as other
masses of IVR identified northeast and southwest of the site by Carpenter (1982). The diabase

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 6
dike that has been mapped by others west of the site has a more north to south orientation.
The orientations of those rock bodies were at least part of the reason Clark (2019) determined
that the anomaly was caused by IVR and not diabase. Field evidence collected by GMA
supports Clark's interpretation.
GMA did not observe diabase dikes on the subject property, either at the surface or at depth
during drilling in the magnetic anomaly identified by Clark (2019). Because the existing diabase
dike is located significantly to the west of the quarry property, the influence of that dike on
groundwater recharge to water -supply wells could not be measured directly by GMA during this
investigation.
4.0 AQUIFER TESTING
GMA installed water -level recorders (pressure transducers) in each of the new observation wells
and in each of the existing water -supply wells. The transducers were programmed to record
water levels at 5 minute intervals. Periodic water -level measurements were also taken in each
well using an electronic water -level meter. Transducers were installed on November 18, 2019,
and they were removed on November 23, 2019. This time period included non -pumping
(background) and pumping events.
4.1 VARIABLE -RATE STEP-DRAWDOWN TESTING AND DATA EVALUATION
DWD was employed directly by Alamance Aggregates Inc. to operate the equipment for the
variable rate step-drawdown pumping test under the direction of GMA. DWD completed the
step-drawdown test on November 19, 2019. Well OW-2 was chosen as the pumping well
because the original yield estimate of OW-2 was 6 gpm. Three 2-hour pumping steps were
planned to be performed, one at each of the following rates: 4 gpm, 6 gpm, and 8 gpm.
Static water level in OW2 prior to the beginning of the test was 16.20 feet below the top of
casing (TOC). After 2 hours of pumping at 4 gpm, the water level had declined to 22.38 feet
below TOC, for a drawdown of 6.18 feet. Discharge was then increased to 6 gpm. The water
level dropped to 34.71 after 105 minutes of pumping, and was declining at a rate of about 1
foot every 15 minutes. The rate of water -level decline increased to about 15 feet every 30
minutes thereafter. At the end of 4 hours of pumping, the total drawdown was 138.74 feet.
The third part of the step test, at 8 gpm, was cancelled because excessive drawdown below the
pump intake was expected. Step-drawdown test data are presented in Appendix II.
The water -bearing fracture at about 52 feet below land surface appears to be the main
contributing fracture to this well. Pumping the water level below that depth resulted in rapid
drawdown levels in the well. GMA determined that pumping the well at 2.5 gpm for 24 hours

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 7
should result in a pumping water level that remains just above the fracture zone at 52 feet
depth, and 2.5 gpm was selected as the pumping rate to use for the 24-hour pumping test.
4.2 CONSTANT RATE PUMPING AQUIFER TEST AND DATA EVALUATION
Rorie Well Repair Inc. (RWR) was employed directly by Alamance Aggregates Inc. to operate
the equipment for the 24-hour constant rate pumping aquifer test, under the direction of GMA.
Based on the results of the step-drawdown testing, GMA decided that the pumping rate for the
pumping well (OW-2) would be 2.5 gpm for the 24-hour test. The 24-hour constant rate
pumping aquifer test was completed on November 23, 2019.
Immediately prior the aquifer test, the static water level was measured to be 15.33 feet below
the measuring point (Top of Casing or TOC) in well OW-2. The pumping water level in well
OW-2 after 1200 minutes of pumping at a constant rate of 2.5 gpm was 45.84 feet below TOC.
A steady rain began to fall about 20 hours (1200 minutes) into the test, which caused the water
levels in some wells to noticeably rise. Therefore, the drawdown analysis was limited to the
first 1200 minutes of the aquifer pumping test. The total drawdown (difference between static
and pumping water level depths) recorded after 1200 minutes of testing was 30.51. The
specific capacity of the well was determined to be 0.082 gpm/foot of drawdown.
Because background (pre -pumping) water levels were monitored for more than 24-hours prior
to the pumping test, records of background water -level trends were available to perform
corrections of drawdown values from the observation wells. Appendix II presents the
uncorrected pre -pumping and pumping test water -level measurements from the pressure
transducers. Four non -pumping wells (OW1, OW3, OW-4, and WSW-2) revealed evidence of
drawdown influence during the pumping test. Therefore, GMA determined average linear pre -
pumping water -level trends for each of these wells, and we corrected the pumping water levels
to remove the natural background trends. Background trends in each of these wells indicated
rising water levels that followed a linear trend. Rising head trends averaged about 0.15 feet
per day, and we applied the well -specific corrections to the first 1200 minutes of observations
during the pumping test. Because significant water -level increases occurred in some of the
wells after 1200 minutes of pumping due to a heavy rain event, GMA did not use drawdown
data beyond 1200 minutes of pumping for our aquifer test analyses.

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 8
Table 3: Summary of Static Water Levels and Corrected Drawdown
Well
Name
Total
Well
Depth
(Feet)
BLS
Well
Casing
Diameter
in inches
Depth to Static
Water Level
Below Measuring
Point Measured
November 22,
2019
Distance in
Feet from the
Pumping
Well OW-2
Corrected
Drawdown
(Feet) After
1200 Minutes of
Withdrawals
WSW-1
94
6
19.43
3,280
0
WSW-2
96
6
30.81
258
0.32
WSW-3
38.5
30-36
30.31
265
0
WSW-4
405
6
14.95
3,340
0
OW-1
351
6
32.47
377
0.02
OW-2
350
6
15.33
0.25
30.51
OW-3
350
6
8.81
181
4.85
OW-4
350
6
18.07
436
0.2
BLS — Below Land Surface
A distance-drawdown plot was prepared using the corrected drawdown data in the table above.
The distance-drawdown method (Jacob, 1950) provides a means of estimating average aquifer
hydraulic properties based upon observations of drawdown in wells at varying distances from
the pumped well. The distance-drawdown plot is included in Figure 3. Based on this plot, the
theoretical limit of the cone of depression would extend out to 409 feet from the pumping well
after 1200 minutes of pumping. GMA utilized the distance-drawdown method to estimate the
average transmissivity and storage coefficient of the bedrock aquifer across the site.
Transmissivity describes an aquifer's ability to transmit water, and storage coefficient describes
the volume of water released from, or taken into, storage in the aquifer per unit surface area of
aquifer per unit change in head. The average transmissivity of the fractured rock aquifer
estimated from the distance-drawdown graph is 18.4 ftz/day, which is quite low. The storage
coefficient for the aquifer is 0.0002 (or 2 x 10-4), which indicates a low volume of water
released from storage in the fractured rock. Storage coefficient values below 0.001 are
commonly associated with confined aquifers. However, we know that the bedrock aquifer at
the site is unconfined because it receives recharge from rainfall through the regolith, and there
is no confining layer above the bedrock. The low storage coefficient determined from the
aquifer test is a function of the very low porosity of the rock and the small volume of water
released by gravity drainage from storage in fractures in the rock.
GMA also evaluated the drawdown and recovery data from the pumping well (OW-2) and
observation wells OW-3, OW-1, OW-4, and WSW-2 using the Cooper -Jacob Method (Cooper
and Jacob, 1946). GMA utilized these evaluations to estimate the local heterogeneity of
transmissivity and storage coefficient of the bedrock aquifer across the site. These analyses

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 9
also provide information on variation with depth of the hydraulic conductivity (permeability) of
the rock. Plots and more detailed notes regarding the analyses are included in Appendix III.
The Cooper -Jacob method was used to determine transmissivity of the aquifer at the pumping
well (OW-2). The transmissivity estimates of the aquifer at OW-2 decreased with time during
the test, ranging from 11.12 ft2/day in the early part of the test, to 2.4 ft2/day in the middle of
the test, and 1.9 ft2/day in the late stages of the test. The significantly lower transmissivity
values derived from the later portions of the drawdown data, as compared to the transmissivity
derived from the early data, are indicative of dewatering of the upper fractures. The data from
well OW2 indicates that the bedrock below 40 feet depth has very low permeability.
The transmissivity of the fractured rock aquifer observed in the observation well OW-3 was
about 12 ft2/day for both the early and later portions of the data. Of all the observation wells,
OW-3 exhibited the greatest drawdown effects from pumping from OW-2, and GMA believes
that aquifer test data from OW-3 present the most reliable individual estimates of transmissivity
and storage coefficient from the aquifer testing because the magnitude of drawdown was
orders of magnitude larger than background water -level fluctuations, thus any errors of data
corrections for background water -level changes would be less significant than at wells where
background fluctuations and drawdown observations of a similar magnitude.
The highest transmissivity estimate from all drawdown data sets was 339 ft2/day in WSW-2
using the Cooper -Jacob method. The higher value of transmissivity at WSW-2 could represent
a thicker saturated regolith than is present at most of the other wells. Furthermore, well WSW-
2 does not reach to the deeper fractures encountered in the observation wells, and therefore
WSW-2 is partially penetrating. Partial penetration likely affected the drawdown response in
WSW-2.
The observed drawdown in wells OW-1 and OW-4 were so small that GMA considers those
analyses unreliable for valid analytical solutions, especially in consideration of the diurnal water -
level fluctuations the were observed in the background water -level data and our inability to
reliably correct for these oscillations for wells that experienced very limited drawdown.
5.0 SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND ANALYTICAL CALCULATIONS
The Snow Camp Quarry site lies within a typical Piedmont hydrogeologic setting. Heath (1984)
discussed the hydrogeologic characteristics of the Piedmont region, wherein ridge tops occupy
interstream areas with hard rock that has limited fractures. Stream valleys occur in areas
where the underlying bedrock is intensively fractured and more deeply weathered. Ridge tops
often have bedrock outcrops and thin regolith (soil and saprolite). Figure 4 illustrates this
conceptual model for groundwater flow in a Piedmont setting.

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 10
The proposed Snow Camp Quarry site lies on a ridge top where regolith is nearly absent, the
bedrock has few water -bearing fractures, and permeability of the bedrock is low. The ridge
tops are recharge areas for the aquifer, and the volume of water in storage on the ridge tops is
very small. In this setting, groundwater withdrawals required to maintain a dry quarry pit are
expected to be small, and the low permeability of the bedrock will significantly inhibit the
expansion of drawdown away from the quarry. Data collected from drilling and aquifer testing
at the site provide site -specific data on the transmissivity and storage coefficient of the upland
(ridge -top) portion of the groundwater flow regime. These data provide important information
from which predictive analytical calculations can be made.
5.1 CONE OF DEPRESSION FROM THE PUMPING TEST AND INDICATIONS OF HETEROGENEITY
Water -level drawdown resulting from the 24-hour constant rate pumping aquifer test was
measured in wells OW-2, OW-3, OW-4, OW-1, and WSW-2. The corrected drawdown values
are contoured and presented in Figure 5. The drawdown cone is elliptical, owing to the
orientation of fractures that generally following bedrock foliation at the site. Flow lines,
representing the direction of groundwater flow, will be perpendicular to elevation contours of
the groundwater surface (the potentiometric surface), which may be generally represented by
the drawdown cone contours. The major axis, or direction, of groundwater flow will trend
northeast -southwest, which is also parallel to the bedrock foliation. Using the observations
from the 24-hour pumping test, we can project that the future drawdown area around the
proposed Snow Camp Quarry will be elongated in the northeast -southwest direction.
The distance-drawdown plot (Figure 3) indicates that the radius of the cone of influence (0 feet
of drawdown) created by 30.51 feet of drawdown at the pumping well after 20 hours of
pumping was about 409 feet. Since drawdown in the quarry will ultimately be as much as 330
feet, GMA projected the theoretical distance-drawdown plot (see Appendix III) to steady state
conditions (assumed to be 365 days). Steady state projections suggest that the theoretical zero
drawdown may extend to a distance of 8,700 from the pumping well after one year of pumping.
The distance-drawdown method assumes homogeneous and isotropic conditions with an aquifer
that has an infinite areal extent. The calculation also assumes a constant withdrawal rate that
is uniformly applied to the full thickness of the aquifer. The Snow Camp Quarry does not match
the assumptions of the distance-drawdown method. The fractured bedrock is not
homogeneous and isotropic, and the decreasing productivity with depth of the pumping well
(OW2) clearly demonstrates anisotropy. Furthermore, the aquifer is an unconfined system that
is bounded locally by groundwater flow divides (ridge tops in recharge areas) and discharge
boundaries (streams) which are located much closer to the quarry than the theoretical 8700
feet limit of a cone of depression. Lastly, as shallow and more productive fractures become
dewatered locally around the pit, groundwater flow contribution into the pit will be limited by
the much lower -permeability deeper fractures, thereby reducing the pumping rate from the
quarry as steady state is approached. Nonetheless, utilizing the distance-drawdown method

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 11
provides a starting point for considering potential drawdown associated with groundwater
withdrawals from the proposed quarry.
5.2 ANALYTICAL MODELING OF GROUNDWATER INFLUENCE FROM THE QUARRY
We utilized the distance versus drawdown method to estimate the theoretical drawdown at
different distances from proposed quarry (Appendix III). This prediction assumes a
transmissivity of 18.4 ftz/day, a storage coefficient of 0.0002, and a maximum drawdown of 330
feet in the quarry. Table 4 presents these theoretical drawdown values at varying distances.
Table 4. Theoretical Maximum Drawdown at Steady State Conditions
Distance From the Quarry Wall
in Feet
Theoretical Drawdown in Feet at Steady State,
Without Considering Effects of Hydrologic
Boundaries That Occur
1,000
72
1,500
58.5
2,000
49
3,000
35.5
However, the actual drawdown that may occur at these distances will be substantially reduced
by hydrologic boundaries that will be encountered by the cone of influence as it extends
outward. These boundaries were NOT encountered by the cone of influence created by the 24
hour aquifer test. Major hydrologic boundaries that may be encountered include streams,
recharge areas (such as drainage basin divides along major ridge tops) and different rock
characteristics (such as greater permeability of sheared rock zones and/or thicker saturated
overlying saprolite) that the cone of influence may encounter as it extends outwards.
The highly sheared volcanic rock zone located just west of the projected pit area likely has a
higher permeability than the slightly sheared rock zones of the pit area as demonstrated by the
losing stream flow in the sheared rock zone. GMA expects the connection between these two
zones will be minimal based on the eight low yielding wells present on the quarry site and the
results of our aquifer testing. Also, the major flow lines in the quarry area are expected to be
preferentially oriented northeast to southwest along rock foliation. That orientation is parallel
to the contact between the highly -sheared and slightly -sheared zones.

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 12
5.3 PROJECTED PUMPING RATES FROM INITIAL QUARRY OPERATIONS
GMA estimated the groundwater contribution to quarry withdrawals using the information we
collected.
We used Darcy's Law (Q = KA dh/dl) as presented in Heath (1984):
Where:
dh/dl is hydraulic gradient. GMA estimated average dh/dl from the distance drawdown
plot for the initial pit using the projected head difference between 1000 feet from the pit
(22 feet at steady state) and the 100 feet deep pit. So, there is a dh of 78 feet over a dl
of 1000 feet, giving dh/dl of 0.078 ft/ft.
K is hydraulic conductivity. GMA used the average transmissivity of 18.4 ftz/day divided
by the full thickness (320 feet) to get an average hydraulic conductivity (K) of 0.058
ft/day.
A is cross -sectional area of flow. GMA estimated the cross -sectional area of the pit wall
using an estimated perimeter of the final pit (about 5,000 feet) with an assumed initial
100 feet of thickness at the pit, providing a cross -sectional area for flow of 500,000 ftz.
Solving for Q resulted in the following:
Q = (0.058 ft/day)(500,000 ftz)(0.078) = 2,262 ft3/day = 16,920 gal/day = 11.75 gpm.
While this method may be the simplest method, GMA believes this value of Q may be
underestimated because the full bedrock aquifer thickness was used as the divisor for
determining K. Our aquifer testing shows that the deeper portion of the rock is very tight and
likely accounts for only about 10% of the total transmissivity we calculated. We calculated an
alternate estimate that apportions 90% of the calculated transmissivity to the upper 100 feet of
thickness. This exercise resulted in an estimated average K value of 0.17 ft/day. Using this
higher K estimate resulted in a projected groundwater contribution to the initial pit of about
6,630 ft3/day, which equals 49,600 gallons/day or about 34.4 gpm. GMA believes that the 34.4
gpm groundwater pumping estimate is a reasonable approximation of the groundwater
contribution to the proposed initial quarry. However, this pumping does not account for
precipitation contribution to the pit.
Rainfall will be a significant source of water for pumping withdrawals to maintain a dry pit in the
quarry. The area of the proposed pit is estimated to be 28.29 acres, or 1,232,312 square feet.
The average annual rainfall for this area is 44.92 inches
(https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/burlington/north-caroIina/united-states/usnc0087), or

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 13
about 3.74 feet. If half of that rainfall is lost due to evapo-transpiration and reuse by the
quarry for dust suppression and other uses, that leaves about 1.87 feet of annual rainfall over
that entire 1,232,312 square feet that would compose most of the water to be discharged from
the quarry. So annually about 2.306 million cubic feet of water may be discharged from the
quarry operation as a result of precipitation. Precipitation contribution would be equivalent to
47,267 gallons per day, or about 32.8 gallons per minute.
To estimate the total rate of quarry withdrawals, GMA added the estimate of the groundwater
contribution to the estimate contributed by annual rainfall. The estimated average discharge
rate is 67.2 gallons per minute. Discharge from the quarry would likely not occur every day,
only as needed after rainfall events. Discharge from the quarry would be directed to existing
streams where some of that water would infiltrate into the groundwater, recharging the system
in losing reaches of the stream, if they occur.
5.4 ESTIMATED ZONE OF INFLUENCE FROM THE INITIAL QUARRY
Our analytical calculations (Figure 3) suggests that there could be 72 feet of drawdown 1,000
feet from the quarry wall at maximum pumping level in the future pit, but that estimate is
theoretical and does not include effects of natural hydrologic boundaries that would be
encountered as the cone of influence expands. During initial stages of mining to a depth of 100
feet, GMA does not expect any adverse drawdown impacts to occur off the quarry property.
However, to be cautious, the initial estimate of the zone of influence that will be used during
the initial stages of mining will assume a maximum of 22 feet of drawdown 1,000 feet from the
quarry pit, during the period when the mine depth is 100 feet or less. Figure 6 shows the
location of that estimated initial zone of influence. Based on our experience, GMA believes that
limit is a conservative estimate of the zone of influence, meaning that we expect that it
represents a worse -case estimate of the location of the zone of influence.
GMA noted earlier that we expect streams and changing characteristics of the rock will be
limiting factors to the expansion of the cone of influence. As the quarry grows, Alamance
Aggregates Inc.'s consultant could model the site using historic water level data, mined depth
and area, and rate of withdrawal to project characterize the actual zone of influence. An
updated map showing the actual zone of influence would be developed after 5 years of data
have been collected. This map will be used to guide the mitigation plan for potential impacts to
surrounding water -supply wells.
As the quarry is developed deeper, we expect only minor additional volumes of water to be
produced. This is supported by the fact that deeper fractures in the on -site wells appear to
represent only about 10% of the transmissivity determined from the full thickness of the unit.
GMA has experience working with similar quarry operations in the region that supports these
expectations. There are generally no adverse impacts to water -supply wells located more than
1,000 feet from a typical quarry pit boundary. So GMA believes that the map in Figure 6 is a

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 14
conservative starting point to estimate the zone of influence around Snow Camp Quarry. There
are no residential water -supply wells outside the quarry permit boundary and located within the
estimated initial zone of influence. Therefore, we do not anticipate adverse impacts to
surrounding wells as a result of the initial quarry operations.
6.0 MONITORING PLAN FOR QUARRY DEVELOPMENT
Reinhardt (2018b, 2019) proposed a groundwater monitoring plan for the Snow Camp Quarry
involving the designation of up to four well locations. Each well location would be near the
quarry property boundary, generally to the northeast, southeast, southwest, and northwest.
That plan included having two wells at each location, one shallow well 50 to 100 feet deep, and
one deeper well drilled to the proposed depth of the quarry (330 feet).
The new observation wells constructed for this project (Figure 5) are located just north of the
proposed quarry pit in a general orientation from northeast to southwest, which is the same
trend as the magnetic anomaly and foliation of the bedrock. Foliation of the bedrock is likely
the preferred direction or pathway for groundwater flow, so data collected along that
orientation using wells OW-1, OW-2, OW-3, and OW-4 could be used to monitor preferential
flow directions of groundwater. Therefore, GMA suggests that the new observation wells (OW-
1, OW-2, OW-3, and OW-4) constructed for this investigation should be added to the
monitoring plan as monitoring wells.
GMA suggests that Well OW-1 should be used as the northeastern deep monitoring well and
existing WSW-2 could be used as the shallow monitoring well. Existing WSW-4 could be used
as the deep monitoring well and existing WSW-1 could be used as the shallow monitoring well
for the southwestern monitoring station. New well pairs would need to be constructed to the
southeast and northwest. See Figure 7 for the existing well locations and proposed well
locations suggested for the monitoring plan.
Water levels should be periodically recorded for all monitoring wells. These wells will serve as
sentinel wells to document water -level changes as the quarry expansion progresses. Regular
water -level measurements in these wells will document the impact of groundwater withdrawals
on groundwater levels through time. Graphs of these water level changes will help the
Alamance Aggregates and NCDEQ determine if groundwater withdrawals are the cause of any
problems that may arise in residential wells beyond the quarry property. Those data will be
used to periodically modify the projected zone of influence as the quarry develops.

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 15
7.0 MITIGATION PLAN FOR RESIDENTIAL WATER -SUPPLY WELLS
This plan is developed specifically to address concerns relative to residential water -supply wells
located near the proposed Alamance Aggregates Inc. — Snow Camp Quarry located in the
vicinity of Snow Camp, North Carolina. This Mitigation Plan has been developed to address how
Alamance Aggregates Inc. will respond, upon notification that a water -supply well within the
zone of influence may have been adversely impacted due to declining groundwater levels.
Adverse water -level declines are those that impact the usefulness of the well to provide water.
A small water -level decline will not adversely impact the vast majority of wells. Alamance
Aggregates Inc. will establish the zone of influence based on current conditions and periodically
update that zone of influence based on the monitoring plan data. Our analytical calculations
(Figure 3) provide a predicted zone of influence to be used during initial quarry operations.
Water Well Inventory
As part of the original permitting effort for this quarry location, Reinhardt (2019) conducted a
water -supply well survey of the area. The water -supply well survey was conducted within a
1,500 foot radius of the proposed permit boundary. No residential properties were identified
within 500 feet of the proposed mining limit.
Reinhardt (2019) identified 81 properties zoned as residential within the search area and
determined that 21 of those properties were undeveloped. A review of County records, and the
responses received from a mailed questionnaire to property owners, revealed there are at least
42 residential water -supply wells within 1,500 feet from the proposed quarry permit boundary.
Water -supply wells in this area ranged in depth from 105 feet to 415 feet. Well yields for those
wells ranged from 1.5 gpm to 100 gpm. Reinhardt (2019) also included the names of well
owners, coordinates, and addresses for each property. GMA proposes to use this existing well
inventory as part of the initial database for the mitigation plan.
As mentioned above, GMA believes that the initial zone of influence map shown in Figure 6 is a
conservative estimate of the zone of influence around the Snow Camp Quarry. There are no
active residential water -supply wells located within the 1,000 foot radius around the proposed
pit boundary.
Response Plan
Should a problem occur with a residential water -supply well, the property owner should notify
Alamance Aggregates Inc. or NCDEQ of the water -supply well issue. The proposed procedures
to address the complaint are outlined below:
a) An analysis will be made to determine whether or not the water supply well in question is
located within the Zone of Influence as it exists at the time of the notice.

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 16
b) An Alamance Aggregates Inc. representative, or a designated agent (a qualified well
repair/installation specialist), will evaluate the condition of the water -supply well to
determine the cause of the failure.
c) If a determination is made that the water -supply well in question has failed due to
mechanical reasons not related to drawdown from the quarry, the NCDEQ will be notified
and the procedures outlined in this Mitigation Plan will not be applicable. The property
owner will be notified of the findings of this determination and will be responsible for any
necessary repairs.
d) If a determination is made that the water -supply well in question has failed due to a decline
of groundwater level that has been caused or is a direct result of mining activities or
dewatering of the pit, then Alamance Aggregates Inc., at its expense, will proceed as
quickly as is reasonable to provide a functioning, permanent water supply to the property
owner, either by rehabilitation, repair, or deepening of the existing water supply well; or
drilling of a new water -supply well of the same diameter; or by connecting the residence to
a public water supply, if available. Alamance Aggregates Inc., or a designated agent (a
qualified well repair/installation specialist), will evaluate the existing water -supply system to
determine the most reasonable method available to restore the permanent water supply.
The options available must be capable of meeting the minimum volume used or needed by
the property owner before the disruption of water -supply occurred.
e) Based on the time necessary to re-establish a permanent supply to the property, it may be
necessary to arrange with a licensed and reputable water distributor to provide the affected
user with a temporary water supply. This water supply will be for use in normal household
activities, such as bathing, washing, and sanitary facilities. This supply will be in the form of
a clean -water tanker or container that will be refilled as needed, all at the expense of
Alamance Aggregates Inc.
This Mitigation Plan relies on the use of qualified outside vendors to satisfy the needs of a
temporary water supply and to develop a permanent water source. As licensed reputable
companies, they are expected to accomplish and carry out their assigned duties in a manner
that ensures that all work is completed within a predetermined time period. If for any reason,
this work is not completed to an acceptable level of quality and/or within the time frame agreed
upon by all parties, the outside vendor will be replaced by another company designated by
Alamance Aggregates Inc.

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 17
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
GMA supervised the installation of four new observation wells on the quarry property, to
supplement information that could be obtained from four existing former water -supply wells.
The four observation wells were constructed on the northern side of the property. All of these
wells are also located within the magnetic anomaly identified by Clark (2019). A 6-hour variable
rate step-drawdown test and a 24-hour constant rate aquifer pumping test were conducted,
using observation well OW-2 as the pumping well. The drilling contractor, Derry's Well Drilling
constructed these wells with GMA supervision. Derry's Well Drilling also performed the
following: estimated well yields for each existing water -supply well and new wells, performed
video logging of each new observation and existing water -supply well, and operated the pump
for the 6 hour step test. Rorie's Well Repair operated the pumping equipment and collected
water levels for the 24-hour aquifer test. Using data gathered from the site, GMA prepared a
site conceptual model of the area and performed predictive analytical calculations.
Aquifer testing revealed several characteristics of the fractured rock at the quarry site. All of
the wells tested on the quarry property have low yields, ranging from 1 gpm to 10 gpm. The
specific capacity of the pumping well was 0.08 gpm/ft. of drawdown. Transmissivity of the
aquifer was higher (12 ft2/day) in the shallower portions of the pumping well where shallow
fractures are more abundant and can tap water stored in the overlying saprolite. Estimated
transmissivity dropped to 2 ft2/day in the deeper portions of the aquifer where fractures are less
abundant and are less productive. The aquifer at the site is unconfined. The calculated storage
coefficient values from the site are small, indicating that the fractured rock has very low
porosity in the proposed mine area. The rock material that is to be mined by this quarry
operation will produce very low volumes of groundwater.
GMA prepared a map showing the initial zone of influence for drawdowns resulting from quarry
withdrawals. The map shows a limit of 22 feet of drawdown 1,000 away from the quarry pit
boundary when the quarry pit is expected to have a maximum of 100 feet of drawdown. This
map is intended to be the initial map to be used to determine if a well is within an area where it
could possibly be impacted by quarry withdrawals. This map should be updated every 5 years
using periodic water level measurements obtained from the observations wells mandated by
NCDEQ to be installed at the four compass points around the quarry. GMA strongly suggests
that the four new observation wells installed for this project, along with the four former water -
supply wells existing on the site, be incorporated in that monitoring plan and used to
periodically update the zone of influence map during active mining.
A mitigation plan has been prepared by GMA to address any problems arising with a residential
well after the quarry has begun operation. The homeowner must contact Alamance Aggregates
Inc., or NCDEQ, to report the problem. Alamance Aggregates will then contact their consultant
to evaluate whether it is possible that the problem is caused by groundwater withdrawals from
the quarry or by equipment malfunction in the well. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 18
repair their well if the problem is due to equipment malfunction or deterioration of the well
(e.g., scale or bio-fouling of the borehole, lightning strikes, power surge, holes in casing, etc.).
If the consultant determines that the problem could be result of quarry groundwater
withdrawals, Alamance Aggregates will notify the homeowner and NCDEQ and indicate what
steps will be taken at Alamance Aggregates' cost to mitigate the problem. Possible solutions
could include: 1) lower the pump intake in the affected well; 2) if the pump cannot be lowered,
the pump and piping will be removed and the well drilled deeper to connect to deeper
fractures; 3) and if necessary, a new well may be drilled to sufficient depths to provide potable
water.
9.0 REPORT CERTIFICATION
I, William L. Lyke, a Licensed Geologist for Groundwater Management Associates, Inc. (GMA),
do certify that the information contained in this report is correct and accurate to the best of my
knowledge. GMA is a professional corporation licensed to practice geology (Greenville and
Apex, NC #C-121) and engineering (Apex, NC #C-0854) in the state of North Carolina.
Richard K. Spruill, PhD, P.G.
Principal Hydrogeologist
William L. Lyke, P.G., P.E.
Senior Hydrogeologist/Civil Engineer
o�� C A N
� r
James K. Holley, P.G.
Senior Hydrogeologist
Water -Resources Director

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 19
10.0 REFERENCES
Carpenter, P.A, III, 1982; Geologic Map of Region G (Alamance, Caswell, Davidson, Guilford,
Randolph, and Rockingham Counties), North Carolina; North Carolina Geological Survey,
Regional Geology Series 2.
Clark, T.W., 2019; Geologic and Geophysical Investigation Alamance Aggregates, Snow Camp,
NC; report to Alamance Aggregates LLC dated October 1, 2019, 6 pages.
Cooper, H.H., Jr., and Jacob, C.E., 1946; A generalized graphical method for evaluating
formation constants and summarizing wellfield history; Transactions, American
Geophysical Union, Vol. 27, No.4.
Driscoll, Fletcher G., 1986; Groundwater and Wells, Second Edition; Johnson Filtration Systems,
Inc., 1089 pages.
Heath, R.C., 1984, "Ground -Water Regions of the United States", United States Geological
Survey Water -Supply Paper 2242, page 47.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985; Geologic Map of North Carolina, Geological
Survey Section, scale 1:500,000 in color.
Reinhardt, R.C., 2018a; Preliminary Hydrogeologic Investigation for the Proposed Snow Camp
Quarry, Snow Camp, Alamance County, North Carolina; report to Alamance Aggregates
LLC dated September 22, 2019, 11 pages.
Reinhardt, R.C., 2018b; Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the Proposed Snow Camp
Quarry, Snow Camp, Alamance County, North Carolina; report to Alamance Aggregates
LLC dated September 22, 2019, 4 pages.
Reinhardt, R.C., 2019; Revised Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the Proposed Snow Camp
Quarry, Snow Camp, Alamance County, North Carolina; report to Alamance Aggregates
LLC dated March 22, 2019, 13 pages.
Schmidt, R.G., Gumiel, P., and Payas, A., 2006; Geology and Mineral Deposits of the Snow
Camp-Saxapahaw Area, Central North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File
Report 2006-1259.
Theis, C.V., 1935; The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate of
and duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage; Transactions, American
Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., pp 518-524.

FIGURES

MAJOR HILL•
W
pw
0
-SOAPSTONE � .
LEGEND
0 TOWN OF SNOW CAMP GMA 11
SCALE IN FEET
APPROXIMATE PERMIT BOUNDARY 0 1,500 3,000
ROADS
le: DRAWINGS/163101/ SITE LOCATION MAP DATE: 12/12/2019
FIG —SITE—LOCATION—MAP
PROJECT NO. 163101 ALAMANCE AGGREGATES SNOW CAMP QUARRY SITE FIGURE 1

PVT
7 IVR
WSW-3 � OW-1
WSW-2 FVR
�0■4
FVR • VR �, OW 3 71
alp .jF' 78 ■ FVR
�� �Q.Q FVR ■ FVR ••.• i QU72
AKENBUSH
y9 � ■
�p s O y 7 .��.
■ FFVR ■■■.■♦
D
C(gRK
' fi+aa i
rA.JL
N
SOAPSTONE
LEGEND
WATER -SUPPLY WELL
OUTCROP L APPROXIMATE PERMIT BOUNDARY
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
SHEAR ZONE CONTACT (SCHMIDT ET AL. 2006) ■ ■ ■ ■ APPROXIMATE PIT BOUNDARY
OBSERVATION WELL T FOLIATION SURFACE WATER SCALE IN FEET -
VERTICALJOINT ROADS»ram
- DIABASE DIKE (CLARK 2019) 0 500 1,000
MAGNETIC ANOMALY (CLARK 2019) T STRIKE AND DIP OF JOINT PARCEL BOUNDARY
le: DRAWINGS/163101/ SITE MAP SHOWING WELL LOCATIONS AND SITE GEOLOGY DATE: 12/12/2019
FIG2 Site Map_201912
PROJECT NO. 163101 ALAMANCE AGGREGATES SNOW CAMP QUARRY SITE FIGURE 2

Figure 3. Distance Drawdown Analysis of Pumping Test Data
Corrected Drawdown Values at 1200 minutes of pumping - Snow Camp Quarry Pumping Test from well OW2.
Well Distance Drawdown
OW2
0.25
30.51
OW3
181
4.85
OW4
436
0.2
OW1
377
0.02
WSW2
258
0.32
T = 70Q/As
As = 9.51 feet
Q = 2.5 gpm
T = 18.4 ft2/day
S = Tt/640 roe
t = 1200 minutes
ro = 409 feet
S = 0.0002
0
5
10
v
15
3
0
3 20
L
25
30
35
Distance vs. Drawdown at 1200 Minutes of Pumping
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Distance (feet)
• Corrected Drawdown

Proposed Quarry
Setting
Bedrock outcrops
J
-`' r ti
fJQ
r� l
Fractures�
a
Bedroo
Best well sites indicated with Xs
Modified from Heath, 1984
G5MA
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.
File: Drawings/]63101/
SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE SNOW CAMP QUARRY SETTING
Date:12/16/2019
Fi ure4
PROJECT 163101
ALAMANCE AGGREGATES SNOW CAMP QUARRY SITE
FIGURE 4

r 5
cr
QG
��, OW-1
i; .02GS,S
/',
WSW-2* `
r
/ 0.3201-1
1
f�
rt
L'
/ OW-2 1
10I 30.51�
�10/
I � 5
OW-3*`—"/
I OW-4 4.85
/0
' 0.2 /
N
LEGEND
WATER WELL
10 FEET O
GMA
-SUPPLY
— DRAWDOWN
OBSERVATION WELL
(CORRECTED)
ROADS
CORRECTED
4.85 DRAWDOWN
SCALE IN FEET
0 125 250
-1�-
PARCEL BOUNDARY
VALUES
GROUNDWATER ARANA04MI10 ASSOMM, IMC.
File: DRAWINGS/163101/
CONTOUR MAP OF DRAWDOWN FROM THE CONSTANT RATE PUMPING AQUIFER TEST
DATE: 12/13/2019
CONEOFDEPRESSION
PROJECT NO. 163101
ALAMANCE AGGREGATES SNOW CAMP QUARRY SITE
FIGURE 5

��— PVT
WSW-3
QUAKENBUSH
WSW-4
N
SOAPSTONE
:�
LEGEND
WATER -SUPPLY WELL
SHEAR ZONE CONTACT (SCHMIDT ETAL. 2006) PARCEL BOUNDARY
G MA
APPROXIMATE PERMIT BOUNDARY SURFACE WATER
SCALE IN FEET
%
-^• --�..
OBSERVATION WELL
APPROXIMATE PIT BOUNDARY ROADS
0016
0 500 1,000
- DIABASE DIKE (CLARK 2019) PRELIMINARY ZONE OF INFLUENCE (FROM 100-FT DEPTH INITIAL PIT)
le: DRAWINGS/163101/
ESTIMATED INITIAL ZONE OF INFLUENCE RESULTING FROM QUARRY WITHDRAWALS
DATE: 12/16/2019
FIG6 ZONEOFINFLUENCE
PROJECT NO. 163101
ALAMANCE AGGREGATES SNOW CAMP QUARRY SITE
FIGURE 6

PVT
IVR s
r
WSW-3 �W
/■O i-4
FVR • IVR
�lO
�lp�
`ZAP 7a .�( FVR
■
FVR •••• 14ry
QUAKENBUSH
72 ■ yh' -,
, ■ FVR ■■■��— s.r :.
D
mw
40
N
n
=
SOAPSTONE
LEGEND
i
WATER -SUPPLY WELL
0 OUTCROP
SHEAR ZONE CONTACT (SCHMIDT ETAL. 2006) PROPOSED MONITORING WELL LOCATION
OBSERVATION WELL
T FOLIATION APPROXIMATE PERMIT BOUNDARY
'M
_ DIABASE DIKE (CLARK 2019)
VERTICAL JOINT APPROXIMATE PIT BOUNDARY SCALE IN FEET
� MAGNETIC ANOMALY (CLARK 2019)
T STRIKE AND DIP OF JOINT SURFACE WATER 0 500 1,000
ROADS
File: DRAWINGS/163101/
PROPOSED MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN
DATE: 12/16/2019
FIG7_PROPOSEDMWS
PROJECT NO. 163101
ALAMANCE AGGREGATES SNOW CAMP QUARRY SITE
FIGURE 7

/_1» 4 ►101 K401
GEOLOGIC LOGS OF OBSERVATION WELLS

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
For Internal Use ONLY:
1. Well Contractor Information:
John W. Huneycutt
Well Contractor Name
2465-A
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
Derry's Well Drilling, Inc.
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable well permits (i.e. County, State, Variance, Injection, etc.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural ❑Municipal/Public
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply) ❑Residential Water Supply (single)
Z Industrial/Commercial ❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑Irri ation
Non -Water Supply Well:
❑Monitoring ❑Recovery
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Aquifer Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑Tracer
❑Other (explain under #21 F
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 10/23/19 sell ID# OW-1
5a. Well Location:
Alamance Aggregates, LLC
Facility/Owner Name Facility ID# (if applicable)
Quakenbush Rd., Snow Camp 27349
Physical Address, City, and Zip
Alamance
County
Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(if well field, one lat/long is sufficient)
35.873380 N 79.415460 W
6. Is (are) the well(s): ©Permanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑Yes or E]No
Ifthis is a repair, fill out known well construction information and explain the nature ofthe
repair under #21 remarks section or on the back of this form.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
For nudliple ityection or non -water supply wells ONLY with the same construction, you can
submit one form.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 350
For multiple ivells list all depths ifdifferent (example- 3 a 200' and 2@100')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 32
If water level is above casing use "+ "
11. Borehole diameter: 6 (in.)
12. Well construction method: Rotary
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc.)
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
77 ft.
80 ft.
2 gpm
145 ft.
165 ft.
2 gpm (185'-205'=2gpm, 247'-255'=4gpm)
15. OUTER CASING(for multi -cased wells) OR LINER if a licable
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0 ft.
49 ft.
61/8 in
SDR-21
I PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal closed -loop)
FROM
TO
I DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
ft.
ft.
in.
ft.
Ct.
in.
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOT SIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
in.
ft.
ft.
in.
18. GROUT
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD & AMOUNT
0 ft.
3 tt.
Bent. Chips
Gravity
3 ft.
20 ft-
Bentonite
Pumped
ft.
ft.
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if applicable)
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
20. DRILLING LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION color, hardness, soil/rock type, grain size, etc.
0 ft.
25 ft.
Red Dirt
25 ft.
38 ft.
Lighter Red Dirt (Moist)
38 ft.
43 ft.
Sandy Shale Rock
43 It.
103 ft•
Lighter More Consolidated Shale Rock
103 ft.
350 ft•
Blue Rock (Some White Quartz)
ft.
ft-
Seams: 77'=2g, 145-165'=2g, 185-205'=2g
ft.
ft.
247-255'=4g
21. REMARKS
22. Certification:
9&/& a)
10/22/19
Signs a of Certified Well Contractor
Date
By signing this form, I hereby certify that the well(s) was (were) constructed in accordance
with 1 5A NCAC 02C .0100 or 1 5A NCAC 02C .0200 Well Construction Standards and that a
copy of this record has been provided to the well owner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Resources, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Iniection Wells ONLY: In addition to sending the form to the address in
24a above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Resources, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. Yield (gpm) 10 Method of test: Air 24c. For Water Supply & Injection Wells:
Also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of completion of
13b. Disinfection type: Granular Amount: 1 /2 lb. well construction to the county health department of the county where
constructed.
Form GW-1 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Resources Revised August 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
For Internal Use ONLY:
1. Well Contractor Information:
John W. Huneycutt
Well Contractor Name
2465-A
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
Derry's Well Drilling, Inc.
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable well permits (i.e. County, State, Variance, Injection, etc.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply)
O Industrial/Commercial
❑Irrigation
❑Municipal/Public
❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
Non -Water Supply Well:
❑Monitoring ❑Recovery
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Aquifer Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (HeatinE/CoolinE
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑Tracer
❑Other (explain under #21 Remarks
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 10/26/19 Well ID# OW-2
5a. Well Location:
Alamance Aggregates, LLC
Facility/Owner Name Facility ID# (if applicable)
Quakenbush Rd., Snow Camp 27349
Physical Address, City, and Zip
Alamance
County
Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(if well field, one lat/long is sufficient)
35.872490 N 79.416110 W
6. Is (are) the well(s): OPermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑Yes or KlNo
If this is a repair, fill out known well construction information and explain the nature of the
repair under 921 remarks section or on the back of this form.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
For multiple injection or non -water supply wells ONLY with the same construction, you can
submit one form.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 350
For multiple wells list all depths ijdifferent (example- 3@200' and 2@100')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 15
If water level is above casing, use "+ "
11. Borehole diameter: 6 (in.)
12. Well construction method: Rotary
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc.)
lei
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
25 It.
45 ft.
1/2 gpm
70 ft.
75 ft.
1/2 gpm (272'=1.5gpm)
15. OUTER CASING (for multi -cased wells)OR LINER (if a licable
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0 tt.
20 tt•
61/8 "
SDR-21
PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal closed-loo
FROM
I TO
I DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
ft.
ft.
in.
ft.
ft.
in.
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOT SIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
ft.
ft.
in.
ft.
ft.
in.
18. GROUT
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD & AMOUNT
0 ft.
3 ft.
Bent. Chips
Gravity
3 rt•
20 ft.
Bentonite
Pumped
ft.
ft.
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if a licable
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
20. DRILLING LOG attach additional sheets if necessa )
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION color, hardness, soil/rock type, grain size, etc.
0 ft.
11 ft.
Red Dirt
11 ft.
350 ft.
Blue Rock
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
Seams: 17', 25-45'=1/29, 44', 50', 56',
ft.
ft.
70'=1/2g, 272'=1.59
21. REMARKS
22. Certification:
ge�& a)
11 /22/19
Si tore of Certified Well Contractor
Date
By signing this form, 1 hereby certify that the well(s) was (were) constructed in accordance
with 15A NCAC 02C .0100 or I5A NCAC 02C .0200 Well Construction Standards and that a
copy of this record has been provided to the well owner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Resources, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Infection Wells ONLY: In addition to sending the form to the address in
24a above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Resources, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
m 13a. Yield
(gpm) Method of test:
2.5 Air 24c. For Water Supply & Injection Wells:
Also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of completion of
13b. Disinfection type: Granular Amount: 1/2 lb. well construction to the county health department of the county where
constructed.
Form GW-I North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Resources Revised August 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
For Internal Use ONLY:
1. Well Contractor Information:
John W. Huneycutt
Well Contractor Name
2465-A
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
Derry's Well Drilling, Inc.
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable well permits (i.e. County, State, Mariance, h jection, etc)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply)
❑O Industrial/Commercial
❑Municipal/Public
❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
Non -Water Supply Well:
❑Monitoring
❑Recovery
Injection Well:
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Aquifer Test
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Experimental Technology
❑Subsidence Control
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Tracer
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Return)
❑Other (explain under #21 Remarks)
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 11 /16/1 9 Well ID# OW-3
5a. Well Location:
Alamance Aggregates, LLC
Facility/Owner Name Facility ID# (if applicable)
Quakenbush Rd., Snow Camp 27349
Physical Address, City, and Zip
Alamance
County
Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(if well field, one lat/long is sufficient)
35.87213 N 79.41653 W
6. Is (are) the well(s): ©Permanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑Yes or ONo
Ifthis is a repair, fill out known well consiniction information and explain the nature ofthe
repair under n21 remarks section or on the back of this form.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
For multiple injection or non -water supply wells ONLY with the saute construction, you can
submit one form.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 350
For multiple wells list all depths ifdifferent (example- 3@200' and 2@100')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 8.5
If water level is above casing, use " "
11. Borehole diameter: 6 (in.)
12. Well construction method: Rotary
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc.)
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
56 It.
61 rt.
1 gpm
97 tt•
103 ft.
3 gpm
15. OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells OR LINER if applicable)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0 ft
21 ff•
61/8 i"
SDR-21
PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal closed -loop)
FROM
TO
I DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
ft.
ft.
in.
Ct.
ft.
in.
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
I SLOT SIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
it.
ft.
in.
ft.
ft.
in.
18. GROUT
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD & AMOUNT
0 ft.
3 ft.
Bent. Chips
Gravity
3 tt.
20 ft.
Bentonite
Pumped
ft.
ft.
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if a licable
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD
ft.
ft.
tt.
Ct.
20. DRILLING LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION color, hardness, soil/rock type, grain size, etc.
0 ft.
11 ft.
Red Dirt
11 ft.
350 ft.
Blue Rock
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
Seams: 56'=1g, 97'=3g
ft.
ft.
21. REMARKS
22. Certification; /7 a) 12/10/19
Sign e of Certified Well Contractor Date
By signing this form, 1 hereby certify that the well(s) was (were) constructed in accordance
with 15A NCAC 02C .0100 or 15A NCAC 02C .0200 Well Construction Standards and that a
copy ofthis record has been provided to the well owner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Resources, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Injection Wells ONLY: In addition to sending the form to the address in
24a above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Resources, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
m 13a. Yield
(gpm) Method of test:
4 Air 24c. For Water Supply & Injection Wells:
Also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of completion of
13b. Disinfection type: Granular Amount: 1 /2 lb. well construction to the county health department of the county where
constructed.
Form GW-1 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Water Resources Revised August 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
For Internal Use ONLY-
1. Well Contractor Information:
John W.Huneycutt
Well Contractor Name
2465-A
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
Derry's Well Drilling, Inc.
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable well permits (i.e. County, State, Variance, Injection, etc.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply)
21ndustrial/Commercial
❑Municipal/Public
❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
Non -Water Supply Well:
❑Monitoring ❑Recovery
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Aquifer Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑Tracer
❑Other (explain under #21
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 1 1 /14/19 Well ID# OW-4
Sa. Well Location:
Alamance Aggregates, LLC
Facility/Owner Name Facility ID# (if applicable)
Quakenbush Rd., Snow Camp 27349
Physical Address, City, and Zip
Alamance
County
Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(if well field, one lat/long is sufficient)
35.87193 N 79.41741 W
6. Is (are) the well(s): ©Permanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑Yes or END
If this is a repair, fill out known well construction information and explain the nature of the
repair ender 921 remarks section or on the back of this form.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
For multiple injection or non -water supply wells ONLY with the same construction, you can
submit oneform.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 350
For multiple wells list all depths ifdifferent (example- 3@200' and 2@I00')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 18.5
If water level is above casing, use "+ "
11. Borehole diameter: 6 (in.)
12. Well construction method: Rotary
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc.)
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
39 rr.
40 rr.
1 gpm
80 ft.
85 ft.
1 gpm (290-300'=1g)
15. OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells OR LINER if a licable
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESSr
MATERIAL
0 It.
1 22 ft•
61/8 in.SDR-21
PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING (geothermal closed -loop)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
ft.
ft.
in.
ft.
Ct.
in.
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOT SIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
ft.
ft.
in.
ft.
ft.
in.
18. GROUT
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD & AMOUNT
0 rr.
3 Ir.
Bent. Chips
Gravity
3 ft•
20 ft.
Bentonite
Pumped
ft.
ft.
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if applicable)
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
20. DRILLING LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION color, hardness, soil/rock type, grain size, etc.
0 rr.
14 ft.
Red Dirt
14 ft•
350 ft.
Blue Rock
ft.
ft.
Ct.
ft.
ft.
ft.
rt.
fr.
Seams: 39-40'=1g, 80-85'=1g, 290-300'=1g
ft.
Ct.
21. REMARKS
22. Certification: U) 12/10/19
Signat of certified Well Contractor Date
By signing this form, I hereby certify that the well(s) was (were) constructed in accordance
with 15A NCAC 02C .0100 or 15A NCAC 02C .0200 Well Construction Standards and that a
copy ofthis record has been provided to the well owner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Resources, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Injection Wells ONLY: In addition to sending the form to the address in
24a above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Resources, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. Yield (gpm) 3 Method of test: Air 24c. For Water Supply & Injection Wells:
Also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of completion of
13b. Disinfection type: Granular Amount: 1/2 lb. well construction to the county health department of the county where
constructed.
Form GW-I North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Resources Revised August 2013

GMA i
ffisisasiaaoL
SNOW CAMP QUARRY
Groundwater Management Associates, Inc
2205-A CANDUN DRIVE, APEX, NC 27523
BORING LOG OW-1
PROJECT: Snow Camp Quarry
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: De 's Well Drilling
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USED: Air Rotary
BORING DIAMETER: 6 inches START: 10/22/2019 END: 10/23/2019 LOGGER: WLL for GMA
GRAPHIC
INTERVAL DEPTH (FT BLS)
DESCRIPTION
TOP BOTTOM
LAND SURFACE
0
15
Overburden; red loam.
15
25
Overburden; brown loam.
25
25
Overburden; brown loam.
25
35
Overburden; brown loam.
35
45
Overburden; brown loam, damp; well casing set at 49 feet.
45
55
Felsic Volcanic Rock (FVR) fragments, brown.
55
65
FVR fragments, brown.
65
75
FVR fragments, brown.
75
85
FVR fragments, brown; well yield is 2 gallons per minute (gpm) at 77 feet.
85
95
FVR fragments, gray.
95
105
Intermediate Volcanic Rock (IVR) and FVR fragments some quartz and pink feldspar, dark gray.
105
115
IVR and FVR fragments some quartz and pink feldspar, dark gray.
115
125
IVR fragments, greenish gray.
125
135
IVR fragments, greenish gray.
135
145
IVR fragments, greenish gray.
145
155
IVR fragments, greenish gray.
155
165
IVR fragments, greenish gray; 2 gpm more yield from 145-165. .
165
175
IVR fragments, greenish gray; total well yield at 170 feet was 4 gpm.
175
185
IVR fragments, greenish gray.
185
195
IVR fragments, greenish gray.
195
205
FVR fragments, light gray; 2 gpm more yield from 185 -205 feet. Total well yield at 205 feet is 6 gpm.
205
215
FVR fragments, gray.
215
225
FVR fragments, gray.
225
235
FVR fragments, some quartz, light gray.
235
245
FVR fragments, some quartz, light gray.
245
255
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray; 4 gpm more yield at 248 feet..
255
265
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray; large crack at 255 feet.
265
275
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
275
285
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
285
295
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
295
305
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
305
315
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
315
325
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
325
335
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
335
351
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray. Total well yield is 10 gpm.
COMMENTS: Boring was converted to an Observation Well (#1) with open -hole construction. Casing is 6 inch diameter PVC set at 49 feet BLS. Boring is 6 inch diameter. Total Well
depth is 351 feet BLS. Total Well Yield is 10 gpm. Felsic Volcanic Rock (FVR) and Intermediate Volcanic Rock (IVR) are defined in Carpenter (1982).

GMA
-�
SNOW CAMP QUARRY
Groundwater Management Associates, Inc
2205•A CANDUN DRIVE, APEX, NC 27523
BORING LOG OW-2
PROJECT: Snow Camp Quarry
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: DeVs Well Drilling
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USED: Air Rotary
BORING DIAMETER: 6 inches START: October 2019 END: October 2019 LOGGER: WLL for GMA
GRAPHIC
INTERVAL DEPTH (FT BLS)
DESCRIPTION
TOP BOTTOM
LAND SURFACE
0
10
Overburden; blown loam.
Rock at 11 feet, Felsic Volcanic Rock (FVR) fragments, light tan, dry, hit crack at 17 feel; most of sample is FVR fragments,
10
20
gray, wet.
20
30
FVR fragments, gray; casing set at 20 feet.
30
40
FVR fragments, gray; 1/2 gpm yield between 25-45 feet.
40
50
FVR fragments, gray; crack at 44 feet.
50
60
FVR fragments, gray; crack at 50 feet and 56 feet..
60
70
FVR fragments, gray' crack around 70 feet.
70
80
FVR fragments, gray.
80
90
FVR fragments, gray.
90
100
FVR fragments, gray.
100
110
FVR fragments, gray.
110
120
FVR fragments, gray.
120
130
FVR fragments, gray; total well yield 2 gpm.
130
140
FVR fragments, gray.
140
150
FVR fragments, gray.
150
160
FVR fragments, gray.
160
170
FVR fragments, gray.
170
180
FVR fragments, gray.
180
190
FVR fragments, gray.
190
200
FVR fragments, gray.
200
210
FVR fragments, gray.
210
220
FVR fragments, gray.
220
230
FVR fragments, gray.
230
240
FVR fragments, gray.
240
250
FVR fragments, gray.
250
260
FVR fragments, gray.
260
270
FVR fragments, gray. Total well yield at 265 feet is 2 gpm (unchanged from yield at 125 feet).
270
280
FVR fragments, gray; hit water at 272 feet, total well yield is 6 gpm.
280
290
FVR fragments, gray.
290
300
Predominantly Intermediate Volcanic Rock (IVR) with some FVR, greenish dark gray.
300
310
Predominantly Intermediate Volcanic Rock (IVR) with some FVR, greenish dark gray.
310
320
Predominantly Intermediate Volcanic Rock (IVR) with some FVR, greenish dark gray.
320
330
Predominantly Intermediate Volcanic Rock (IVR) with some FVR, greenish dark gray.
330
340
Predominantly Intermediate Volcanic Rock (IVR) with some FVR, greenish dark gray.
340
350
Predominantly FVR with some IVR, gray; total well yield is 2.5 gpm.
COMMENTS: Baring was converted to an Observation Well (#2) with open -hole construction. Casing is 8 inch diameter PVC set at 20 feet BLS. Boring is 6 inch diameter. Total Well
depth is 350 feet BLS. Total Well Yield is 2.5 gpm. Felsic Volcanic Rock (FVR) and Intermediate Volcanic Rock (IVR) are defined in Carpenter (1982).

A -
_GMA
SNOW CAMP QUARRY
Groundwater Management Associates, Inc
2205•A CANDUN DRIVE, APEX, NC 27523
BORING LOG OW-3
PROJECT: Snow Camp Quarry
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Derry's Well Drilling
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USED: Air Rotary
BORING DIAMETER: 6 inches START: END: 11116/2019 LOGGER: WLL for GMA
GRAPHIC
INTERVAL DEPTH (FT BLS)
DESCRIPTION
TOP BOTTOM
LAND SURFACE
0
5
Overburden; btown loam.
5
15
Rock at 11 feel, Felsic Volcanic Rock (FVR) fragments, light tan, dry.
15
25
FVR fragments, gray; casing set at 21 feet.
25
35
FVR fragments, gray, some dark gray gragments.
35
45
Intermediate Volcanic Rock (IVR), dark gray, some feldspar.
45
55
IVR, dark gray, some feldspar.
55
65
IVR, dark gray, some feldspar; fracture 56 feet yeild about 1 gpm.
65
75
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar.
75
85
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar.
85
95
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz.
95
105
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz; fracture 97 feet adds 2 gpm, total well yield 3 gpm.
105
115
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz.
115
125
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz.
125
135
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz.
135
145
IVR, dark green gray, more feldspaar and quartz
145
155
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz.
155
165
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz.
165
175
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz.
175
185
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz.
185
195
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz.
195
205
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz.
205
215
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz.
215
225
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz.
225
235
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz.
235
245
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz.
245
255
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz.
255
265
IVR, dark green gray, more quartz at 257 feel.
265
275
IVR, dark gray, no feldspar and quartz.
275
285
IVR, dark gray, no feldspar and quartz.
285
295
IVR, dark gray, no feldspar and quartz.
295
305
IVR, dark gray, no feldspar and quartz.
305
315
IVR, dark gray, no feldspar and quartz.
315
325
IVR, dark gray, some feldspar and quart, and epidote (light green).
325
335
IVR, dark gray, some feldspar and quart, and a lot of epidote (light green) from 330-335 feet.
335
345
FVR, gray with felsic phenocrysts and some quartz and epidote (light green).
345
350
FVR, gray with felsic heno sts; total well yield is 4 gpm.
MMENTS: Boring was converted to an Observation Well (#3) with open -hole construction. Casing is 8 inch diameter PVC set at 21 feet BLS. Boring is 6 inch diameter. Total Well
rde
pth is 350 feet BLS. Total Well Yield is 4 gpm. Felsic Volcanic Rock (FVR) and Intermediate Volcanic Rock (IVR) are defined in Carpenter (1982).

GMA i
-�
SNOW CAMP QUARRY
Groundwater Management Associates, Inc
2205-A CANDUN DRIVE, APEX, NC 27523
BORING LOG OW-4
PROJECT: Snow Camp Quarry
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Derry's Well Drilling
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USED: Air Rotary
BORING DIAMETER: 6inches START: 11/8/2019 END: 11/11/2019 LOGGER: WLLfor GMA
GRAPHIC
INTERVAL DEPTH (FT BLS)
DESCRIPTION
TOP BOTTOM
LAND SURFACE
0
10
Overburden.
10
14
Overburden to 14 feet, rock at 14 feet.
14
25
Felsic Volcanic Rock (FVR) with felsic phenocrysts, gray; well casing set at 22 feet.
25
40
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray; fracture at 39-40 feet yields about 1 gallon per minute (gpm).
40
55
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
55
65
FVR with felsic phenocrysts. gray.
65
75
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray; fracture zone around 70 feet yields about 1 gpm.
75
85
FVR with felsic phenocrysts. gray.
85
95
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
95
105
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
105
115
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
115
125
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
125
135
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
135
145
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
145
155
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
155
165
Intermediate Volcanic Rock (IVR), dark greenish gray; black fragments in dark green matrix.
165
175
IVR, dark greenish gray; black fragments in dark green matrix.
175
185
IVR, dark greenish gray; black fragments in dark green matrix; total well yield is 2-3 gpm.
185
195
IVR (dark gray) and FVR with felsic phenocrysts (gray).
195
205
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
205
215
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
215
225
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
225
235
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
235
245
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray; total well yeild is 2-3 gpm.
245
255
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
255
265
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
265
275
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
275
285
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
265
295
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray; total well yield is 5 gpm adding 2 gpm over last 10 feet.
295
305
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
305
315
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
315
325
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
325
335
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
335
345
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
345
350
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray; total well yield is 3 gpm.
COMMENTS: Boring was converted to an Observation Well (#4) with open -hole construction. Casing is 8 inch diameter PVC set at 22 feet BLS. Boring is 6 inch diameter. Total Well
depth is 350 feet BLS. Total Well Yield is 3 gpm. Felsic Volcanic Rock (FVR) and Intermediate Volcanic Rock (IVR) are defined in Carpenter (1982).

I_1»4►101C'S$1
AQUIFER TEST DATA SHEETS

Pumping Test Monitoring Log Form ------ HAND MEASUREMENTS
Project Number & Location: 163101 Snow Camp Quarry Site
Well#: OW-2 Pumping Well
Date: 11/22/2019 IStart Time: 1450
Static Water Level: 15.33 ft. at 1404 hr on 11-22-2019
Latitude: N35.87249°
Longitude: W79.41611°
Final Pumping Rate: 2.5 GPM
minutes
Time
Water Level
(ft)
Drawdown (ft)
Spec. Cap.
(Q/s)
Comments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
14
16
18
20
25
29
20.90
5.57
0.45
35
39
21.82
6.49
0.39
44
22.13
6.80
0.37
49
22.55
7.22
0.35
54
22.78
7.45
0.34
64
23.40
8.07
0.31
74
23.94
8.61
0.29
84
24.60
9.27
0.27
94
25.25
9.92
0.25
104
25.81
10.48
0.24
114
26.35
11.021
0.23
130
27.18
11.851
0.21
Project Number & Location: 163101 Snow Camp Quarry Site
Well#: OW-2 Pumping Well
Date: 11/22/2019
Start 1450
Static Water Level: 15.33 ft.
minutes
Time
Water Level
(ft)
Drawdown (ft)
Spec. Cap.
(Q/s)
Comments
160
28.70
13.37
0.19
190
30.13
14.80
0.17
220
31.50
16.17
0.15
250
32.91
17.58
0.14
280
34.68
19.35
0.13
310
36.48
21.15
0.12
340
37.94
22.61
0.11
370
38.58
23.25
0.11
400
38.56
23.23
0.11
430
38.74
23.41
0.11
460
38.80
23.47
0.11
490
38.60
23.27
0.11
520
38.93
23.60
0.11
550
39.12
23.79
0.11
580
39.20
23.87
0.10
610
39.40
24.07
0.10
640
39.78
24.45
0.10
670
39.92
24.59
0.10
700
40.08
24.75
0.10
730
40.33
25.00
0.10
760
40.70
25.37
0.10
790
41.00
25.67
0.10
820
41.40
26.07
0.10
850
42.55
27.22
0.09
880
41.83
26.50
0.09
910
42.00
26.67
0.09
940
42.08
26.75
0.09
970
42.18
26.85
0.09
1000
42.30
26.97
0.09
10301
42.31
26.98
0.09
10601
43.22
27.89
0.09

1090
43.77
28.44
0.09
1120
44.25
28.92
0.09
1150
44.87
29.54
0.08
1180
45.60
30.27
0.08
1210
46.06
30.73
0.08
1240
46.83
31.50
0.08
1270
47.32
31.99
0.08
1300
47.45
32.12
0.08
steady rain began failing at 9:30 am on 11-23-2019, about 1120 minutes into test.
1330
47.59
32.26
0.08
1360
47.78
32.45
0.08
1390
48.25
32.92
0.08
1420
48.08
32.75
0.08
1450
48.08
32.75
0.08
pump off in pumping well OW-2 at 1450 on 11-23-2019
Distance from Pumping Well to Observation well = 0 feet This is the Pumping Well
GMA Project #: 163101
Measuring Point Description: Top of PVC casing
MP Height above Land Surface: -2.0 ft. for hand measurments.
Target Q: 2.5 GPM
Pumping Equipment Contractor: Rorie Well Repair
Person Recording Data: WLL (GMA) and Rorie Well Repair Crew overnight

Pumping Test Monitoring Log Form ------ HAND MEASUREMENTS
Project Number & Location: 163101 Snow Camp Quarry Site
Well#: OW-2 Pumping Well
Date: 11/22/2019 IStart Time: 1450
Static Water Level: 15.33 ft. at 1404 hr on 11-22-2019
Latitude: N35.87249°
Longitude: W79.41611°
Final Pumping Rate: RECOVERY
minutes
Time
Water Level
(ft)
Drawdown (ft)
Spec. Cap.
(Qls)
1
47.50
32.17
Pumping Rate = 2.5 gpm
2
47.42
32.09
3
47.38
32.05
4
47.23
31.90
5
6
47.38
32.05
7
8
47.00
31.67
9
46.70
31.37
10
11
46.20
30.87
15
46.80
31.47
17
46.78
31.45
19
46.61
31.28
20
25
46.30
30.97
30
45.98
30.65
35
45.56
30.23
40
44.96
29.63
45
44.48
29.15
50
44.06
28.73
55
43.79
28.46
60
43.36
28.03
70
42.65
27.32
80
42.22
26.89
90
41.15
25.82
100
40.14
24.81
110
39.03
23.70
120
38.10
22.77
Distance from Pumping Well to Observation well = 0 ft.
GMA Project #: 163101
Measuring Point Description: Top of Casing for hand measurements
MP Height above Land Surface: -2.0 ft. for hand measurements
Pumping Equipment Contractor: Rorie Well Repair
Person Recording Data: WLL (GMA) and Rorie Well Repair Crew overnight

AQUIFER TEST DATA PLOTS AND ANALYTICAL MODELING CALCULATIONS

-05
-0.4
-0-3
-02
IU
a
C_
y3
3
0 0
w
h
0.1
v
Q2
C3
0A
05
11/21/2019 0:00
Uncorrected abervation Well Background & Drawdown Data-11/21-23/2019
11/21/2019 12:00 11/22/2019 0M 11/22/201912:00 11/23/2019 0:00 11/23/2019 12:00
tw-MM tOWi tOW4 tW5W1 tW5W3 tW5W2-PUMPON-PUMPOFF tOW3
m
0
5
6
11/24/2019 0:00
Uncorrected Pressure Transducer Water -Level Data from Observation Wells Expressed as Drawdown Values in Feet.
Note that wells WSW1, WSW3, WSW4 show no discernible drawdown effects from the pumping well. Also note that drawdown in well OW1
was so small that it is virtually indiscernible from the background water -level fluctuations. Only wells OW3, WSW2 and OW4 exhibited sufficient
drawdown to warrant use in aquifer property analyses.

t�
M
16.
24.
32.
40. L
10.
100.
SNOW CAMP
e Me
1.0E+4
Obs. Wells
° OW2
Aquifer Model
Unconfined
Solution
Cooper -Jacob
Parameters
T = 11.12 ft2/day
S = 1.731
Adjusted Time (min)
Cooper -Jacob Analysis of early drawdown data from the pumping well (OW2). This match approximates
the total transmissivity of all significant water -producing fractures open to the pumping well. Note that
unsteady -shape drawdown conditions occurred during this initial time period, so the transmissivity (T)
value may be an over -estimate. Also note that the storage coefficient (S) value is not valid for a
pumping well, so that value listed above should be ignored. A significant steepening of the drawdown
response occurred after approximately 80 minutes of pumping, indicating that shallow water -producing
zones were being dewatered after that duration of pumping.

Fin
M
16.
24.
32.
SNOW CAMP
100. 1000. 1.0E+4
° UVVL
Aquifer Model
Unconfined
Solution
Cooper -Jacob
Parameters
T = 2.397 ft2/day
S = 5.098
Adjusted Time (min)
Cooper -Jacob Analysis of the middle section of drawdown data from the pumping well (OW2). Note the
significantly lower transmissivity value derived from this portion of the drawdown data as compared to
the T derived from the early data. The lower transmissivity is indicative of dewatering of upper
fractures. The steepening of drawdown response occurs at approximately 23 feet of drawdown. This
drawdown equates to a depth of approximately 36 feet below land surface. Also note that the storage
coefficient (S) listed above is not valid for a pumping well and should be ignored.

0.
8.
m 16.
E
a�
U
f0
Q
a
a�
24.
`o
U
'Jr
40. L
10.
SNOW CAMP
a
mom
a
e
100.
Adjusted Time (min)
1000.
1.0E+4
° UVVL
Aquifer Model
Unconfined
Solution
Cooper -Jacob
Parameters
T = 1.892 ft2/day
S = 13.23
Cooper -Jacob Analysis of the late drawdown data from the pumping well (OW2). Note that the
transmissivity match for the later data are indicative of the hydraulic properties of the deeper portions
of the aquifer. It appears that dewatering of some fractures occur at approximate drawdown values of
23.5 to 26.5 feet (approximately 36 to 40 feet below land surface). The data from well OW2 indicates
that the bedrock below 40 feet depth has very low permeability. Also note that the storage coefficient
(S) listed above is not valid for a pumping well and should be ignored.

0
1.2
2.4
3.6
4.8
odo
SNOW CAMP
Obs. Wells
OW3
Aquifer Model
Unconfined
Solution
Cooper -Jacob
Parameters
T = 19.79 ft2/day
S = 0.0001435
6.'
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4
Adjusted Time (min)
Cooper -Jacob Analysis of the corrected drawdown data from well OW3. The transmissivity calculated is
similar to the early-drawdown data solutions from the pumping well (OW2). The steepened drawdown
response at approximately 800 minutes of pumping is an impermeable boundary response that is likely
a result of dewatering of shallow fractures at the pumping well. The storage coefficient indicates that
there is a very small amount of water in storage in the rock, as would be expected for a unconfined
fractured bedrock with little to no regolith above the rock.

[$A
1.2
2.4
3.6
4.8
SNOW CAMP
° bo
10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4
Adjusted Time (min)
Cooper -Jacob solution for the corrected later drawdown data from well OW3.
Obs. Wells
o OW3
Aquifer Model
Unconfined
L-7-9 F r n
Cooper -Jacob
Parameters
T = 12.31 ft2/day
S = 0.0001527

10.
z
SNOW CAMP
°CP
0
" UVV.i
Aquifer Model
Unconfined
i neis
T = 351.6 ft2/day
S = 0.0002875
Kz/Kr = 1.
b = 336.4 ft
0.001 1 1 A I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 I I I I 11 1 1 1 I
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4
Time (min)
Theis Analysis of corrected drawdown data from well OW3. Note the strong impermeable boundary
effect after approximately 20 minutes of pumping. This response likely represents dewatering of the
regolith and upper fractures near the pumping well.

c
a�
E
m
U
co
Q
T
0
70
N
U
0
0
a
[1N■
0.2
0.3
0.4
SNOW CAMP
0
0
0 0
0 0 0
O°
0
0
000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0®
o�
0
00
0
0
®0
10.
100.
1000.
1.0E+4
0 VVSVVI
Aquifer Model
Unconfined
Cooper -Jacob
Parameters
T = 338.8 ft2/day
S = 0.0005183
Adjusted Time (min)
Cooper -Jacob Analysis of Corrected Drawdown Data from well WSW2. Note that WSW2 does not fully
penetrate the bedrock section open at the pumping well (OW2). Also note the rising water levels due to
rainfall recharge after approximately 1200 minutes of pumping.

0.1
ZOO o
SNOW CAMP
1000.
1.0E+4
Obs. Wells
o WSW2
Aquifer Model
Unconfined
i neis
T
= 307.8 ft2/day
S
= 0.0006279
Kz/Kr
= 1.
b
= 336.4 ft
Time (min)
Theis Analysis of Corrected Drawdown Data from well WSW2. Note that WSW2 does not fully penetrate
the bedrock section open at the pumping well (OW2). Also note the rising water levels due to rainfall
recharge after approximately 1200 minutes of pumping. WSW2 indicates higher transmissivity and
storage coefficient than the pumping well (OW2) and the closest observation well (OW3). The higher T
likely is associated with a thicker regolith in the vicinity of WSW2 than at the pumping well where
regolith is virtually absent.

SNOW CAMP
M
0.1
z
aa) 0.2
E
a)
U
(D
Q
0
a
N
0.3
0
U
0.4
05
- 1_IVV•+
Aquifer Model
Unconfined
Cooper -Jacob
Parameters
T = 358.8 ft2/day
S = 0.0004118
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4
Adjusted Time (min)
Cooper -Jacob Analysis of corrected drawdown data from well OW4. Note that total drawdown
observed at well OW4 is limited to approximately 0.2 feet. A linear average correction of the data has
been applied for the background trend of water -level change. However, the background data indicate
complex diurnal fluctuations of up to 0.1 feet that are not accounted for in the average linear correction.
These diurnal fluctuations significantly affect the curve matching for such a small quantity of drawdown
observed at well OW4. Therefore, GMA believes that the transmissivity solution determined from well
OW4 overestimates the aquifer conditions by an order of magnitude. We consider the solution from
well OW4 to not reliably represent the hydraulic properties of the bedrock aquifer at the site.

F
1
0.1
0.01
1
SNOW CAMP
0
0
10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4
nho \A/oIlc
NUITIVE
Aquifer Model
Unconfined
Theis
Parameters
T = 116.7 ft2/day
S = 0.0005096
Kz/Kr = 1.
b = 336.4 ft
Time (min)
Theis Analysis of the corrected drawdown data from well OW4. Note the poor curve match that is a
result of the very limited total drawdown as well as the diurnal background fluctuations that were not
accounted for in data corrections. GMA believes that the transmissivity solution from well OW-4 is likely
overestimated by an order of magnitude and does not reliably represent the hydraulic properties of the
bedrock aquifer at this site.

SNOW CAMP
-0.5
III
0.5
1.5
o Uvv I
Aquifer Model
Unconfined
Cooper -Jacob
Parameters
T = 1334.2 ft2/day
S = 0.0007697
i.
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4
Adjusted Time (min)
Cooper -Jacob Plot of Corrected Drawdown Data from well OW1. The magnitude of drawdown observed
is so small, and the background water -level fluctuations are significant enough to prevent valid analyses
of aquifer hydraulic properties. Thus, the listed "Parameters" should not be considered as having any
validity. This graph was used for illustration purposes only.