20211108_ADI

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
BRIAN WRENN
Director
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
7016 2140 0000 4367 7192
Mr. Scott Martino
Carolina Sunrock LLC
200 Horizon Drive, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
November 8, 2021
RE: Proposed Prospect Hill and Distribution Center
Caswell County
Roanoke River Basin
Dear Mr. Martino:
We have reviewed the application your company submitted for the referenced mine site. In order for this office to
complete its review of the referenced project in accordance with G.S. §74-50 and §74-51 of the Mining Act of 1971,
please provide the additional or revised information in accordance with the following comments:
Please see the enclosed comments form Nat Wilson that reference the tables and figures in the
hydrogeologic report. Please address these concerns and provide updated tables and figures as necessary.
Please note, this office may request additional information, not included in this letter, as the mining application
review progresses. Be advised that our review cannot be completed until all of the items listed above have been
fully addressed.
In order to complete the processing of your application, please forward two (2) copies of the requested information
to my attention at the following address:
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
As required by 15A NCAC 5B.0113, you are hereby advised that you have 180 days from the date of your receipt
of this letter to submit all of the requested information. If you are unable to meet this deadline and wish to request
additional time, you must submit information, in writing, to the Director clearly indicating why the deadline cannot
be met and request that an extension of time be granted. If an extension of time is not granted, a decision will be
made to grant or deny the mining permit based upon the information currently in the Department's files at the end
of the 180-day period.
D E Q North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1612 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
NORhI CAROLINA -
oaPermemoieomronmenmiuuaiity /`� 919.707.9200

Certified Mail
Mr. Martino
Page 2
Though the preceding statement cites the maximum time limit for your response, we encourage you to provide the
additional information requested by this letter as soon as possible. Your prompt response will help us to complete
processing your application sooner.
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Adam Parr
Assistant State Mining Engineer
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Tamera Eplin, PE

Wehner, Judy
From: Wilson, Nat
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 1:50 PM
To: Wenner, Judy
Cc: Bauer, Michael
Subject: Re: [External] Response to Comments Sunrocks Revised Hydrogeological Report
Judy,
I don't think they need to re -do the aquifer testing, but they do need to look at their results carefully. Mark Chandler
points out a problem with the estimated radius of influence in Table 6 and the drawdowns measured in the Area 1
test. The results for OW1-1 show 56.45 feet of drawdown at 292 feet distance and the Sichardt method gives 0
drawdown at 256 feet distance (150 feet quarry depth).
That got me looking at the measured results in Table S. The data in Table 5 are not the same as what is recorded on the
hydrographs in Appendix D. Well OW1-1 shows —64 feet of drawdown on the hydrograph and is listed as 56.45 feet in
Table 5, OW1-2 shows —66 feet of drawdown on the hydrograph and is listed as 61.52 feet in Table 5. The other two
wells (OW1-3 and PW-1) are the same in the table and the hydrograph, but why does the closest well to the pumping
well (OW1-3) have the least amount of drawdown? The differences for wells OW1-1 and OW1-2 are likely due to the
recorder not being deep enough. The true drawdown needs to be calculated by using the combined tapedown data and
recorder data. But the results for OW1-3 just don't make sense. My guess is that their numbering is off and the
hydrographs are being attributed to the wrong wells. If we rearrange the wells a bit and give the well which is furthest
away from the pumping well the least amount of drawdown then then a distance drawdown analysis gives comparable
results to the Area 2 results. The OW2-2 hydrograph shows —14 feet of drawdown which is different than the drawdown
listed in Table 4 (29.6 feet). Otherwise Table 4 and the Appendix D hydrographs are in sync.
I favor using a distance drawdown analysis, because you are forced to combine the well data so you see very quickly if
there are anomalies.
I'm not concerned about the other complaints listed in Mark Chandler's document, but getting the analytical results
correct is important. These are the basis of the radius of influence calculations and the maps showing nearby wells
which may be impacted.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Nat
On Jun 8, 2020, at 9:12 AM, Wehner, Judy <iudy.wehner(@ncdenr.eov> wrote:
Fyi.
From: Mark Chandler <mchandler803Pvahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2020 12:38 PM
To: Wehner, Judy <][e-mail]>
Cc: Mark Chandler <mchandler803(@vahoo.com>; IesliezimmermanlCalamail.com
Subject: [External] Response to Comments Sunrocks Revised Hydrogeological Report