20211203_Hydrogeologic_Study

SNOW CAMP QUARRY
HYDROGEOLOGICAL SITE EVALUATION AND
ANALYTICAL GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL
SNOW CAMP, ALAMANCE COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
Latitude: N 360 04' 28.3" RECEIVED
Longitude: W 770 56' 06.0" DEC 0 3 NZI
LP:v'D QIJaUTY
M NING PROGRAM
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
November 23, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND FIELD RECONNAISSANCE DISCUSSION..........................................1
2.0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND GEOLOGIC SETTING .................... 0.6............. a.......... 0.01
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 ............................a.
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 ....................................
14
8.0
RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................16
9.0
REPORT CERTIFICATION.........................................................................................
17
10.0
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................
19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Well Construction Information for Existing Water -Supply Wells Located On
Site............................................................................................................. a ......... ... 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 sure pump test and modeling of ground water
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 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.

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 2
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
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

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 3
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 Hydrogeologica! 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
OW-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 S
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 dike that
has been mapped by others west of the site has a more north to south orientation. The

L
Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 6
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
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.

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 7
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
31280
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
31340
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 ft2/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 also provide

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 9
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 ftz/day in the middle of the
test, and 1.9 W/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 W/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-31 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 provides a starting point

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 1 l
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 ft2/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
11500
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 ft2/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 W.
Solving for Q resulted in the following:
Q = (0.058 ft/day)(500,000 ft2)(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/burlinaton/north-carolina/united-states/usnc0087), or
about 3.74 feet. If half of that rainfall is lost due to evapo-transpi ration and reuse by the quarry
for dust suppression and other uses, that leaves about 1.87 feet of annual rainfall over that entire

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 13
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
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

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 14
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
The Snow Camp Quarry monitoring well network shall consist of four observation well stations
near the quarry property boundary, generally to the northeast, southeast, southwest, and
northwest. The network will include 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-21 OW-3, and OW-4 will be used to monitor preferential flow directions of
groundwater. Therefore, these new observation wells (OW1, OW-21 OW-3, and OW-4)
constructed for this investigation will be added to the monitoring plan as monitoring wells.
Well OW-1 shall be used as the northeastern deep monitoring well and existing water supply well
WSW-2 shall be used as the shallow monitoring well. Existing water supply well WSW-4 shall be
used as the deep monitoring well and existing water supply well WSW-1 shall be used as the
shallow monitoring well for the southwestern monitoring station. New well pairs shall be
constructed to the southeast and northwest. See Figure 7 for the well locations for the monitoring
plan.
Water levels shall be recorded monthly for all monitoring wells. These wells will serve as sentinel
wells to document water -level changes as the quarry expansion progresses. Monthly water -level
measurements in these wells shall be used to document the impact of groundwater withdrawals
on groundwater levels through time. Graphs of these water level changes shall be used by
Alamance Aggregates, LLC and NCDEQ to determine if groundwater withdrawals are the cause
of any problems that may arise in residential wells beyond the quarry property.
7.0 MITIGATION PLAN FOR RESIDENTIAL WATER -SUPPLY {HELLS
This plan has been developed specifically to address concerns relative to residential water -supply
wells located near the proposed Alamance Aggregates, LLC. — Snow Camp Quarry located in the
vicinity of Snow Camp, North Carolina. This Mitigation Plan has been developed to address how
Alamance Aggregates, LLC shall respond, upon notification that a water -supply well may have
been adversely impacted due to declining groundwater levels.

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 15
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.
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. This existing well
inventory will be used as part of the initial database for the mitigation plan.
Response Plan
Should a problem occur with a residential water -supply well, the property owner may notify the
Department of the water -supply well issue. The proposed procedures to address the complaint
are outlined below:
a) The Department shall evaluate whether or not the water supply well in question has
failed due to a decline in groundwater level caused by, or a direct result of, mining activities
or dewatering of the pit.
b) As part of the Department's evaluation in (a), the Department shall review the
monitoring data and if necessary, direct Alamance Aggregates, LLC to conduct an
investigation by a licensed well repair/installation specialist to evaluate the condition of the
water -supply well to determine the cause of the failure, and document the water level.
Alamance Aggregates, LLC shall contact a North Carolina -licensed well repair/installation
specialist within two business days.
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 Department shall be
notified and the procedures outlined in this Mitigation Plan will not be applicable. The
property owner shall be notified of the findings of this determination and shall 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 by or is a direct result of mining activities

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 16
or dewatering of the pit, then Alamance Aggregates, LLC, at its expense, shall 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, LLC, or a designated agent (a
North Carolina -licensed well repair/installation specialist), shall 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) If reestablishing a permanent water supply to the property takes longer than three
days after a determination has been made that the well -supply in question has failed due
to a decline in groundwater level that has been caused or is a direct result of mining
activities or dewatering of the pit, then Alamance Aggregates, LLC shall hire a licensed and
reputable water distributor to provide the affected user with a temporary potable water
supply for household use within one business day. This water supply shall be for normal
household activities, such as drinking, bathing, washing, and sanitary facilities. This supply
may be in the form of a clean -water tanker or container that will be refilled as needed, all
at the expense of Alamance Aggregates, LLC. A well owner may obtain for themselves a
temporary potable water supply for household use before a determination is made as to
the cause of the failure, which will be reimbursed by Alamance Aggregates, LLC, upon a
showing of receipts if it is later determined to be a direct result of mining activities or
dewatering of the pit.
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.

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 17
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
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

Snow Camp Quarry Hydrogeological Evaluation
Page 18
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
James K. Holley, P.G.
Senior Hydrogeologist
Water -Resources Director
William L. Lyke, P.G., P.E.
Senior Hydrogeologist/Civil Engineer

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.

a, Or
FIGURES

GRG�F
LEGEND
Iva
A
SNOW CAMP
_ i'OS"
'WORKMAN
TOWN OF SNOW CAMP GMA
APPROXIMATE PERMIT BOUNDARY SCALE IN FEET kwolobi
0 1.500 3,000 -� --�► �.
ROADS
ile: DRAWINGS/163101/ SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGi_SITE_LOCATION_MAP DATE: 12/12/2019
ROJECT NO. 163101 ALAMANCE AGGREGATES SNOW CAMP QUARRY SITE FIGURE 1

uvv-'
�?R : IVR OW-9
♦ ❑ FVR `
• q
R FVR71
•••
e ♦♦♦
FVR ••♦♦♦•
i
i .
V
QUAKENBLI
1
i .•
U
J'
LEGEND
'} WATER -SUPPLY WELL ® OULCROP APPROXIMATE PERMIT BOUNDARY GMA
SHEAR ZONE CONTACT (SCHMIDT ET AL. 2006) ■aw..• % ♦ • K ♦ � APPROXIMATE PIT BOUNDARY
OBSERVATION WELL T FOLIATION SURFACE WATER SCALE IN FEET
_ DIABASE DIKE(CLARK 2019) �— VERTICALJOINT ROADS 0 S00 1,000 __ �• -'�
MAGNETICANOMALY(CLARK 2019) T STRIKE AND DIP OF JOINT PARCEL BOUNDARY
ile: IG2 SitGMap_201/ SITE MAP SHOWING WELL LOCATIONSAND SITE GEOLOGY
FIG2_Site_Map 201912 DATE: 12/12/2019
ROJECT 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 0.2530.5148 181P� Distance vs. Drawdown at 1200 Minutes of Pumping
ow3 1s1 .s g
OW4 436 0.2 0
owl 377 0.02 • ,!•
WSW2 258 0.32
s •
T = 70Q/As
As = 9.51 feet 10
Q = 2.5 gpm y =-4.1311n(x) + 24.841
T =18.4 W/day m 15 R' = 0.9928
c
3
S = Tt/640 roZ
t = 1200 minutes 20
ro = 409 feet
S = 0.0002 25
30 •:"
35
0.1 1 10 100
Distance (feet)
• Corrected Drawdown
1000

Proposed Quarry
Setting
Bedrock outcrops
_
th
�.
IF res
Bes \
Best well sites indicated with _X`
/
Modified from Heath, 1984
GMA
OPOVNOWITFY M�N.WfMWT 4SSOCI[T[S.INC.
File: Drawings/163101/
Fi ure4
SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE SNOW CAMP QUARRY SETTING
Date:12/16/2019
PROJECT 163101
ALAMANCE AGGREGATES SNOW CAMP QUARRY SITE
FIGURE 4

ow-1
`V1 r':
If
0
NJ
LEGEND
j — 10 FEET GMA ,
T WATER -SUPPLY WELL — DRAWDOWN
(CORRECTED) _
OBSERVATION WELL
CORRECTED SCALE IN FEET
ROADS 4.SS DRAWDOWN VALUES 0 125 250
PARCEL BOUNDARY -OUND uu wAMAousem AssoaAes, w<.
File: DRAWINGS11631ol/ 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

1�
7
LEGEND
0
WATER-SUPPLYWELL -- SHEAR ZONE CONTACT (SCHMIDT ETAL. 2006) PARCEL BOUNDARY GMA
APPROXIMATE PERMIT BOUNDARY SURFACE WATER
rrrrrti APPROXIMATE PIT BOUNDARY ROADS SCALE IN FEET,
OBSERVATION WELL r r r r i 0 $00 1,000 DUIBASE DIKE (CLARK 3019J -
-
-- PRELIMINARY ZONE OF INFLUENCE (FROM 100-FT DEPTH INITIAL PIT)
File: IG6 ZONEOFI FL ESTIMATED INITIAL ZONE OF INFLUENCE RESULTING FROM QUARRY WITHDRAWALS DATE: 12/16/2019
FIG6 ZONEOFINFLUENCE
ROJECT NO. 1631101 ALAMANCE AGGREGATES SNOW CAMP QUARRY SITE FIGURE 6

LEGEND
♦' WATER -SUPPLY WELL
Y v OUTCROP
PROPOSED MONITORING WELL LOCATION
M
.� ..EN SMEAR ZONE CONTACT (SCHMIDT ET AL. 2(06)
GMA
OBSERVATION WELL
T— FOLIATION
APPROXIMATE PERMIT BOUNDARY
_ DIABASE DIKE CLARK 2019
( )
VERTICAL JOINT
�� K K ti APPROXIMATE PIT BOUNDARY
%MEN.. SCALE IN FEET
—`A
MAGNETIC ANOMALY(CLARK
2019) T— STRIKE AND DIP OF JOINT
SURFACE WATER 0 500 1,000
ROADS
Ile: DRANANGS/163101/
PROPOSED MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN
FIG7_PROPOSEDMWS
DATE: 12/16/2019
NO. 163101 1 ALAMANCE AGGREGATES SNOW CAMP QUARRY SITE
FIGURE 7

APPENDIX I
GEOLOGIC LOGS OF OBSERVATION WELLS

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
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)
0Industrial/Commercial
Nan -Water Supply Well:
OMonitorintt
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Aquifer Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (Heatina/Coolina'
ONlunicipaUPublic
❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
OStormwater Drainage
OSubsidence Control
❑Tracer
❑Other (explain under 921 F
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 10/23/19 well ID# OW-1
5a. Well Location:
Alamance Aggregates, LLC
Facility/Owner Name Facility IDN (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 ONo
If this is a repair, fill out known well construcliwr information and explain the nature of the
repair under #21 remarks section or on the back of thisform.
For Internal Use ONLY:
14. WATER ZONES
FRO.%t To I DESCRWnON
77 ft. 80 ft. 2 gpm
145 ft• 165 ft- 2 gpm (185'-205'=2gpm, 247'-255'=4gpm)
15. OUTER CASING for taulb-cased wells OR LINER if a licable
FROM I TO I DLIMETER I THICKNESS NIATEREAL
0 ft• 149 ft- 61/8 is SDR-21 I PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING eothermal dosed400
FROM TO DLIMBTER THICKNESS MATE MAL
ft. ft. in.
ft.
17. SCREEN
FROM TO DIAMETER SLOTSIZE THICKNESS MATERIAL.
ft. ft. in.
ft. tt. in.
I& GROUT
FROM TO MATERIAL. EMPLACEMENT METHOD & AMOUNT
0 ft. 3 ft. Bent. Chips Gravity
3 ft. 20 ft- Bentonite Pumped
ft. ft.
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK(if applicable)
FROM TO MATERIAL EMPLACEMENT METHOD
it. ft.
it. ft.
20. DRILLING LOG attach additional sbeets if necessary)
FROM TO DESCRIPTION color, hardness, soillroek e, Itrain sae, etc.
0 ft. 25 ft. Red Dirt
25 f • 38 ft• Lighter Red Dirt (Moist)
38 ft• 43 ft• Sandy Shale Rock
43 f • 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'=29
ft. fa 247-255'=4g
21. REMARKS
22. Certification:
g.6�& 10/22/19
Signa of Certified Well Contractor Date
By signing this form, I hereby certify that the well(s) was (were) constructed in accordance
with 1 SA NCAC 02C .0100 or MA NCAC 02C .0200 Wall 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
S. Number of wells constructed. construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
For multiple b jection or non -water supply wells ONLY with the same construction, you can
submit ane form. SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
9. Total well depth below land surface: 350 (ft.)
For multiple wells list all depths if different (example- 3@a 200' and 2Q1001
10. Static water level below top of casing: 32 (ft )
If water level is above casing, use "L "
11. Borehole diameter: 6
12. Well construction method: Rotary
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc.)
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
139. Yield (gpm) 10 Method of test: Air 24c. For Water Supply & Injection Wells:
Granular Also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of completion of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: 1 /2 lb. well construction to the county health department of the countywhere
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
I. 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 wellpermits (i.e. County, State. Variance, h jecdon, etc.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural OMunicipal/Public
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply) OResidential Water Supply (single)
OlndustriaUCommercial OResidential Water Supply (shared)
OIrrigation
Non -Water Supply Well:
OMonitoring ORecovery
Injection Well:
❑Aquifer Recharge OGroundwater Remediation
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery OSalinity Barrier
OAquifer Test OStormwater Drainage
❑Experimental Technology OSubsidence Control
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop) ❑Tracer
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Return) ❑Other (explain under #21 Remarks)
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 10/26/19 well ID# OW-2
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 [at/long is sufficient)
35.872490 N 79.416110 W
6. Is (are) the well(s): OPermanent or OTemporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing weU: OYes or E)No
If this is a repair, fill out btoxnt well conutruction information and explain the nature of rite
repair under 921 remarks section or on the back of thisform.
1
For Internal Use ONLY:
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
25 ft.
45 ft.
1/2 gpm
70 ft.
75 ft.
1/2 gpm (272'=1.5gpm)
M OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells OR LINER if ats 'cable)
FROM
I TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS MATERIAL
0 ft
20 ft-
61/8 in-
SDR-21 PVC
K INNER CASING OR TUBING eother al closed -loots)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
bATERIAL
ft.
ft.
in.
ft
ft.
in.
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO DIAMETER SLOT SIZE THICKNESS MATERIAL
ft.
ft.
in,
ft.
ft.
in.
I& GROUT
FROM
To
MATERIAL
E,%tPLACEMENT MMOD & AMOUNT
0 ft.
3 ft.
Bent. Chips
Gravity
3 ft.
20 ft.
Bentonite
Pumped
it.
Ir.
19. 84NWGRAVEL
PACK if a 'cable
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
20. DRILLING
LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION color, hardaess. saWrack e, grain sae, etc
0 ft.
11 ft.
Red Dirt
11 ft.
350 ft.
Blue Rock
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
Seams: IT, 25-45'=1/2g, 44', 50% 56',
ft.
ft.
70'=1/2g, 272'=1.59
21. REMARKS
22. Certification:
ga&sJ
w• 11/22/19
Si tune of Certified Well Contractor(/ Date
By signing this form, 1 hereby certify that the svell(s) was (irere) constructed in accordmtce
with 1 5A NCAC 02C .0100 or 15,4 NCAC 02C .0200 Well Const►vtction Sta►tdards and that a
copy of this record has beets 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
S. Number of wells constructed: construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
Far multiple injection or non-svoter supply wells ONLY with the some construction, you con
submit one form. SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
9. Total well depth below land surface: 350 (D,)
For multiple wells list all depths J'dWerent (example. 3Q200' and 2®100')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 15
If water level is above casing, use "
II. Borehole diameter: 6 (in.)
12. Well construction method: Rotary
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc.)
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) 2.5 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
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 C.e. County. State, frariance, h jectiat, etc,)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
OAgricultural ❑Municipal/Pnblic
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply) ❑Residential Water Supply (single)
OIndustriai/Commercial OResidential Water Supply (shared)
ObTi ation
Non -Water Supply Well:
❑Monitoring ORecovery
Injection Well:
❑Aquifer Recharge OGroundwater Remediation
OAquifer Storage and Recovery OSalinity Barrier
❑Aquifer Test OStormwater Drainage
OExperimental Technology ❑Subsidence Control
OGeothermal (Closed Loop) ❑Tracer
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Return) OOther (explain under #21 Remarks)
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 11/16/19 Well ID# OW-3
Sa. Well Location:
Alamance Aggregates, LLC
Facility(Owner Name Facility IDit (if applicable)
Quakenbush Rd., Snow Camp 27349
Physical Address. City, and Zip
Alamance
County Parcel Identification No. (P[N)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(if well field, one lattlong is sufficient)
35.87213 N 79.41653 W
6. Is (are) the well(s): OPermanent or OTemporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: OYes or ONo
If this is a repair, fill out known well construction information and explain the nature of the
repair under 421 remarks section or on the back of thisfonn.
1
For Internal Use ONLY:
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
I DESCRIPTION
56 ft.
61 ft.
1 gpm
97 ft.
103 It.
3 9pm
M OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells
OR LINER(if applicable)
FROM
I TO
I DIAMETER
THICKNESS I MATERIAL
0 ft.
21 ft-
61/8 in.
SDR-21 PVC
M INNER CASING OR TUBING figeotitermal elosed400
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
ft.
ft.
in.
ft.
ft.
in.
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOT SIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
ft.
ft.
in.
ft.
ft.
in.
I& GROUT
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD & AMOUNT
0 ft.
3 ft.
Bent. Chips
Gravity
3 ft-
20 ft-
Bentonite
Pumped
ft.
ft.
19 SANWGRAVEL
PACK ifs ble
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
20. DRILLING
LOG tattacb additional sheet If necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION color, hardness, solVrock tyee. strain size etc
0 ft-
11 ft.
Red Dirt
11 ft-
350 ft-
Blue Rack
a.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
Seams: 56'=lg, 97'=3g
ft.
ft.
21. REMARKS
22. Certification: '' ,, /I
Qdvfy- W. 10-114 12/10/19
Sign a of Certified Well Contractor Date
By signing this form, I hereby certify that the well(s) was (were) constructed in accordance
will: 1 SA NCAC 02C .0100 or 1 SA NCAC 02C .0200 !Yell 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
8. Number of wells constructed: construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
For multiple injection or not: -water supply wells ONLY with ilia same construction, your can
submit one form. SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
9. Total well depth below land surface: 350 (ft.)
Far multiple wells list all depths if different (example- 3@200' and 2Q100')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 8.5 (ft.)
If water level is above casing, use -+ "
11. Borehole diameter: 6
Rota
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
12. Well construction method: ry construction to the following:
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc.)
Division of Water Resources, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. Yield (gpm) 4 Method of test: Air 24c. For Water Supply & Injection Wells:
Also submit one copy of this forn 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
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 C.a. County. State, Variance.110ction, e1c.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural OMunicipal/Public
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply) ❑Residential Water Supply (single)
211ndustrial/Commercial ❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑Irri ation
Non -Water Supply Well:
[]Monitoring ORecovery
Injection Well:
OAquifer Recharge OGroundwater Remediation
OAquifer Storage and Recovery ❑Salinity Barrier
OAquifer Test OStormwater Drainage
OExperimental Technology ❑Subsidence Control
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop) OTracer
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Return) ❑Other (explain under #21 Remarks)
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 11 /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 (arc) the well(s): OPermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: OYes or l3No
If this is a repair, fill out known well construction information mud explain fire nature of the
repair under »21 remarks section or on the back of this faun.
1
For internal Use ONLY-
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
I DESCRIPTION
39 rr.
40 ft.
1 gpm
80 ft.
85 ft-
1 1 gpm (290-300'=1 g)
1S. OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells OR LINER if a licable
FROM
I TO
I DIAMETER I
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0 ft-
22 ft-6118
in- I
SDR-21
PVC
I& INNER CASING OR TUBING fireothermal dosed -loop)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
ft.
ft.
in.
ft.
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOT SIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
ft.
fit.
in.
it.
tt.
in.
I& GROUT
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT NfETHOD & AMOUNT
0 ft.
3 ft.
Bent. Chips
Gravity
3 ft-
20 ft-
Bentonite
Pumped
ft.
rr.
19. SAND/GRAVEL
PACK if applicable)
FROM
TO
MATERIAL.
EMPLACEMENT METHOD
it.
ft.
tr.
fit.
20. DRILLING
LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION color. hardness soil/rack type. grain size, eta
0 ft.
14 ft.
Red Dirt
14 ft.
350 ft.
Blue Rock
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
fr.
ft.
I Seams: 39-40'=1 g, 80-85'=1 g, 290-300'=1 g
ft.
ft.
21. REMARKS
22. Certification:
12/10/19
Signal of Certified Well Contractor Date
By signing this form. 1 hereby certtfy that the well(.r) was (were) constructed in accordance
with 1 SA NCAC 02C .0100 or 1 SA NCAC 02C .0200 Well Costnuction 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
8. Number of wells constructed:
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
For multiple infection ornon-water supply wells ONLY with the same eonsrractlon, you can
submit one fornt.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
9. Total well depth below land surface: 350 (ft.)
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
For multiple wells list all depths if differenr (example- 3Q200' and 2@1001
construction to the following:
10. Static water level below top of casing: 18•5 (ft.)
Division of Water Resources, Information Processing Unit,
If water level is above casing, use "+ "
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
11. Borehole diameter: 6 (in.)
24b. For Injection Wells ONLY: In addition to sending the form to the address in
Rotary
24a above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
12. Well construction method:
construction to the following:
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc.)
Division of Water Resources, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY:
16M Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. Yield (gpm) 3 Method Air
24c. For Water Supply & Injection Wells:
of test:
13b. Disinfection type: Granular Amount: 1 /2 lb.
Also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of completion of
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

GMAA
��
SNOW CAMP QUARRY
Groundwater Mcnagernenf Associates, Inc
=S-A DANbaa COME"M Nt 27M
BORING LOG OW-1
PROJECT: Snow Camp Quarry
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: 0 a Well Orillin
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USED: Air Rol
BORING DIAMETER: 6midies START: 101i END: 10/23/2019 LOGGER: WLL(ar GMA
GRAPHIC
INTERVAL DEPTH (FT BLS)
DESCRIPTION
TOP BOTTOM
LNDSURFACE
0
15
Overburden; red loam.
15
25
Overurden; 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
Fisic Volcanic Rock( FVR) fragments, brawn.
55
65
FVR fragments. brown.
85
75
FVR fragments, brown.
75
85
FVR fragments,b.;"it yield is 2 gallons per minute(gpm) at 77 feel.
85
95
FVR fragments, gray.
95
105
Intermediate Volcanic Rock (IVR) and FVR fragments some quart and pink feldspar, dark gray.
105
115
NR and FVR Fragments some quanE and pink feldspar, dark gray.
115
125
NR fragments. greenish gray.
125
135
NR Fragments, greenish gray.
135
145
NR(ragments, greenish gray.
145
155
NR fragments, greenish gray.
-
155
165
NR fragments, greenish gray; 2 gpm more yield from 145-161
165
175
IVR Fragments, greenish gray; tolat well yield at 170 feel was 4 ifii
175
185
NR fragments, greenish gray.
185
195
IVR fragments, greenish gray.
195
205
FVR fragments, light gray; 2 Spin more yield from 1S5.205 feet. Total wall yield at 205 feet is 6 gpm.
205
215
FVR fragments, gray.
215
225
FVR fragments, gray.
225
235
FVR Fragments, some quart; light gray.
235
245
FVR fragments, some quartz, light gray.
245
255
FVR with felaic phenocni gray; 4 gpm more yield at 248 feel..
255
266
FVR with felsic phenouysts, Way. large enact, at 255 feet
265
275
FVR with felalc phencoli gray.
275
265
FVR with felsic phenovysts, gray.
285
295
FVR with(elate pherlcaysle, gray.
295
305
FVR with felsk phenoor sls, gray.
305
315
FVR with felsic phanooysls, gray.
315
325 FVR
with felalc pherwvysU. gray
325
335 FVR
with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
335
351 FVR
with Mask phenocrysts, gray. Total wall yield is 10 gpm.
COMMENTS: Badng vise converted to an ObseNalion Welt (Mt)
with cpen4hi construction. Casing is 8 inch diameter PVC set at 49 feet BLS. Bg inch diameter. Total Well
depth is 351 feel BLS. Total Well Meld is 10 gpm. Feisic Volcanic
Rork (FVR) and Intermediate Volcanic Rock (rvR) are defined in Camenler (1982).

GMAA
�M �
SNOW CAMP QUARRY
Groundwater Management Aaoclafes, Inc
vnsa CANouN till Aral. Nc 27523
BORING LOG OW-2
PROJECT: Snow Camp Quarry
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: De s Well Drillin
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USED: Ak Flows_
BORING DIAMETER: 61nches START: Ocbber2019 END: Oaoser 2019 LOGGER: WLLIor GMA
GRAPHIC
INTERVAL DEPTH FT BLS)
DESCRIPTION
TOP BOTTOM
LAND SURFACE
0
10
OwrCurdwl blown loam.
Rack at 11 (eel, Felac Volcanic Rork (FVR) fragments, light Ian, dry; nil sack at 17 teal; most of sample Is FVR Nagmenls,
10
20
gray, wet.
20
W
FVR fragments, gray', wiling set at 20 feet
30
40
FVR fragments, gray; 12 glen yield bemoan 25-45 feat.
40
50
FVR fragments. gray. a ack at 44 feel.
50
60
FVR fragments, grey; crack at 50 feel and 58 feet_
60
70
FVR fragments, Will crack around 70 feel
70
BO
FVR fragments, grey.
60
90
FVR fragments, gray.
90
100
FVR fragments, gray.
100
110
FVR fragments, gray.
110
in
FVR fragments, gray.
120
ISO
FVR fragments, grey; total well yield 2 gpm.
130
140
FVR fragments, gray
140
ISO
FVR fragments, gray.
ISO
ISO
FVR fragments. gray.
160
170
FVR fragments. grey.
170
ISO
FVR fragments, gray.
180
ISO
FVR fragments. gray.
190
200
FVR fragments, gray.
200
210
FVR fragments, gray.
210
no
FVR fragments, gray.
220
230
FVR fragments, gray.
230
240
FVR fragments, gray.
240
260
FVR fragments, gray.
250
260
FVR fragments, gray.
2W
270
FVR fragments, grey. Total well yield at 265 feel is 2 Spin (unchanged tram yield at 125 fee).
270
280
FVR fragments, grey; hit water at 272 feel. total well yield is 6 gpm.
-
260
290
FVR fragments. gray.
290
300
Predominantly Internal Volcanic Rock(IVR) with some FVR greenish dark gray.
3M
310
Predominantly Intermediate Volcanic Rock (IVR) with some FVR, greenish dark gray.
310
320
Predominantly Intermediate Volcanic Rock (IVR) with were FVR. greenish dark gray.
320
3W
Presidential Intermediate Volcanic Rock (IVR) with some FVR, greenish dark gray.
_
330
340 Predominantly
Intermediate Vino Rork (NR) with some FVR, greenish dark gray.
340
350 Predominantly
FVR with some IVR, gray; total well yield is 2.5 gpm.
COMMENTS: Boring was eonwened to an Observation Well (02) with open le wnsVucion. Casing is B Inch dlemaler PVC set at 20 feel BLS. Boring is 6 inch diameter Total Well
depth is 350 feel BLS. Total Well Yield is 2.5 gpm Felsic Volcanic Rork (FVR) and Intermediate Volcanic Rork Ill are defined in Carpenter (1982).

GM
-j
�`"=
SNOW CAMP QUARRY
Grountlwater Management Associates, Inc
vase dMaaN arrva MM Nc 27M
BORING LOG OW-3
PROJECT. Stew Camp Quarry
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: 0 s Wall Drilling
DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USED: Air Rotary
BORING DIAMETER: 6lnches START: END: 11/1612019 LOGGER: WLLiorGMA
GRAPHIC
INTERVAL DEPTH (FT BLS)
DESCRIPTION
TOP BOTTOM
LAND SURFACE
0
5
Overbumen; blown loam.
5
15
Rock at 11(eat, Felsic Volcanic Roof, FVR) fragments, light tan, dry.
15
25
FVR fragments, gray; rasing set M 21 reel.
_ 25
35
FVR fragments, gray. some dark gray gragments.
35
45
Intermediate Volcanic Rock (IVR). dark grey, some feldspar.
45
55
IVR, dark gray, some feltlspar.
55
65
IVR, dark gray, some feldspar, fracture %feel yeild alwul 1 gpm.
65
75
W dark green gray, minor feldspar.
75
a5
IVR, dark green gay, minor feldspar.
85
95
NR dark green gray, mime feldspar arm quart.
95
105
NFL dark green gray, mirror feldspar, am melt: fmolure 97 feet adds 2 gpm, total vial yield 3 gpm,
105
115
IVR. dark green gray, minor feldspar and quart.
115
125
IVR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz.
125
135
W. dark green gray. novwr, feldspar arM quartz.
135
145
ReR dark green gray. more feldspoar and Waft
145
155
IVR. dark green gray, minor feldspar and quart.
155
165
IVR. dark green gray, minor feldspar and quart.
165
175
IVR. dark green gray, minor feldspar and Wertz
175
185
NIL dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz.
185
195
IVR, dark green gray, mime feldspar and quartz.
195
205
IVR, dark green gray, manor feldspar and quartz
205
215
NR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quad.
215
225
NR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz.
us
235 IVR,
dark green gray, mime feldspar arM Wart.
235
245
NR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz
245
255
NR, dark green gray, minor feldspar and quartz
255
265
NR, dark green gray, more quartz at 257 feet
265
275
NR, dark gray, no feldspar and quartz
275
2a5
NR, 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
NR, dark gray, no feldspar and Warm
315
325
NR, dark gray, some feldspar and quad, and epidole (light green).
325
335 IVR,
dark gray, some feldspar and quart, and a lot of epidole (light green) from 330335 and.
335
345 FVR,
gray with faille phenaaysts and some Waft and epidole (light green).
345
350 FVR,
Been, Man felsic phearrokorystir total well yield is 4 pare.
COMMENTS: Boring was converted to an Observation Well (e3) with opend le construction. Casing is 8lrrdl dameter PVC ses at 21 feel BLS. Boring is 6 intll tliameler. Told Weli
depth is 350 feet BLS. Tryst Well ygeld is 4 gpm. Fiesic Volcanic Rod, (FVR) and Internet Volcanic Rock (IVR) are defined in Carpenter (1982).

GMA ,11
SNOW CAMP QUARRY
GeolRtdWCfBr ManOgTernent Associated, Irte
2201 CANDUN DINE APEX NC 27523
BORING LOG OW-4
PROJECT: Snow Cam Quality
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: DmY5 We" Drilli
DRILL ING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT USED: Air Rotary
BORINTID ETER: 6inches STARE 11/812019 END: 111IM019 LOGGER: Wll for GMA
GRAPHIC
INTERVAL DEPTH(FT BLS)
DESCRIPTION
TOP BOTTOM
LAND SURFACE
0
10
Ovsburden.
10
14
Overourden to 14 feel, rock at 14 feel.
14
25
Felsic Volcanic Rock (FVR) with felsic phenoaysls, gray, well casing set at 22 feet
25
40
FVR with felsic phemcrysts, gray; frachae at 39�10 feel yields about 1 gallon per minute (gm).
40
55
FVR with felsic phenacrysls, gray.
55
65
FVR with felsic phenovysls, gray.
65
75
FVR will felsic phwwr sts, gray, fracture zone aaurM 70 feet yields about 1 Spiro.
75
65
FVR with felsic phenovysts, gray.
85
95
FVR with felsic phenooysts, gray.
95
105
FVR with felsic phanovysls. gray,
105
115
FUR with felsic phenocnysU. gay.
115
125
FVR with felsic phenoorysts. gray,
125
135
FVR with felsic phenaaysts, grey.
135
145
FVR with falsic phenavysls, gray.
145
155
FVR with felsic phanooysta gray.
155
16S
intermediate Vpkanic Rod (NR), dark greenish gay. blad fragments in dark green macro.
165
VS
IVR. dark greenish Well bled fragments in dark green metdx.
175
185
11 dark greenish gray. bkd fragments in dark green malfink Iva) well yield is 2-3 gpm.
185
ISE
NR(co* gray) and FVR with felsic phenovysts (gray).
195
205
FVR with Will. phenocrysls, gray.
205
215
FVR with felsic phenacrysts, gray.
215
225
FVR with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
225
235
FVR with felsic phenocrysls, gray.
235
245
FVR with falsic phenovysis, gay; fatal well yeib is 23 gpm.
245
255
FVR with felsic pherrovysts, gay.
255
265
FVR with felsic phenacrysls gay.
265
275
FVR with felsic phenovysts, gay.
275
285
FVR with felsic phenacrysls, Stay.
285
295 FVR
with felsic phenoMSIU. gray; total well yield is 5 gpm adding 2 gpm over last 10 feel
295
MEi FVR
with felsic pherwcrysts,gay.
W5
315 FVR
with felsic phenoorysls, grey.
315
325 FVR
with falsic phenoc Rs, Way,
325
335 FUR
with falsic phenovysts, gay.
335
345 FVR
with felsic phenocrysts, gray.
345
350 FVR
with felsic phenacrysls, gray, total well yield is 3 gpm.
COMMENTS: Baring was com7Med to an ObscmaWon Well (04) with Wen4lele construction. Casing Is 8 inch diameter PVC set at 22 feel BLS. Boring is 6 inch diameter. Trial Well
depth Is 350 feet BLS. Total Well Yield is 3 gpm. Felsic Volcenlc Rock (FVR) and intermediate Volcanic Rod (IVR) are contract In Carpenter (1982).

APPENDIX II
AQUIFER TEST DATA SHEETS

Pumping Test Monitoring Log Form -HAND MEASUREMENTS
Project Number& Location: 163101 Snow Cam Quar Site
WeIM: OW-2 Pumping Well
Dale: 11/22/2019 Start Time: 1450
Static Water Level: 15.33 tt, at 1404 hr on 11-22-2019
Latitude: N35.87249°
Longitude: W79.41611'
Final Pumping Rate: 2.5 GPM
minutes
Time
Water Level
N
Drawdown (ft)
Spec. Cap.
Ws
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
11.02
0.23
130
27.18
11.85
0.21
Project Number& Location: 163101 Snow Camp Quarry Site
WelNk. OW-2 Pumping Well
Date: 11122I2019
Start 1450 ISutic
Water Level: 15.JJ tt.
minutes
Time
Water Level
tt
Drawdown(tt)
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
3701
38.581
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
6701
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
9401
42.08
26.75
0.09
970
42.18
26,851
0.09
1000
42.30
26.97
0.09
1030
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 falling 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
14501
1
48.081
32.751
0.08
pump off In pumping weU OW-2 at 1450 on 11-23-2019
Distance from Pumping Well to Observation well = 0 feet This Is the Pumping
Well
GMA Pro ect 0: 163101
Measuring Point Description: Top of PVC casing
MP Height above Land Surface: -2.0 ft. for hand measurments.
Target a: 2.5 GPM
Pumping Equipment Contractor: Rorie Well Repair
Person Recording Data: WILL (GMA) and Rorie Well Repair Crew overnight

Pumping Test Monitoring Log Farm --HAND MEASUREMENTS
Project Number 6 Location: 163101 Snow Camp Quarry Site
Well#: OW2 Pumping Well
Date: 1112212019 StartTime: 1460
Static Water Level: 15.33 tL at 1404 hr on 11-22.2019
Latitude: N35.87249°
Longitude: W79.41611°
IFInal Pumping Rate: RECOVERY
minutes
Time
Water Level
n
Drawdown(ft)
Spec. Cap.
Ols
Comments
1
47.50
32.171
Pumping Rate=2.5 qpm
2
47.42
32.09
3
47.38
32.05
4
47.23
31.90
5
6
47.38
32.05
7
81
47.00
31.67
9
46.70
31.37
10
11
46.20
30.87
15
46.80
31.47
17
46.78
31 AS
19
46.61
31.28
20
25
46.30
30.97
30
45.98
30.65
35
45.66
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
170
39.03
23.70
1201
1
38.101
22.77
Distance from Pumping Well to Observation well = 0 n.
GMAP10 t#: 163101
Measuring Point Description: Top of Casing for hand measurements
MPHe ht above Land Surface: -2.0 n. for hand measurements
Pum in E ul ment Contractor. Rorie Well Repair
Person Recordin Data: WLL (GMA) and Rorie Well Repair Crew overnight

APPENDIX III
AQUIFER TEST DATA PLOTS AND ANALYTICAL MODELING CALCULATIONS

49
44
-01
r,
0 0
s
G 0.1
02
0.3
0.<
n.
11121/m190M
Uncorrected obervation Well Background & Drawdown Data - 11/21-23/2019
11121120191200 11122/20190:00 1112212019 != I.0 11/23j2019000 Il%23120191200
�WM — OWI tO rtMWI �MWf y— w2 _f p,, _MWOff �OWI
0
5
F
U124JX190W
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.

r
rill
8.
16.
24.
32.
40. L-
10.
100.
SNOW CAMP
1000.
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.

SNOW CAMP
0.
8.
x
�
e
a� 16.
E
m
U
N
n
a
m
24.
`o
U
32.
40. �
10.
100. 1000. 1.0E+4
Obs. Wells
• OW2
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.

e
RE
8.
16.
24.
32.
40. �
10.
100.
SNOW CAMP
4
9
\t
1
9
Adjusted Time (min)
1000.
1.0E+4
Obs. Wells
OW2
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
(5) listed above is not valid for a pumping well and should be ignored.

r
a
1.2
2.4
3.6
4.8
SNOW CAMP
10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4
Obs. Wells
OW3
Aquifer Model
Unconfined
Solution
Cooper -Jacob
Parameters
T = 19.79 ft2/day
S = 0.0001435
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.

c
RE
1.2
2.4
ZVI
4.8
a
SNOW CAMP
10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4
Adjusted Time (min)
Cooper -Jacob solution for the corrected later drawdown data from well OW3.
Obs. Wells
°OW3
Aquifer Model
Unconfined
Solution
Cooper -Jacob
Parameters
T = 12.31 ft2/day
S = 0.0001527

r
10.
0.01
0.001
SNOW CAMP
10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4
Obs. Wells
° OW3
Aquifer Model
Unconfined
Solution
Theis
Parameters
T = 351.6 ft /day
S = 0.0002875
Kz/Kr = 1.
b = 336.4 ft
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.

0.
,
0
0.1
c
a�
0.2
E
c�
m
n
N_
'O
N
m
0.3
`o
U
0.4
0.5 '
10.
100.
SNOW CAMP
1000.
1.0E+4
Obs. Wells
WSW2
Aquifer Model
Unconfined
Solution
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.

s
0.1
0.01
0.001 �
10.
0 / o
100.
SNOW CAMP
1000.
1.0E+4
Obs. Wells
WSW2
Agu'rfer Model
Unconfined
Solution
Theis
Parameters
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.

a
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1.
SNOW CAMP
IF
10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4
Obs. Wells
°OW4
Aquifer Model
Unconfined
Solution
Cooper -Jacob
Parameters
T = 358.8 ft2/day
S = 0.0004118
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.

r
0.01
SNOW CAMP
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4
Obs. Wells
-OW4
Aquifer Model
Unconfined
Solution
Theis
Parameters
T = 116.7 112fday
S = 0.0005096
K7JKr = 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.

a
-0.5
0
0.5
1.5
2
SNOW CAMP
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4
Obs. Wells
OWt
Aquifer Model
Unconfined
Solution
Cooper -Jacob
Parameters
T = 1334.2 112/day
S = 0.0007697
Adjusted Time (min)
Cooper -Jacob Plot of Corrected Drawdown Data from well OWL 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.