WQ0004268_Hydrogeologic Report_20081216

Soil & Environm•erital_ Consul-a{{t�s;PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road''- Raleigh North Carolina 27614 - Phone (9,19) 846=5960` Fax [phone]
www.SandEC corn:
u t„ Fr�0.209`
U
December-16, 2009
T Revised Febivary ,19; 2009 -
•.Ea le Resources,`,Inc.
Att ' EncLappala ;
4005 `Lake Springs Court r
Raleigh, NC 27613
Re: Revised Agronomist Report for Proposed Industrial Waste to be applied at the. ;
Alfens, Inc. Plant #7 Sampson.County, NC.' S&EC-Project #10,977..83.
I. , Introduction
Soil & Environmental Consultants; PA, (S&EC) has completed a preliminary agronomist
"report fot the site referenced above.,. This report addressees the requirements set forth 'by _
.-15A the,
(i) concerning-the'agronomic management plan for surface
wastewater -,disposal, where spray irrigation field s are used 'as final wastewater receiver -
sites. The purpose, of this report is to- perform an agronomic evaluation which. determines
the,
he feasibility of using portions of a 360.4c tract for additional spray field area as.,a
receiyer:site for the future:expansion of the canning'facility. -:As part -of the study, fields
,were -'analyzed to determine agronomic limitations based on .hypothetical hydraulic ,
_loading: rates• of the proposed wastewater source.
'Industrial-.wastewater.generated from the Allens, -Inc.'-Plant.#7 canning facility is.
current] y,appijed,to'-100.3 acres,of land locate&south of the canning facility. Wastewater
is pre-treated by;passirig through a series of sedimentation and storage,basin"s before ,final
land application.' 'In essence, wastewater flows -ouf of the;plant,'through a hydrosieve ! ,'
--(separate' .'solids -from liquids) and into 3-acre settling lagoon where final sedimentation
takes place. From -this sedimentation lagoon, -wastewater flows into a 27; acre storage
-lagoon where it -awaits -final landapplication:.to:fescue'grass and Coastal bermudagrass by-
:. spray 'irrigation: _ As currently,pennitted, this' site can ;apply 415,000 gallons of treated
effluent;per day to the existing spray.fields.. Since,Allen_Canning Company wishes to
increase production capacity of the facility; an additional' 360-ac tract' of land is currently
. being considered-for;wastewater disposal. ,The proposed 360-ac parcel is located
approximately 2 mi'les southwest of the existing canning facility on Rowan Road.
The -new -spray field configuration currently under consideration can be found' in the"'
hydrogeologicaI report completed by Eagle Resources.This scenario considers using a
Charlotte Office: " . Greensboro Office:
236 LePhillip " Court, SuiCe C 3817-E Lawndale'Drive ,
Concord,, NC 28025 '. Greensboro; NC 27455
Phone:. (704) 720=9405 Phone: -[phone]
Fax: ('336) '
Fax ' [phone] : < _ 540-8235 `

new drainage system.in the eastern portion' of the site to lower the -water table, allowing
for additional spray area. As proposed, irrigation rates vary by zone,.ranging from 9.26- .
- to 65.62 ;inches/year, accommodating a total daily wastewater flow up to _187,23.9 gallday.
Monthly- and -annual. hydraulic loading rates by individual zones can be found in the-..
hydrogeological report completed by Eagle:Resources. S&EC-used these -proposed
hydraulic loading "rates as a basis .for determining nutrient and heavy metal loading.on
individual zones. ;
;• IL: Soil Sampling Methods and Proposed Cronnin�' Scheme
The soils of the proposed application site's are described in the soil scientist's report dated
February`14,-2008 by S&EC. Refer to..this report_and-associatedmaps for additional soil
background information.- Based on tlie.soils evaluation, the,upland soils on this tract that.
are within the proposed application areas are most similar to the Norfolk, Wagram,
Goldsboro, Noboco, Tarboro and Kalmia soit series. After identification to the series
level, the soils were.further categorized into map units based on similar morphological .
characteristics and/or high frequency, of.association. - The identified map units were
1) Norfolk/Wagram,t2) Goldsb6ro/Noboo6 and,3) Tarboro/Kalmia.
= - For agronomic sampling purposes, proposed spray areas were divided into two major'
regions; based on historical cropping conditions.. Based on the soil scientist and.,
hydrogeologi'cai evaluation, approximately 66,.767ac of the entire tract",contains areas .
deemed usable.for spray, irrigation. .The eastern half of the tract has been recently logged
with'the intention of converting the- area into-a;hay.field. This spray area,is referred to as
the "hay..field"-area.'The western half of the tract has been rotated between -corn, tobacco.
and other row crops in recent years. This area is referred to as the "ag field". area.
Composite samples of both areas ("ag field" and "hay field") were, created by collecting .
-random cores from theupper 12 inches of soil throughout the two areas. Soil fertility,
sample results are. report in Appendix l- and -summarized in Table 1. In the, soil, fertility
f analysis --report, F=1 refers to the composite sample collected from the "a field." whereas.
W-2 refers to -the "hay field" composite sample. Soils were not analyzed for nitrogen due ;
to the dynamic nature, of soil N: Likewise 'soils were not analyzed for heavy metals
given that historical crop management does not indicate any prior heavy-metal loading.
-Table L, Soil Fertility Results. Summary for Selected,Nutrierits/Parameters:
'Sample,
ID'
Sample
area
H
P
K .:
M
Ca
Na
804
Zn
Mn
Fe
,
Cu
-- ---------------- ------------ P m------- ---------------------------- =----
F.-1
a6 field
5.4.
136
82
50-
260
14,
11 :.
4.9
6 .
155
1.9
W-2 '
hayfield.'
_ 4.7
26
14
35
A 90
12
14
-. 0.9
1 , 7. "1
1'92
0.3
In' order- to maximize wastewater.,disposal from' a nutrient -use: standpoint, Coastal,
bermudagrass lies been proposed as the final receiver crop-on'the spray areas.- Coastal
' bermudagrass, a hybrid bermudagrass variety, is a warm season perennial that grows
quickly in the summer months. and -has a high capacity,to,assimilate plant nutrients,
making it well -suited for'wastewater disposal" applications. Since bermudagrass goes .

dormant in the late fall, wintertime wastewater application will be accommodated by
over -seeding the bermudagrass with winter annual rye. Grass will be cut, baled and
removed off -site on an "as -needed" basis.
IV. Wastewater Analysis and Nitrogen Loading
Laboratory analysis of wastewater samples was -provided to S&EC for the following
dates: 3/31/2007, 8/3/2007, 12/10/07, 3/19/08, 7/7/08 and-.11/17/08. According to .
facility officials, samples were collected from a discharge pipe that transfers wastewater
from the, 27-ac storage_ lagoon to the existing spray fields.
Nitrogen is the plant nutrient that is typically the most limiting to wastewater application'.
A summary of wastewater-N fractions is provided in Table 2. Based on the data
provided, the combined nitrate (NO3--N) and nitrite (NO2 -N) nitrogen has averaged
approximately 0.36 mg.NO3-=N - . NOZ -N /L. Sample results indicate an average
ammonium concentration of 15.80, mg NH4+7N /L. Wastewater organic-NN was calculated
by"subtracting the wastewater ammonium concentration from the reported Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN) values.
,Table 2. -Summary of N-Fractions from Allens, -Inc.- Plant #7 Wastewater Analysis.
Location
Date
.TKN
NH3" -
NO3
: NO2 .
Inor =N
Or -N
m /L
m '/L
mg/L
m /L
m /L
m /L
Allen's
- 3/2/2007
43.70
`24.60
0.12
0.00
24.72
19.10
Allen's'
11 /16/2007
56.00
1:82
0.00
0.00
1.82
54.18
Allen's
7/11/2007
63.00
37.50 -
0.00.-
0.00
37.50
25.50
Allen's'
3/3/2008
-56.60
6.33
0.00
0'.00 1
6.33
50.27 ,
Allen's
7/7/2008
'47.30
24.20
0.10
0.00
24.30
23.10
Allen's
11/17/2008
22.10
0.34
1.91
0.00,
2.25
21.76
Averse
48.12
.15.80
0.36
0.00
16.15
32.32
As indicated by the wastewater -analysis, N fractions have, historically changed in a
seasonal manner. Samples taken in March and July tend to be equally distributed
between organic-N and inorganic-N, whereas the November samples suggest that the vast
majority of the wastewater-N persists as organic-N. Most -likely, atmospheric and
solution temperature play a dominate role in the extent to which organic-N mineralizes.
Because the wastewater-N fractions vary by season, S&EC separated the summer and
winter wastewater analysis for-N•loading calculations (Tables 3 and 4).

Location _ .
Date
TKN
NH3' .
NO3 .
NO2
Inor d-N "
Or 7*
m /L :
m /L
m /L
m /L • _
. m /L•
m /L' `.
-Allen's
3/2/2007
43.70 ,
24.60
0112
0.00
24.72 '
19.10
-Allen's
7/11 /2007
63:00 . '
37.50
0.00
0.00
3.7.50
'25.50 "
"-Alien's
3/3/2008
56.60
.6.33
0.00
0.00
6.33,
50.27
Allen's
7/7/2008
47.30 _
24.20 -.
, 0.10
'0.00, :
24.30
23.10 .
Average
52.65
23.16
0.06
6.00
23.21
29.49
:. "Table 4. Winter Wastewater-N Fractions:
Location
Date
TKN
NH3
NO3
NO2
Inor =N
Or -N
m /L
m /L
ni /L
m /L
m o /L
m %L
.,-Allen's '-
11/1'6/2007
56.00
1.82.
0.'00
0.00
1.82
54.18-
Allen's
11 /17/2008
22:10
, 0.34,
1.91
0.00
.2.25.
21:76
39.05
1.08' '
0.96 _
6.00
2-.04
37.97
Plant available nitrogen (PAN) application :rates were determined for the spray areas --
based on:seasonal wastewater.anaTysis'and hypothetical.hydraulic loading -rates. Since
the wastewater will be applied to the proposed:areas through,a sprinkler spray system,
some ammonium-nitrogen.(NH4+-IN) will probably be lost via'ammonia volatilization.
S&EC assumed an ammonia volatilization co' fficient.of 0.5 for the present analysis...
According to the wastewater analysis; a significant proportion of wastewater=N is present
as organic-N. , Since the wastewater lagoon is considered a facultative anaerobic system,
an N-mineralization coefficient, of 0.3 5was used for determining.PAN for the months of
March -September: Using these estimates, the wastewater plant.available nitrogen (PAN)
for wastewater applied during the;period of Mar'ch-September was calculated as follows:
. 0.06'mg NO3"-N + NO2--N /L + 0.5(23.16 -mg NH4 +-N/L) + 0.35(29.49 mg organic N/L)
= 21.96mg: PAN/L..: -
In order to determine PAN for,wastewater applied from October -February, S&EC chose
to use a'smaller N-mineralization. factor. to accourit for the relatively lower microbial .
activity that occurs:duiing the cooler months of the winter. Brady and Weil (1999) have = ;
i suggested that surface soil temperature typically. varies according to atmospheric
temperature (Appendix 2a). Climate data obtained -from the Clinton,�NC 2S weather
stationTrom 1936. 2006 shows how mean monthly temperatures (calculated from.average
daily temperatures) vary by month (Table.5). Like many biologically -mediated reactions;
N-mineralization is Heavily 'dependent upon soil temperature (Tisdale et. al, 1999;
Appendix 2b)'. -.According to Stanford et. al.(1977), an increase in temperature of 10°C ' ,
will cause,N-mineralization rates to double within the -range of 5'C-35'C (Appendix 2c).
Conversely, microbial activities would be reduced by an equivalent rate as. temperatures, -
decrease_ . Other, researchers have attempted to quantify the effect of temperature on •

microbial activities (Doran and Smith, 1987;"Appendix 2d). In incubation experiments
conducted at temperatures ranging from 5°C-35°C; Stanford et. al. (1972) obtained
mineralization ratio constants (k) of 0.009. to 0.055, varying in a linear fashion according '
to soil temperature (Appendix 2e).By applying, their data results to the Allen's Canning
Facility, the N-mineralization rate constant would be equal to ,0.026 at a temperature of
16.40C(mean daily temperature for month of October) and would be equal to 0.041- at a --
temperature of 26.21 °C (mean daily temperature for month of July). Therefore,'the rate
constant for the month of October would be approximately 38% lower than the
o 'theretical maximum rate constant,based on temperatures in. the month of July.
In order to obtain a temperature adjusted.N-mineralization rate for the winter months'
(October=February) at Allen's.Canning Facility, S&EC completed an analysis using
estimates of relative microbial activity as affected by soil- temperature and reported' by
.Doran and Smith (1987). Appendix 2f shows',a graphical representation of how the
results were obtained. Results are also reported in tabular format in Table 5. These
results suggest that October would have the highest relative microbial activity and hence
the highest N=_ mineralization rate relative to the other winter months. By multiplying the
"relative microbial activity coefficient" (as shown in Table 5) by the summer
mineralization:coefficient (0.35), winter mineralization rate coefficients were calculated
on a monthly basis. As a conservative approach, S&EC chose to use the calculated'
October N-mineralization" rate (0'.20) .in determining PAN for all of the winter months at
the"Allen's Facility. In reality, the', average N-mineralization rate from •October to
February may be less than what is -used in PAN calculations (see Table 5). ;
.Table 5. Monthly mean temperatures for Clinton, NC and seasonal nitrogen
mineralization rate analysis.
Month
Mean Monthly
Temperature
Mean
Monthly
Temperature
Relative Microbial
Activity as a_
Coefficient of,
Maximum Rate
Summer
Mineralization
rate coefficient
Winter
Mineralization .
rate coefficient
F
C
October
61.6
10.44
0.59
0.35
0:20 -
'November
52.62
11.46
0.33
0.35
0.11
December
43.92
6.62
0.15
0.35
0.05
January
. 42.09 -
5.61 -
0.08
0.35
0.03
February
44.53
6.96.
0.15
0.35
0.05
March -
51.84
11.02
- _
0.35
April
60.94
16.08
-
0.35
-
May
68.92
20.51
-
0.35
-
June "
- 75.99
24.43
-
0.35
,July
79.17,
26.21
-
0.35
AuOust ust -
77.95
25.53
0.35
September
1 72.36
22.42
-
0.35
-

accept up to 200 lbs PAN/ac during the bermudagrass growing `season, with an additional -
50-lb.PAN/ac for over seeded winter rye. \
The proposed_irrigation rates vary by zone and range from 9:26=65.62 inches per year:
f The'proposed application rates wouldsupply 39-207 lb PAN/ac during the Coastal
bermudagrass growing season (March Is' -'September 30th) and 3-50 lb PAN/ac during the
winter, rye growing season (October ist-February 28th). Accordingly, all of the proposed
PAN application rates. would be below the recommended PAN rates for Coastal
bermudagtass and -winter rye production.
Soil Sample Results and Nutrient/Heavy Metal'Loading
Based on the results of sampled soils, the average surface CEC .of the "ag field" and "hay
field" is2.8 and 2.7,meq/100g, respectively..'Although these values are considered
relatively -low from a total nutrient holding"capacity standpoint; adding lime at the
recommended rates (0.8-1.3 ton/ac) should increase the pH -dependant CEC and'ensure
nutrient availabilityfor optimum plant uptake. - Since maintaining a pH of 6.0-6.5 is
essential for ensuring optimal nutrient availability, soil pH -should be. measured on. an
"'.-annual, basis. Lime applications, should follow recommendations made by the current soil
analysis and on all fiiture soil samples.
As_noted in the soil fertility test results, current.soil test phosphorus.(P) levels varied
according.to past management,. Soil test P in the. "hay. field" is. categorized as "low", -
according to the North Carolina index value, whereas the sampled "ag field" showed an
-.index rating of "very high": - An index value. of ."very high" indicates that there -will be no'
crop yield-response,with additional P applications. Although applying -additional
phosphorus to the "ag field" area:does not pose any agronomic issues, the high soil, P,
aevels may pose an environmental concern if the site is subject to soil erosion. However, y
considering the proposed cover•crop and its beneficial erosion control properties, -as well
as proposed stream and waterway buffers additional wastewater-P application should -not
pose. a -high risk of P-loss. Soil erosion and phosphorus loss potential from each spray r
zone could'be evaluated using the North Carolina Phosphorus Loss Assessment Tool
(PLAT):. "Low",or "Medium" PLAT ratings -would confirm that additional P loading .
would not present a limitation to the proposed wastewater application.
Several other assumptions were also made in determining P loading on the proposed
spray fields... Wastewater total phosphorus (TP) 'values, as summarized in_Table 6,. are
composed of both organic and inorganic forms of P.. Since much of the wastewater -Pis..
probably'in an organic form, not all of the P will be immediately plant available. In
addition; a significant- portion of inorganic wastewater-P. will. form. insoluble Fe and
Al precipitates and/or -become strongly adsorbed to amorphous soil Fe minerals once land
applied. Given these assumptions, S&EC estimates that 60% of the applied P will ;
become,plant available (NCDA, 1999). Wastewater analysis'indicates an average
concentration of11:53-mg,total P/L. Using these estimates, the total plant available
phosphorus of the wastewater is; calculated as follows: 11:53. mg Total P/IJ x 2.29 x 0.60
= 15.85 mg P205/L. The proposed application ratesmould'supply 29-149 lb P205/ac

during the Coastal bermudagrass-growing season (March I" -September 301h) ands-86 lb,
P205/ac during the winter rye growing season (October Vt-February 28t). Annual.
wastewater-P, 205 application rates,and estimated crop P205 removal rates -for all zones are =
found•inAppendix 4. Crop phosphoru's removal. rate estimates are based on RYE data
collected from the -North Carolina Nutrient Management Workgroup located at-
hith://nutrients.soil.nesu.edu/yields
Table ,Summary.of Selected Wastewater Nutrients/Parameters'from'Allens, Inc. ;
Plant'#? ,
Location
Date
TP
` •K
Ca
mg,
Na,
m /L
m /L
m /L
m /L,
m /L
Alle"n's
3/2/2007
11:6
n/a
31.00
16.00',
229.0 '
Allen's .
-11 /16/2007
7.82
n/a
36:00
18.00
170.0
Allen's
7/11 /2007 .
-16:1-
n/a
34.00 ,
20.00 •
492.0
Allen's
-3/3/2008
9.58
; n/a
32.00
15.70'
-157.0
Allen's
7/7/2008
14.4
n/a
28.00
19.30 '_
210.-0
',"Allen's
11/17/2008 _
9.69
n/a
37.00'. ,
16.30,
17.0.0
Average'
11.53.
n/a
33.00'
17.55- _'
'.' 238.00
:Potassium (K) was not measured as part of the wastewater, analysis. Soil test results'
suggest that the `.`ag field" has a "moderate'.' level of soil K; while the "hay field" has=a
".veryaow."-level of soil K. In the case of both, spray areas, additional K should be ,
supplied -with a commercial fertilizer in order'to maintain optimum K levels for
bermudagrass production (Appendix 1): Having sufficient K in the soil is essential for.
preventing winter..die-off of Coastal bermudagrass when.over-seeded with winter rye..__,. _
Calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg), two secondary; plant nutrients,•were also present in
the sampled wastewater. Annual wastewater -Ca and Mg application rates and estimated
for -all zones and for both options. are found in Appendix 4.. At the proposed loading
rates, Ca would be`applied at a rate -of 69-490.1b/ac/yr. Since soil test results indicate
"low" soil -Ca levels in, both the ."ag field" and the "hay field."; the addition, of wastewater. ;
Ca will be beneficial to the crop growing, environment. Soil test results show "medium"
levels of soil Mg in both sampled fields. Based on application rates, 37-261 lb'Mg/ac/yr
will be applied. 'Similar .to Ca, the application of Mg will also be beneficial for
maintaining optimal growing conditions.::.. .
According to the soil•fertility analysis, the average sodium (Na) level of the "ag field"
soils was 14 mg/kg soil (0:00006 nieq/100 cm), while the "hay field" soils averaged 12
mg/kg,soil (0.00005.meq/100 cm). Sodium levels above 15%0'of the CEC can be
detrimental to crop production arid'to the soil structure in the surface horizons: The'soil
fertility lab results indicate,that neither of these soils meets this, threshold level of sodium.
The average sodium concentration of the wastewater samples is, 23 8 mg Na/L, with the
calculated'sodium.adsorption ratio •(SAR) equal to 8.3. Waters with SAR values in this -
range have'a moderate -risk of developing sodium related problems'in clay soils, but have -
_ a low risk of sodium build=up iri'sa idy soils (U.S.'Salinity Labor-atory;1954).' Since the • .
proposed wastewater will.be applied to soils with a loamy sand surface texture, there is a ,

low risk of developing sodic soils with continuous irrigation. Annual soil samples should"
be taken .to monitor sodium status in the soil. `
Heavy metal loading and associated plant toxicities are not expected to be an agronomic
concern based on the proposed wastewater application. Table 7 summarizes heavy metal
content of the sampled wastewater. Appendix 5 contains proposed annual heavy metal
loading'rates for zinc; nickel, chromium, and lead based -on proposed application rates.
Cadmium, -mercury Iand arsenic did not'register above lab detection limits and -were not `
included'in site life calculations.. "Lead proved to be'the most limiting heavy metal,, with a.
site life ranging from 50-354 years, depending on -zone irrigation rate. However, the
average lead concentration was highly skewed by the wastewater sample dated 7%7/08.
'.Future -wastewater samples may demonstrate an average lead concentration much lower .
than the average reported here. -
Table 7.' Summary of Wastewater Heavy Metal Constituents.,
Location
_ Date
As
Cd
Cr
Pb
Hg
Ni
Zn
m /L ;
m /L
m /L
mg/L. ' ..
m /L
, `m /L
'm /L
Allen's.
3/2/2007 -
0
0 ='
; 0.
0.
0.. ,,:'
,:0.13. '
0.42
,Allen's . '
' 11/16/2007
0
.0
'0.
0.
0 --
0
0.67
Allen's:
�711'1/2007 -
0
0 '-
0
0
=0
-0
0.00--
Allen's=
3/3/2008`,
0
0
0
0.
-0-' .-
0
0.17-
Allen's -
7/7/2008
0
0
0'
2.16'
0
0.
0.14 .
Allen's
11/17/2008
0
..0"
0.05
0
0.
0
0.11
Aveca e `
0.00
0.00 ,
0.01 ,
' 0.36 .
0.00'
0.02
0.25
Crop Mannement Considerations
The optimal time for establishing Coastal bermudagrass using dormant sprigs is February
through March .,'.Seedbed and root zone preparation are key to having a successful
establishment., The root zone should be prepared by appropriate tillage methods. '
t . - Subsoiling should be considered on areas .that have received heavy traffic or Where' .
4 plowpans have'developed from prior tillage.' Following de till' lirrie, phosphorus
and potassium fertilizer should be ,applied arid incorporated into the seedbed as
recommended by the soil, test report. Dormant.sprigging is the most economical, method'
of establishing large areas of bermudagrass, although sprigs will .not begin to grow until
late March. - When planting in the winter months', sprigs should .be covered with up to 2
inches of soil to protect them from frost. ' Live sprigs (stolons with green tops) can be
planted in the'late spring after the threat. of frost has past. Although bermudagrass can be
established using live sprigs until late summer, early planting dates will ensure strong
rhizome (underground. stem) growth, essential --for' wintertime survival.: Only high quality
sources -of sprigs certified by North Carolina Crop Improvement Association should be.
used for establishment. To -optimize establishment; 30. to 40 lb/ac of starter nitrogen
fertilize'rishoiild be applied once'growth begins and repeated six to, eight weeks later.

Coastal bermudagrass should be cut every 4 to 5 weeks or when it grows to 12-1.5 inches
tall. Once bermudagrass is overseeded with winter rye -in the fall, grass. should be, cut to a
height of 3 inches or Tess to encourage rye establishment.' In the early spring,
grass is expected to turn green,' mowing height approximately two weeks.before bermuda
should be reduced to-3/ to 1-inch to allow bermudagrass to 'recovery and 'out -compete the
winter rye. Since bermudagrass is very intolerant to shade,'late spring cutting of winter -
rye should be avoided as it may 'severely limit bermudagrass recovery.
V:. Conclusions ,
Based on wastewater analysis and proposed irrigation rates, -none of the"PAN application
rates .would .exceed the recommended PAN rates for the Coastal-bermudagrass/winter rye
- crop rotation. The proposed, application rates ,would supply 3.9-207, lb PAN/ac during the
Coastal, bermudagrass growing 'season (March ist-September.30. and'3=501b PAN/ac' '
during the winter rye growing season (October, Vt-February-28tn).
` Although soil test phosphorus levels in the "ag-field" area are, considered' "Very High",,
the properisity;for P4oss should be.considered very low given the proposed cropping
system combined with stream and waterway buffers. As,proposed, additional
wastewater-P application should not pose a high risk of P-loss. Although not used in this
,analysis; the North Carolina Phosphorus Loss Assessment Tool (PLAT) could be used to = -
model P loss from the site to 'confirm' a low risk of P-loss. `
-Based on'the previous soil test results, some of the fields are currently low in soil K and,
could benefit from additional fertilizer inputs: In -some individual fields, -proposed waste
applied K will not supply all of the recommended K and additional K should be supplied,
with.a commercial fertilizer. Having sufficient K in the soil is essential for preventing
winter. die -off of Coastal bermudagrass.wheri over -seeded with annual rye.. ;
- . Soil samples demonstrated that soil heavy-metal concentrations appear to be,present at
background levels. -,Heavy metal loading and plant toxicities are not expected to be an -
agronomic concern based on the wastewater analysis. OnlyNi'..Zn, Cr',and Pb; metals
registered above detection limits in the analyzed wastewater samples. Lead proved to be
the most,limiting heavy metal, with a site life of 43-260 years, "varying by "spray field
area. _
This report discusses -the general agronomic.,conditions of the Allens,,Inc. - Plant #7
- ' canning facility and does not constitute or imply any approval or granting of a permit as
needed.by,the client -from -the State.. _As a professional consulting firm, S&EC is hired for
Fits professional opinion in thesematters. The'rules governing wastewater treatment and
" application (interpreted and governed by local and state agencies) are evolving
constantly, and in many cases, affected by the opinions ofindividuals employed by -the -
govenung agencies._ ;

References
1 Brady, N.C. and R.R.Weil. 1999. The.Nature and Properties 'of Soils. 12' Edition.
Prentice -Hall, `Inc. New Jersey., 298-300.
2. North Carolina Nutrient Management Workgroup. 2003. Realistic yields and nitrogen
application factors for.North Carolina crops. http://nutrients.soil.ncsu.edu/Aelds/
North Carolina. State University, North Carolina Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, North Carolina Department of Environment and. Natural `
Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Raleigh NC.
3. NCSU Nutrient Management Manual. North Carolina Cooperative Extension. .
J Reference Section 59. ,
A. Stanford, G.S., Frere, M.H. and D.H. Schwaninger. 1972. Temperature Coefficient '
of So' it Nitrogen Mineralization. Soil Science. 115:-298-300. ;
5. Stanford, G.S.; Carter, J.N., Westerman- D.T. and J.J. Meisinger. 1977. Residual
Nitrate and Mineralizable.Soi1 Nitrogen in Relation to Nitrogen Uptake by Irrigated
"-. Sugarbeets. , Agronomy Journal. 69: 303-308. "
6.. Tisdale, S.L.,• et. al. 1999. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers: An Introduction to Nutrient
Management.:61h Edition. 'Prentice-Ha11;'Inc. New Jersey. 108-109, 1.19420.
;7. Waste Coefficients Worksheets 1999: North Carolina Department of Agriculture and
'Consumer .Services, Agronomic -Division:

Appendix 1. Soil Analysis Report
Report Number:
R08113-0013
Account Number:
45479
A&L Eastern Laboratories, Inc.
7621 Whitepihe Road Richmond, Virginia 23237 [phone]
Fax No. [phone] Email: [e-mail]
Send To: SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL Grower: CANNERY
CONSULTANTSPA 10977.S3
11010 RAVEN RIDGE RD
RALEIGH, NC 27614
SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
o�..e• 1 rinfa Par-imivpde 4/22/2008 Date of Analvsis: 4/23/2008 Date of Report: 4/24/2008
I
Submitted By: MARK ALLEN
Analytical Method(s):
:..:...
umb
::•..r N.S:.a., .m... p.. l...••
:.' . • _.:..:.,
.c..Matter,.::.
,,,.,.:...=.Organ•..,..
h..;o.r.:.s., nkk� Mr• i a.h
,;
nPhos.
oa.,v
Pssiim
'
:.
Sa;t CIE- �
:,/' :ENR:;, ._.+
Rate
3i} Avada.b.le ;:.,?
;pp:PPmfi
s .,Rejserv;.Rea:, tel
s.,vPP-t.r.?T!K' Rate,
f•:. .}MG ::T
mT Rate:
.bCA -, ,},•5•,,.,ev#e-
Rae;
'.l.t,a�d
N
PPmat
t,, :
our,.
I ,i BMufffe.f)r
x
cf
ameq1,1IbA 00
a
0.1.A1
FsT}. a, 'r•Y0
9•`.:{
;�`;;`•. ;
F-1
7337
1.3 72 L
136 VH
NC=113
82 M
NC=42
50 M
260 L
14 L
5.4
.6.9
0.8
2.8
W-2
7338
2.3 92 L
26 L
NC=22
28 VL
NC=14
35 M
190 L
12 VL'
4.7
6.8
1.4
2.7
-
Sainple
- :Number •
,.:•:,, ,.:•a:,:v,., .;:.,.:i:.,';.:
.....:
;:Percent -Base Saturation' : -.: .; ::;
i rNitrate _
;- !, Sulfur
Zmc „ r
3Maiiganese' u�_
Nlron71
Copper%:
;Boron
;Soluble,
alfsr::.,
r «r i+ l• �,
s/c atQ
IR1. .i1L�sR �
CHloride ,Aluminum'
_ : ' :.
< M
e•
, .
Ca.....
r Aao '
.Na , ....H•
o :
::. ;
o •.
:: f
/ems,
rNO3-N_. `
:....:;.:
F:" ::� e
prri ,Rat
:' ,
t ,;...SO4=S
! m...'Rate
PP.
h" :?a
rZN, . _ e
ro .. _:ems..;,
t
, m = ate
PP .Fr,
It.
T MNr?.. t 3
a..-
s..
m Rate
P.P._
, ^.
F.FEAL,t...
`.:.
m Rate
N ., ,i
�..
- m" ate
DPP �x8,.
:,,..r
wa». R t
r�rPP,hl�_.P P
-t, . rt E..:
P.i? tRatQ
a
7
ma' Rate
iwPP_ .,.
F-1
7.6
15.0
46.9
2.2
28.3
11 L
NC=28
4.9 H
NC=123
6 L
NC=38
155 VH .
1.9 H
NC=95
0.2 VL
0.08 . VL
W-2
2.6
10.7
34.8
1.9
50.0.
14 • ' L
NC=35
0.9 VL
NC=23
7 L
NC=44
192 VH
0.3 VL
NC=-15
0.1 VL
-
0,07 . VL
NC-FIV ' This report applies to the sample(s) tested. Samples are retained a
Values on this report represent the plant available nutrients in the soil. Explanation of symbols: % (percent), ppm (parts per million), Ibs/A (pounds per acre), maximum of
ththirt EASdayTERNafter
LABOR Soil
An lysis repared by:
Rating after each value: VL (Very Low), L (Low),-M (Medium) H (High), VH (Very High). ms/cm (milli -mhos per centimeter), meq/100g (milli -equivalent per 100 grams). el,—
ENR - Estimated Nitrogen Release. C.E.C. - Cation Exchange Capacity. Conversions: ppm x 2 = Ibs/A, Soluble Salts ms/cm x 640 = ppm. by:
Paul Chu, Ph.D.
Ni

Report Number:
R08113-0013
Account Number: A&L Eastern Laboratories', Inc.
:45479, 7621 Whitepine Road Richmond, Virginia, (8.04) 743 9401
Fax No. [phone] Embil':[e-mail].m.
To: SOIL-& ENVIRONMENTAL' For:. CANNERY,' Copy To: MARK ALLEN
CONSULTANTS PA 10977.S3
11010 RAVEN, RIDGE RD -
RALEIGH, NC 27614
Date Received:. 04/2212008
Date Reported: 04/24/200.8 SOIL FERTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
Page: I
-,
zA
"
"Nitro g f-.P
f
5go atd�ps
�5
ber,�jUppampe
O
'!K
Ns k
Cg
4
'
,
al 6
P
F-1
Bermuda
5 tons
0.8
65
P
290
20
20-
0.0
0
0
0.0
W-2
Bermuda
­5 tons
-1.3
65
120
420.
35
20
0.0
0
1
0.0
ALE -Roo
Samples F-1, W-2: Apply dolomitic lime to raise pH and improve the magnesium level.
Samples_F-1, W-2: If dolomitic lime is not used, apply required magnesium with magnesium oxide. Epsom, Salts, K-Mag or SU17PO-Mag.
Samples FA W-2:., Apply additional 65 pounds -of nitrogen aftereyery cutting and harvest of hay.
Samples F-1, W-2: *, Apply N -on warm season grass only after late spring when grass starts growing.
Samples F-1, W-2: The recommended potash is the total pounds/acre needed, to achieve the specified yield goal. Apply 1/2 or 1/3'(100-150'
pounds) ofthe total at the first application in spring or fall. Application -of the remaining should be determined by the yield achievbd,after the
first cutting and -the moisture condition. If in drought condition and yield is low the following applications should be reduced or eliminated.
Samples F-1, W-2: Manganese level is, low in soil,however, grass or legume need only small amountsofmanga I nese togrow we
.1 ll.and
seldom show deficient in manganese. If the plant is used. for,animalfeed, mangan,ese su pple-ment, may be added to prevent nutrient
imbalande.
The recomme,ndbtions,are based,on research data and experience, but NO GUARANTEE -6r WARRANTYexpressed.or im plied,� concerning crop performance 1. is made."
.. 1) i
Our reports and letters are for the exclusive and confidential use of our clients, and may not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor may any reference be made toJhe
work, the results, or the company in any advertising, news release, or other public announcements without obtaining our prior written authorization'. Copyright 1977. -Paul .Chu, Ph.D.

,, lle Nahvc a'fld, PI-Ted.es 01C SO l 6radi Q-,d \/I k I f 99
Appet,d;x lo,.
FIGURE 7.23 This high school in Oklahoma has been built into the ground with only one side
exposed. This design takes advantage of the high specific heat and low thermal conductivity of the over
lying soils, keeping the school warm in winter and cool in summer with a minimum of energy used for;
heating or air-conditioning. (Photo courtesy of R. Weil)
When sufficient water is present to form a bridge between most of the soil particles, fur-:
ther additions will have little effect on heat conduction. Heat moves through mineral,
particles even faster than through water, so when particle -to -particle contact is'
increased by soil compaction, heat -transfer rates are also increased. Therefore, a wet,'
compacted soil would be the poorest insulator or the best conductor of heat. Here again.
the interconnectedness of soil properties is demonstrated.
Relatively dry soil makes a good insulating material. Buildings built mostly under-;
ground can take advantage of both the low thermal conductivity and relatively high, .
heat capacity of large volumes,of soil (see Figure 7.23). .:
The significance of heat conduction with respect to field soil temperature is not dif ; .
ficult to comprehend. It provides a means of temperature adjustment, but, because it is; x
slow, changes in subsoil temperature lag behind those of the surface layers. Moreover;.
temperature changes are always less in the subsoil. In temperate regions, surface soils in -:
general are expected to be warmer in summer and cooler in winter than the subsoil, s
especially the lower horizons of the subsoil. Soil thermal conductivity can also affect air,
temperature above the soil, as shown in Figure 7.24.
Soil Temperature Fluctuations
The temperature of the soil at any time depends on the ratio of the energy absorbed to
that being lost. The constant change in this relationship is reflected in the seasonal,'
monthly, and daily temperatures. The accompanying data (Figures 7.25 and 7.26) from,
College Station, Texas, and Lincoln, Nebraska, are representative of average seasonal. ,
and monthly temperatures in relation to soil depth in subhumid temperate regions.
Vertical and Seasonal Temperature Changes
It is apparent from Figures 715 and 7.26 that considerable seasonal and monthly vari ,,
ations of soil temperature occur,. even at the lower depths. The surface layer tempera;,, ;
tures vary more or less according to the temperature of the air, although these layers are
generally warmer than the air throughout the year.
FIC
on
do
ter
`lay
lea
to
col
298 Soil Aeration and Temperature

Snow
Air
5
Air
Transfer of
heat energy
0
F
—5
So Soil
73 '7-
SOil,
CL
10
e
—2 —1 0 1 2 3 4 1 0 1 2 3 4
Temperature *C Temperature *C
;FIGURE 7.24 Transfer of heat energy from soil to air. The scene, looking down on a garden after an early fall snow storm, shows snow
on, the leaf -mulched flower beds, but not on areas where the soil is bare or covered with thin turf. The reason for this uneven accumula-
'o'n"of snow can be seen in the temperature profiles. Having stored heat from the sun, the soil layers are often warmer than the air as
temperatures drop in fall (this is also true at night during other seasons). On bare soil, heat energy is transferred rapidly from the deeper
slayeis to the surface, the rate of transfer being enhanced by high moisture content or compaction, which increase the thermal conductiv-
ity of the soil. As a result, the soil surface and the air above it are warmed to above freezing, so snow melts and does not accumulate. The
leaf mulch, which has a low thermal conductivity, acts as an insulating blanket that slows the transfer of stored heat energy from the soil
'4'tb the air. The upper surface of the mulch is therefore hardly warmed by the soil, and the snow remains frozen and accumulates. A heavy
Covering of snow can itself act as an insulating blanket. (Photo courtesy of R. Well)
Mean temperature
Soil surface
0
P 60
E 120
[so
240
300
FIGURE 7.25 Average monthly soil tempera-
tures for 6 of the 12 months of the year at dif-
ferent soil depths at College Station, Tex.
(1951-1955) Note the lag in soil temperature
Soil temperature N) change at the lower depths. [From Fluker (1958)]
THERMAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS 299

30
: i 20
2
d 10
a
v
9
-7
...... Air Soil depth (cm)
7.5
•ti -30
90
•. ` ' e
'A"-
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Month
Daily Var°fatfons
FIGURE 7.26 Average monthly air and soil tem-
peratures at Lincoln, Nebr. (12 years). Note that the
7.5-cm soil layer is consistently warmer than the
air above and that the 90-cm soil horizon is cooler
in spring and summer, but warmer in the fall and
winter, than surface soil.
In the subsoil, the seasonal temperature increases and decreases lag behind changes
registered in the surface soil and in the air. Accordingly, the temperature data for March
at College Station suggest that the surface soil temperatures have already begun to
respond to the warming of the spring, while temperatures of the deep subsoil seem to
still be responding to the cold winter weather.
The subsoil temperatures are less variable than the air and surface soil temperatures,
although there is some temperature variation even at the 300-cm depth. The subsoils
are generally warmer in the late fall and winter and cooler in the spring and summer
than the surface soil layers and the air. This is to be expected since the subsoils are not
subject to direct solar radiation.
With a clear sky, the air temperature in temperate regions rises from lowest in the morn-
ing to a maximum at about 2 P.M. The surface soil, however, does not reach its maxi-
mum until later in the afternoon because of the usual lag. This retardation is greater and
the temperature change is less as the depth increases. The lower subsoil shows little
daily or weekly fluctuation; the variation there, as already emphasized, is a slow
monthly or seasonal change.
i
7.12 SOIL TEMPERATURE CONTROL
The temperature of field soils is not subject to radical human regulation. However, two
kinds of management practice have significant effects on soil temperature:- those that
affect the cover or mulch on the soil, and those that reduce excess soil moisture. These
effects have meaningful biological implications.
Oryarlfc Mu;ches and Plant -Residue Management
Soil temperatures are influenced by soil cover and especially by organic residues or
other types of mulch on the soil surface. Figure 7.27 shows that mulches effectively!
buffer extremes in soil temperatures. In periods of hot weather, they keep the surface
soil cooler than where no cover is used; in contrast, during cold weather they keep the
soil warmer than it would be if bare.
The forest floor is a prime example of a natural temperature -modifying mulch. It is ,.
not- surprising, therefore, that timber harvest practices can markedly affect forest soil
temperature regimes (Figure 7.28). Disturbance of the leaf mulch, changes in water con-
tent due to reduced evapotranspiration, and compaction by machinery are all factors
that influence soil temperatures through thermal conductivity. Reduced shading after
tree removal also lets in more solar radiation.
300 Soil Aer'atioti crud Temper•atrare

�ro ' 5o l �erj<<; f and. fet l:22P5 , An Tnfrmlac�.o., +o Ncdr:e.►f j` Aa�rre.�.
Tsdakk96 e4. a) I g 99. P9. IJ4- (20
N TRANSFORMATIONS IN SOILS 119
when soil moisture exceeds field capacity. Between 15 bars and air dryness, min-
eralization and nitrification continue to decline gradually. For example, in a
soil incubated at the wilting point (15 bars), more than half of the NH4+ is ni-
trified in 28 days (Fig. 4.22) . At 7 bars, 100% of the NH4+ is converted to NO3-
at the end of 21 days. Apparently, the Nitrobacter are able to function well even
in dry soils. Obviously, soil moisture and soil aeration are closely related in their
effects on nitrification.
Temperature. Most biological reactions are influenced by temperature. The
temperature coefficient, Q10, is 2 over the range 5 to 35°C. Thus, a twofold
change in the mineralization or nitrification rate is associated with a shift of 10°C
within this temperature range (Fig. 4.23).
O.ptimurh soil temperature for nitrification of.NH4+ to NO3- is 25 to 35°C, al-
though some nitrification occurs over a wide temperature range (Fig. 4.24). For
off-season application of NH3 or NH4+ containing or NH4+ forming fertilizers
winter soil temperatures should be low enough to retard formation of NO3-,
thereby reducing the risk of leaching and denitrification losses. Fall applications
of NH4+-containing or NH4+-forming fertilizers are most efficient when mini-
mum air temperatures are below 40°F (4.4°C) or when soil temperatures are be-
low 50°F (I VC).
Even if temperatures are occasionally high enough to permit nitrification of
fall -applied NH4+, this is not detrimental if leaching does not occur. In many ar-
eas moisture movement through the soil profile during the winter months, is in-
sufficient to remove any NO3- that may accumulate.
For example, NH4+ sources may be applied in late summer or early fall in the
Great- Plains before winter wheat planting. The same is true for spring cereal
160
120
E
a
a
Z 80
O
Z
40
7 14 21 ' 28'
DAYS
FIGURE 4.22 Effect of moisture levels near the wilting point on the nitrifica-
tion of 150 ppm of N applied as (NH4) SO4 to a Millville loam and incubated at
25°C. Justice et al., SSSA Proc., 26.246, 1962.

120 NITROGEN
0.20
0
LU
N
J
cc 0.15
LU
Z_ _
� F-
oZ
LL 0.10
O OC
Z LU
O E-
H
Q 0.05
LL
.n
00 10 20 30 40
TEMPERATURE (°C)
FIGURE 4.23 Fraction of N mineralized per month, k, in relation to tempera-
ture (k was estimated graphically for observed average monthly air tempera-
tures) . Stanford et al., Agron. J., 69.303, 1977.
crops in the northern Plains. Improved positioning and distribution of N will of-
ten result from its overwinter movement in dry regions. In humid areas water
movement through the soil profile is excessive, and NO3— losses occur. Whether
NH4+ can be applied in the fall without significant NO3— loss depends on local
soil and weather conditions.
It is possible to apply NH4+ sources in the fall in cool and/or dry climates to
soils of fine texture without appreciable loss by leaching, provided that tempera-
tures remain below 40'E The presence of NH4+ does not ensure its loss against
leaching. It is necessary that the soil have a sufficiently high CEC to retain the
100
Z
O 80
U
LL
60
Z
0
40
20 '
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
SOILTEMPERATURE
FIGURE 4.24 Nitrification as affected by temperature. Chandra, Can. J. Soil
Sci., 42:314, 1962.
I
I

Appelidir, Z C ,
Residual Nitrate and Mineralizable Soil Nitrogen in Relation
to Nitrogen Uptake by Irrigated Sugarbeetst
George Stanford2, J. N. Carter3, D. T. Westermann3, and J. J. Meisinger2
ABSTRACT
Previously reported studies on N fertilization 'of sugar -
beets (Beta vulgaris L.) in southern Idaho revealed con-
siderable variation among sites in amounts of residual
soil NO, and N mineralized during short-term laboratory
incubations. Consequently, the amount of N fertilizer
needed to achieve near -maximum yields of sucrose dif-
fered markedly. The purpose of this study was to deter-
mine the feasibility of estimating amounts of - N min-
eralized in the root zone during the season, taking into
account site variations in temperature and soil water
regimes. Residual soil NO,; N and mineralizable N to
approximate rooting depth were estimated for 21 field
sites in 1971 and six sites in 1972. The relative contribu-
tions of these two N sources to total N uptake by the
crop, in the absence of applied fertilizer N, were then -
assessed. Estimates of N mineralized in the upper 45-
cm soil layer for each successive month, AN, over a 6-
month period were derived using the expression, AN/
At = kWN (k = fraction of N mineralized during each
month, At, adjusted for average air temperature;'and W
= the estimated soil water content expressed as a frac-
tion of the available water storage capacity). Resulting
estimates of the fraction of potentially mineralizable N
converted to (NO;; + NHA+)-N between 1 April and
30 September ranged from 0.15 to 0.22 (mean ± S.D.
0.18 + 0.02) in 1971 and 1972. On the average, mature
sugarbeets recovered about 73oJo of the estimated N min-
eralized (6 months) plus residual NO,"-N. The relative
contributions of these two sources of soil derived N, re-
spectively, were approximately 66 and 75°jo, as estimated
from multiple regression. analyses.
Additional index words: Temperature, Soil water con-
tent, N use efficiency, N requirement. -
"'Contribution from the ARS, USDA, Beltsville, MD 20705.
Received 30 Aug. 1976.
$Soil scientists, Agricultural Environmental Quality Institute,
Beltsville, MD 20705.
'Soil scientists, Snake River Conservation Research Centre,
Kimberly, 1D 83341.
AMOUNTS of residual soil NO3 reflect manage-
ment, N fertilization, and irrigation practices and
influence the optimal level of N fertilizer needed for
sugarbeets, (Beta vulgaris L.) (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The re-
mainder of the soil derived N is supplied through
mineralization of soil organic N (1, 2, 3, 5, 11). Hence,
both residual NO3 and mineralizable N must be
measured to evaluate differences in N-supplying ca-
pacities among, soils. This has been demonstrated
clearly by Carter and associates (1, 2, 3) based on
extensive field studies involving N fertilizer rates with
irrigated sugarbeets.
Amounts of mineralizable N potentially available
to the crop may be assessed by various means. Car-
ter et al. (1) incubated soils for 3 weeks at 30C and
optimal water content (field capacity). Considering
N uptake as a function of the amounts of N miner-
alized, residual nitrate, and N supplied by fertilizer,
together with a reliable estimate of . the optimal N re-
quirement of sugarbeets (5.5 ± 0.5 kg/metric ton),
these. investigators and their coworkers (1, 2) devel-
oped a procedure for predicting N fertilizer needs
that offers a basis for minimizing overuse. of N and
the associated adverse effects on sucrose yield and
quality.
Another approach to estimating the contribution
-of N mineralization of soil organic N has been sug-
gested by Stanford et al. •(11). The potentially min-
eralizable N, No, considered as a more, or less discrete
fraction of total organic N, is estimated from amounts
of N mineralized in successive incubations (8, 12) and
is an estimate of the amount of N that will mineralize
in infinite time under optimal temperature (35C)
and optimal soil water content (approximately field
capacity). The mineralization potential, No; may pro-

3011 AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 69, MARCH-APRIL 1977
-o .20
m
N
'O
m .15
C �
0
z i .10
o m
c o.
0
5 .05
2
0 10 20 30 40
Degrees Celsius
Fig. I. Fraction of N mineralized per month, k, in relation
to temperature (k was estimated graphically for observed
average monthly air temperatures).
Irrigation, Furrow _� 8 hr. 2A-hr
Rainfall,
cm-+ 3.0 113 1.0
t I � [-I �-r a i
0
I
I I I
0o I
Q. I [ I
a J 0.5 I I I
m
u$ I
0o I I I
on i I I I
I
LL tFractions Remaining = W I I I
r� 0.56 j 0.58 t 0.56 I 0.61 I 0.6A 1 0.69
April May June July Aug. Sept.
Fig. 2. An example of the graphic (grid -counting) procedure
tried for estimating the monthly average available water
supply expressed as a fraction of the water storage capacity
(site 106, 1971).
vide a basis for estimating how much N is mineralized
during the crop season under specified temperature
and. soil water regimes, since these factors exert a dom-
ina:at influence on mineralization rates (9, 10, 11).
Using soils from field studies (1, 2, 3, 8) on N fer-
tilization of irrigated sugarbeets in Idaho, the nitro-
gen mineralization potentials of soils from each ex-
perimental site (before N fertilization) were deter-
mined by the ARS, Beltsville, Md. The purpose of
this report .is to evaluate the feasibility of estimating
N mineralized during the cropping season from a
knowledge of N mineralization potential, No, average
monthly temperatures, and estimates of average month-
ly sail water regimes. This evaluation, based on data
obtained from the plots that received no N fertilizer,
involved determining the relation between N uptake
by sugarbeets and amounts of available soil N (resi-
dual NO3 and estimated N mineralized).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Soil and Plant N Measurements
During 1971, 32 irrigated N-rate experiments were conducted
in southern Idaho. Detailed classification, potential rooting
depth, previous crop history, and soil characteristics (pH, per-
cent N, and percent organic matter) for most of these soils were
reported by Carter et al. (2). Before applying fertilizer, each
Table 1. Estimation of percent of No (mineralization poten-
tial) mineralized based on average monthly temperature and
soil water regimes (site 7, 1971).
No
Present Remaining after Mineralized
Month, 1971 k W initially (N) each month per month
Apr.
0.033
0.60
100
98
2.0
May
0.047
0.53
98
95.6
2.4
June
0.053
0.67
95.6
92.2
3.4
July
0.080
0.64
92.2
87.5
4.7
Aug.
0.088
0.74
87.5
81.8
5.7
Sept.
0.045
0.73
81.8
79.1
2.7
Total % of No mineralized 20.9
site was sampled in 15-cm increments to a depth of 45 cm. Cor-
responding 15-cm layers for 24 cores per site were composited.
Deeper samplings of 30-cm increments were taken where the root
zone was not restricted to 45 cm by a hardpan.
In 1972, eight irrigated N-rate experiments were conducted on
six soil types. Results from these experiments have been re-
ported (3) along with details of soil sampling methods, soil
classification, previous crop, and surface soil properties.
The NO, content of all soil layers was determined as de-
scribed in earlier reports (1, 2). The N mineralization potential,
N., was estimated according to methods described to earlier
publications (8, 13).
Methods of obtaining yields of total dry matter (tops +
crowns + roots), beets, and sucrose have been described (1, 2).
Total N content of dry matter was based on separate determina-
tions for the tops, roots, and crowns and does not include the
estimated N content of fibrous roots as was -done in earlier
publications (1, 2, 3).
Effect of Temperature on N Mineralizationt
The temperature coefficient, Q,,,, of N mineralization is 2 in
the range of 5 to 35C (10), denoting a two -fold change in the
mineralization rate associated with a IOC shift in temperature.
For a given temperature, k is the mineralization rate constant
in the first order expression, -dN/dt = kN (12).
In this study, we used average monthly air temperatures, re-
ported by local climatological stations, as approximate estimates
of soil temperatures for the period 1 April through 30 Septem-
ber. The relation of k (month-1) and temperature use([ in
making our estimates is shown in Fig. I. The carve depicts a
Q,,, of 2 and assumes an average k-value (35C) of 0.18 month-'
(0.045 week-' X 4 weeks). Based on a large number of soils, the
average k for 35C has been reported to be 0.054 ± 0.009. We
arbitrarily chose the lower limit, 0.045 week-' or 0-18 month'
for our estimates in this study. Using this base value, k„e =
0.09, k,,a = 0.045, and k,o = 0.023. Values of k for successive
average monthly air temperatures were interprolated from the
carve (Fig. 1) in estimating temperature effects on N mineraliza-
tion as described below.
Estimating Effects of Soil Water Fluctuations on
N Mineralization
The N mineralization rate is linearly related to the content of
plant -available soil water in the range from field capacity to
wilting percentage (9). Expressed on a relative basis, i.e., setting
inaximitni mineralization rate and optiinal water content equal
to one, the slope of the regression is approximately one for
soils of differing textures and organic matter contents (9).
For each of the sites, irrigation elates and rainfall records were
recorded. This information was used in estimating the average
fraction, W, of available soil water present in the root zone dur-
ing each successive month. In general, we assumed that each
irrigation replenished the available water storage capacity, i.e.,
W = 1. Effects of rainfall were estimated, although this con-
tribution was relatively small, except for occasions in the :First
2 or 3 months of the growing season. The value of W on 1 April
was estimated arbitrarily from cumulative antecedent rainfall

STANFORD ET AL.: NITROGEN UPTAKE BY SUGARBEETS
Table 2. Plant composition and yield data from zero-N plots
of sugarbeet N-rate experiments (Idaho, 1971).
Site Yields N Uptake
no. Soil typet TDM$ hoots Sucrose Sucrose TDM
- metric tons/ha- % kg/ha %
1
Schism sit
24.8
64.9
11.0
17.0
318
1.28
2
Garbutt sit
17.5
49.4
8.4
17.0
172
0.98
3
Purdam sit
27.5
82.3
12.9
15.7
421
1.53
4
Greenleaf sit
20.7
63.7
9.6
15.0
318
1.53
6
Elijah sit
21.8
65.0
10.9
16.8
286
1.31
7
Power sit
18.4
59.0
10.4
17.7
124
0.67
8
(unknown) act
18.6
57.2
9.4
16.4
229
1.23
101
Declo sit
14.2
46.2
8.3
17.9
111
0.78
102
Portneuf sit
11.7
36.9
6.5
17.7
108
0.92
103
Portneuf sit
18.5
57.8
10.4
18.0
159
0.86
104
Portneuf ail
18.5
55.4
10.2
18.4
155
0.83
105
Portneuf stl
18.3
46.4
8.7
18.7
194
1.06
106
Portneuf all
20.4
54.4
9.6
17.8
203
0.99
151
Portneuf sit
18.7
52.8
8.4
16.1
258
1.38
152
Decker 1
18.3
49.3
7.9
16.0
265
1.45
153
Portneuf sit
14.0
35.6
6.0
16.8
191
1.36
155
Minidoka ail
9.6
24.4
3.7
15.2
204
2.13
156
Kimama sit
10.0
29.5
5.6
18.9
82
0.82
157
Portneuf sit
14.6
41.0
6.6
16.1
218
1.50
201
Portneuf sit
15.7
43.2
7.4
17.1
171
1.09
202
Neetey sit
14.5
46.9
8.8
18.9
128
0.89
203
Declo l
7.8
22.8
3.8
16.9
151
1.94
204
Broncho 1
15.9
38.6
6.9
18.0
226
1.42
205
Portneuf sit
16.5
50.3
7.9
15.7
253
1.53
206
Portneuf sit
16.7
48.5
8.4
17.4
265
1.58'
207
Declo sit
19.0
55.6
8.8
15.9
279
1.47
208
Ammon sit
19.6
60.3
9.8
16.3
292
1.49
209
Pancheri sit
19.5
52.2
8.2
15.8
308
1.58
210
Pancheri sit
18.0
51.1
B.9
17.4
285
1.58
211
Bannock 1
16.9
48.7
8.7
17.9
165
0.98
t For detailed classification of soils, see Soil Series of the United States: Their
Taxonomic classification. Soil Conservation Service, USDA. Aug. 1972. Site 1
received 110 kg N/ha in June; site 3 probably received N fertilizer; site 102 had
poor stand and was severely cultivated late in season; site 104 received about 30
kgN/ha in irrigation water in Aug.; sites 153 and 155 Included several adverse un-
identified conditions; site 203 had uneven stand because of root maggots; site
209 received manure after soil sampling. } Harvested root, crown,
and tops (excluding fibrous roots).
Table 3. Plant composition and yield data from zero-N plots
of sugarbeet N-rate experiments (Idaho, I972).
Site
no.
Soil typet
Yields
TDMI Roots
Sucrose Sucrose
N Uptake
TDM
- metric tons/ha-
%
kg/ha
%
P10
Truesdale l
18.6 59.9
9.9
16.5
234
1.26
P20
Baham vfsl
23.0 70.6
12.2
17.3
245
1.05
P21
Power sit
21.8 64.7
11.2
17.4
251
1.15
Pilo
Portneuf sit
20.3 58.3
9.6
16.4
265
1.30
Pill
Portneuf sit
11.7 40.0
6.6
16.5
105
0.90
P160
Declo l
14.9 44.5
7.7
17.4
155
1.04
P220
Portneuf sit
11.8 37.4
6,7
17.9
109
0.93
P222
Pancheri sit
14.5 - 39.9
6.6
16.5
214
1.48
t See first footnote in Table 1. Site P10 had insufficient irrigation in July and
Aug,; site P160 had variable stand.
} Harvested root, crown, and
tops (excluding fibrous
roots).
for January, February, and March. Among sites, the range in
antecedent rainfall was 5 to 14 cm in 1971 and 1972. The cor-
responding initial values of W were considered to be 0.5 and
0.8, and intermediate values of W on 1 April for each site were
estimated by assuming a linear relation between antecedent
rainfall and W within the indicated limits. In the interval be-
tween irrigations, we assumed 70ofo depletion of the available
water present after the preceding irrigation.
The graphic procedure used for estimating W is illustrated
in Fig. 2. Months are delineated by vertical dashed lines. Esti-
mates of water replenishment by irrigation or rainfall (vertical
solid lines) and Nvater depletion by evapotranspiration (diagonal
solid lines) are shown. For each month, W denotes the lower
area divided by the total rectangular area.
305
Table 4. NOa-N present before planting to approximate depth
of rooting, and N mineralization data (kg/ha).
N mineralized
NO3-N (Apr. through Sept.)
Amount N mineralization Adjusted Adjusted for
Site Weather in root potential, No for soil water
no. station Depth zone (45-cm depth) temp. and temp._
cm
1971 Experiments
2
Grandview
150
83
1,022
318
228
4
Kuna
90
200
825
232
164
6
Kuna
45
174
1,067
300
212
7
Emmett
90
114
643
194
135
8
Caldwell
60.
151
915
290
202
101
Hazelton
60
52
800
217
139
103
Hazelton
60
77
859
233
163
105
Jerome
60
117
895
262
186
106
Twin Falls
60
ill
859
237
151
151
Burley
45
159
1,047
269
189
152
Oakley
60
137
1,020
268
183
156
Paul
60
36
742
193
133
157
Burley
45
99
1,045
269
187
201
Minidoka
45
76
614
149
103
202
Minidoka
150
184
668
163
112
204
Aberdeen
45
66
847
206
154
205
Aberdeen
60
136
856
209
148
206
Aberdeen
45
192
899
219
156
207
Aberdeen
60
202
1,043
253
175
208
Aberdeen
150
243
1,020
248
168
211
Aberdeen
45
57
879
217
132
1972 Experiments
P20
Caldwell
60
130
695
216
144
P21
Caldwell
60
130
839
261
169
P110
Hazelton
60
128
912
247
171
Pill
Twin Falls
60
18
787
214
157
P160
Burley
60
66
937
240
162
P220
Aberdeen
60
50
776
186
123
P222
Aberdeen
45
49
952
228
155
Estimating Combined Effects of Temperature
and Soil Water on N Mineralization
Estimates of the cumulative fraction of -N, mineralized dur-
ing the 6-month period, April through September, were based
on monthly averages of air temperature and estimated fraction
of available water storage capacity as indicated above. Estimates
of amounts of N mineralized during each month, AN, were ob-
tained from the rate expression, AN/At = kWN. The factors,
k and W, were explained earlier. Initially, N = No (No is the
N mineralization capacity of the 0- to 45-cm soil layer). For
convenience in calculations, No initially is assigned a value of
100. During the first month, as illustrated in Table 1, kWN =
2.0 (last column). For successive months, No is reduced by the
cumulative amount of N mineralized in previous months. In
the example given (Table 1), the cumulative fraction of No
mineralized during 6 months was 0.209. To estimate N actually
mineralized, this fraction was multiplied by N„ e.g., 643 kg/ha
X 0.209 = 135 kg/ha (site 7, 1971).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Yield of roots, sucrose (percent sucrose X yield of
roots), and N composition of total dry matter • (TDM)
are presented in Tables 2 and 3. As indicated in foot-
notes, results from several of the experiments may
be questionable, although, as shown later, these data
were useful in establishing the optimal N content
of sugarbeets for maximum yield.
In Table 4, locations of climatological stations
closest to the experimental sites are given. Mean air
temperature and rainfall recorded at these stations
were used in adjusting N mineralization values. Also
shown -in Table 4 are the amounts of NO3-N present,
before planting and fertilization, to the indicated

306 ' AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL.- 69, MARCH-APRIL 1977
10 Table 5. Cumulative percentage of potentially mineralizable
mN mineralized during 6 months (Apr. -Sept.) as affected by
average monthly fluctuations in temperature and available
0 8 Y = 3.88X -0.50 r = 0.97 / soil water.
c
5.5 kg N/mT
T
m
a, d 4x
• 1971
„* 0972
° 2 I
� t
Z I L55% N ,
00 0.5 1.0 1.5. 2.0 2.5
Percent N in Total Dry Matter
Fig. 3. N uptake (kg/metric ton of beets) in relation to per-
ce.at N in total dry matter.
depths of sampling. These depths approximate the
root: zone and differ because of a restrictive hardpan
layer of varying depth among sites.
Degree of N Sufficiency as Revealed by'N Uptake
Carter et al. (1), have established that maximum
yield of sucrose or total dry matter is associated with
a total uptake of approximately 5.5 kg of N/ton of
beers. This observation offers a direct means of de-
termining the degree of adequacy of soil derived N
as ft varies among sites (Fig. 3). Here, the data from
all sites (see Tables 2 and 3) were used to depict the
regression of kg N/metric ton on percent N in the
TD:A for 1971 and 1972 zero-N plots. Since the re-
gression coefficients for -1971 and 1972 did not differ
significantly, only the pooled regression is shown in
Fig. 3. As estimated from the pooled regression, 5.5
kg N/metric ton corresponds to 1.55 percent N in the
TDM. This percentage of N, associated with near
maximum yield, is close to the value of 1.60'1 esti-
mated from California results (7). In comparing suc-
rose yields and percent N (Tables 2 and 3), it be-
comes evident,' therefore, that the soil N supplied by
most of the sites was inadequate for maximum yield
of sucrose. Near adequacy of N is indicated for sev-
eral sites, associated with a broad range (6 to 10 met-
ric ton/ha) of attainable sucrose yields. From com-
bined results for 1971 and 1972, the regression of
"percent N in TDM" on "percent sucrose" is o/a
N == 5.2 to 0.24 percent sucrose (r 0.71).
Contribution of Residual Nitrate and Mineralizable
Soil N to Plants
In 1971 the amounts of residual NO3-N estimated
for Sites given in Table 4 ranged from 36 to 243 kg/
ha (average, 127). Corresponding ranges for total N
uptake (Table 2) were 82 to 318 kg/ha (average,
209). Assuming complete recovery, an average 61%)
of total N uptake might be attributed to residual
NO;,. In 1972 (Table 4) root zone NO3-N ranged
from 18 to 130 kg/ha (average, 82) and N uptake
(Table 3) ranged from 105 to 265 kg/ha (average,
192). Here, the average N uptake from NO3 appar-
Site no.
Vo No mineralized, corrected for:
Temp. and
Temp., T soil water, S
1971
2
31.2
22.3
4
28.1
19.8
6
28.1
19.8
7
30.1
20.9
8
31.7
22.0
101
27.2
17.4
103
27.2
18.9
105
29.3
20.8
106
27.5
17.6
151
25.7
18.1
152
26.3
17.9
156
26.2
17.9
157
25.7
17.9
201
24.3
16.7
202
24.3
16.7
204
24.3
18.1
205
24.3
17.3
206
24.3
17.3
207
24.3
16.8
208
24.3
16.5
211 ,
27.2
15.1
- -11972 S:D.t
(2.4)
(1.9)
P20
31.1
20.7
P21
31.1
20.1
Pilo
27.1
18.7
P111
27.2
20.0
P160
25.6
17.3
P220
24.0
15.8
P222
24.0
16.3
S.D.t
(3.0)
(2.0)
t S.D. - Standard deviation.
ently was 43°/0. The remaining N in the crop was
derived largely from soil N mineralized during the
growing season.
The amount of soil N mineralized in the course of
the season is dominantly influenced by temperature
and soil water content, as mentioned earlier. These
effects were estimated as outlined in Table 1, based on
monthly adjustments derived from average air tem-
peratures and estimated average fractions of potential-
ly available soil water present during each month.
The estimated percentages of No mineralized from
April through September are shown in Table 5. In
1971 and 1972, sites 2 through 21, 101 through 160,
and 201 through 222, respectively, occurred in the
western, central, and eastern sections of southern
Idaho bordering the Snake River. Corresponding
average N mineralization percentages (-k standard
deviation) as influenced by temperature alone, were
30.0 ± 1.5 (eastern), 26.8 ± 1.1 (central), and 24.5
± 0.9 (eastern). Thus, differences among geographi-
cal locations account for much of the overall variation
in temperature effects on N mineralization.
In both years, total N uptake was correlated signifi-
cantly with amounts of NO3-N in the root zone (Ta-
ble 6, ryi). In 1971 and 1971-72 combined, N uptake
also was significantly correlated with No and with
estimated N mineralized (Table 6, ry2). Because the
variables, Xi and X2, are not strongly related (col-
umn r12), their independent contributions to Y (114
uptake) can be evaluated with reasonable confidence
using multiple regression analysis. The partial c:or-

STANFORD ET Al.: NITROGEN UPTAKE BY SUGARBEETS
307
Table 6. Regression equations and correlation coefficients depicting relationships of N uptake (Y, kg/ha) to NO.-N in the root
zone (X„ kg/ha) and to X2 (N mineralization potential, No, or estimated N mineralized during the cropping season, kg/ha).
Year
No, of
sites
Regression equation R ry,
Correlation coefficientst
rye r12 ry,•2
ry2,1
A. (X2 - N mineralization potential, No)
1971
21
(1) Y - 0.67 X, + 0.21 X2 - 61.7 0.84** 0.74**
0.64**
0.36
0.71**
0.60**
1972
7
(2) Y - 1.04 X, + 0.19 X2 - 53.1 0.82* 0.80*
0.15
0.18
0.83*
0.43
Years combined
28
(3) Y - 0.72 X, + 0.18 X2 - 37.1 0.82*► 0.75**
0.56**
0.31
0.73**
0.51**
B. (X2 - N mineralized, 6 months, estimated)
1971
21
(4) Y - 0.75 X, + 0.69 X2 + 1.3 0.80** 0.74**
0.49**
0.25
0.73**
0.47**
1972
7
(5) Y - 0.21 X, + 0.90 X2 - 44.4 0.80* 0.80*
0.39
0.18
0,89*
0.50
Years combined
28
(6) Y - 0.75 X, + 0.66 X2 + 10.6 0.80** 0.75**
0.47**
0.28
0.73**
0.42*
* 5`Yo level of significance.
** 1% level.
t R - multiple correlation coefficient; y - dependent variable; subscripts 1 and 2 denote X, and X2, respectively; ry,•2
and ry2,1 denote partial correlation coefficients.
relation coefficient relating N uptake to residual NO3
(17y1.2) and N uptake to No or estimated N mineralized
(ry2.1) for individual and combined years were sig-
nificant except in 1972, which involved only seven
sites. Statistical methods and symbols are those of
Snedecor (6).
Results in Table 6 verify the earlier conclusion
of Carter (1, 2, 3) that both residual NOa-N and
mineralizable N contribute to N uptake by sugar -
beets. It is important to recognize that No consti-
tutes a relative index of N mineralization capacity,
unaffected by climatic factors, while N mineralized
is an estimate of the N actually derived from No un-
der prevailing temperature and water regimes. Hence,
regression equations 4 and 6 (Table 6) are of particu-
lar interest. The reliability of equation 5 is ques-
tionable since it is based on only seven sites involving
a relatively narrow range of No. The regression co-
efficients in equation 4 and 6 indicate similar relative
contributions, to N uptake, of residual NO3 (XI) and
estimated N mineralized during 6 months (X2). A
plot of observed vs. calculated (equation 4) N uptake
values (Fig. 4) indicates several large deviations be-
tween measured and predicted values for the 1971
data.
These deviations are the net result of several com-
bined sources of error such as: estimating residual
NO3 and No from composited soil cores taken from
the entire experimental area rather than individual
check plots; estimating soil temperatures and soil wa-
ter indirectly; and sampling and analytical errors in
estimating the N uptake. The general success of
equation 4 is encouraging considering these large
sources of error.
Although there is no absolute basis for indepen-
dently evaluating the percent recovery (efficiency) of
residual NO3-N and mineralized N, regression coeffi-
cients (equations 4 and 6, Table 6) suggest similar
relative contributions of N from these two sources.
The regressions of N uptake (Y) on combined residual
NO3-N and estimated N mineralized (XI -i- X2) are
as follows:
I971: Y = 0.73 (Xi + X2) - 2.6 (r = 0.80);
1972: Y = 1.09 (Xi + X2) - 6.0 (r = 0.87);
and
350
300
o Y = 0.995 Y + 1.62
r = 0.80
250
'o
0
200
c 150
CL
Z 100 Y=Y
a
> 50
00 50 100 150 200 250
Y, kp/ha:Colculated
Fig. 4. Observed (Y) vs. calculated (Y) •N uptake by sugar -
beets where Y = 0.75X, + 0.69X2 + 1.3 (Xl = residual
NO,-N in root zone; X2 = estimated N mineralized under
prevailing temperature and water regimes).
years combined: Y = 0.73 (Xi + X2) + 5.3
(r = 0.80).
The regression coefficients indicate an overall aver-
age efficiency of about 730/o which approximates the
recovery that might be expected from near optimal
N fertilizer rates applied to sugarbeets (1).
CONCLUSIONS
This study evaluates one approach to estimating
the contributions of mineralizable soil N to the grow-
ing crops in the field. The potentially mineralizable
soil N is first determined in the laboratory, based on
analysis of soils sampled from the portion of the root
zone that contributes to N mineralization. In south-
ern Idaho soils, most of the mineralizable organic N
resides in the upper 30-cm layer, but significant
amounts often occur in the (30 to 45)-cm layer. Hence,
N mineralization potential was measured for each 15-
cm layer to a depth of 45 cm. For each site, estimates
then were made of the amounts of N mineralized per
month, taking into account the average air tempera-
tures and the estimated residual available water sup-
ply present in the root zone.

308 AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 69, MARCH-APRIL 1977
The multiple regression of N uptake (Y) on resi-
dual nitrate (Xi) and on estimated N mineralized dur-
ing 6 months (X2) showed significant contributions
from both sources. Moreover, in the equation (1971
data), Y - 0.75Xt + 0.69X2 + 1.3, similarity of re-
gression coefficients suggests that the relative avail -
abilities of the two sources of soil- N did not differ
appreciably. Thus, we conclude that reasonable suc-
cess was achieved in estimating N mineralized during
the season in view of the approximations used in the
analysis.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Carter, J. N., M. E. Jensen, and S. M. Bosma. 1974. Deter-
mining nitrogen fertilizer needs for sugarbeets from residual
soil nitrate and mineralizable nitrogen. Agron. J. 66:319-323.
2. --., D. T. Westermann, M. E. Jensen, and S. M. Bosma.
1975. Predicitng nitrogen fertilizer needs for sugarbeets from
residual nitrate and mineralizable nitrogen. J. Am. Soc.
Sugar Beet Technol. 18:232-244.
3. and . 1976. Sugarbeet yield and
quality as affected "by nitrogen level. Agron. J. 68.49-55.
4. Giles, J. F., J. O. Reuss, and A. E. Ludwick. 1975. Prediction
of nitrogen status of sugarbeets by soil analysis. Agron. J.
67:454-459.
5. Roberts, S., A. W. Richards, M. G. Day, and W. H. Weaver.
1972. Predicting sugar content and petiole nitrate of sugar -
beets from soil measurements of nitrate and mineralizable
nitrogen. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 17:126-133.
6. Snedecor, G. W. 1956. Statistical Methods, 5th ed. 1owa
State Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa.
7. Stanford, G. 1966. Nitrogen requirements of crops for maxi-
mum yield. p. 237-257. In W. H. McVicker et al. (ed.) Agri-
cultural Anhydrous Ammonia, Technology and Use. Soil
Science Soc. Am., Madison, Wis.
8. =-., J. N. Carter, and S. J. Smith. 1974. Estimates of
potentially mineralizable soil nitrogen based on short-term
incubations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 38:99-102.
9. . and E. Epstein. 1974. Nitrogen mineralization -water
relations in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 38:103-107.
10. --., M. H. Frere, and D. E. Schwaninger. 1973. Tem-
perature coefficient of soil nitrogen mineralization: Soil Sci.
115:321-323.
11. ---., J. O. Legg, and S. J. Smith. 1973. Soil nitrogen
availability evaluations based on nitrogen mineralization po-
tentials of soils and uptake of labeled and unlabeled nitro-
gen by plants. Plant and Soil. 39:113-124.
12. --., and S. J. Smith. 1972. Nitrogen mineralization po-
tentials of soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 56:465-472.

���'� an
x 2 �ro.n : �,so,1 � ..� 6t fie,- : I;-Lers . An
! l PP
Mcajayewe^�-,
108 24. A.I. 099 el. 08 —,.9 Nn'ROGEN
! PLANTS
-► and
ANIMALS
:)
Soil
—
— — — r — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
surface
DECOMPOSABLE
Nutrients ORGANIC RESIDUES
I (10-20%)
` HETEROTROPHIC I
i BIOMASS
CL
;J { Biologically
Microbial products resistant organics
tk' I I
r'
!" SOIL HUMUS
(50-85%)
FIGURE 4.13 Conceptual model of the degradation of plant residues to stable
soil humus. Relative sizes of the microbial and organic biomass components are
h shown. Doran and Smith, SSSA Spec. Publ. 19, p. 55, 1987.
croorganisms and fauna and is responsible for the majority of mineralization and
immobilization reactions that influence availability of N and other nutrients. Soil
humus, the largest component of soil OM, is relatively resistant to microbial degra-
dation; however, it is essential for establishing and maintaining optimum soil phys-
ical conditions important for plant growth.
N Mineralization
N mineralization is the conversion of organic N to NH4+ (Fig. 4.1). Mineraliza
lion of organic N involves two reactions, aminization and ammonifacation, which oc-
cur through the activity of heterotrophic microorganisms. Heterotrophs require
organic C compounds for their source of energy.
Mineralization increases with a rise in temperature and is enhanced by ad-
equate, although not excessive, soil moisture and a good supply of 02. De-
composition proceeds under waterlogged conditions, although at a slower
rate, and is incomplete. Aerobic, and to a lesser extent anaerobic, respiration
releases NH4'-
Soil moisture content regulates the proportions of aerobic and anaerobic mi-
crobial activity (Fig. 4.14). Maximum aerobic activity and N mineralization oc-
cur between 50 and 70% water -filled pore space. Soil temperature strongly in-
fluences microbial activity and N mineralization (Fig. 4.14) . Optimum soil
temperature for microbial activity ranges between 25 and 35'C. The influence
of soil moisture and temperature fluctuations on N mineralization throughout
a growing season is shown in Figure 4.12.

N TRANSFORMATIONS IN SOILS
J
Q 1.0
m
0 0.8
0.6
U 0.4
g ¢ 0.2
W 0.0
(A)
Aerobic ,' , Anaerobic
109
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SOIL WATER -FILLED PORE SPACE SOIL TEMPERATURE (°C)
(0 to 150 mm depth)
FIGURE 4.14 Influence of soil moisture (water -filled pore space) and temperature on rel-
ative microbial activity in soil. Doran and Smith, SSSA Spec. Publ. 19, p.. 60 & 65, 1987.
r�
Y
100
0
W
N 80
J
Q
W
Z 60
z
0
z 40
0
O 20
Ill
TOTAL N IN SOIL (%)
FIGURE 4.15 Refa:donship between organic N mineralized on incubation of
nonlimed samples and total N in soils.
Soil OM contains about 5% N, and during a single growing season 1 to 4% of or-
ganic N is mineralized to inorganic N. As total soil N content increases, the quantity
of N mineralized from soil organic N increases (Fig. 4.15) . Therefore, soil and crop
management strategies that conserve or increase soil OM will result in a greater con-
tribution of mineralizable N to N availability to crops. The quantity of N mineralized
during the growing season can be estimated. For example, if a soil contained 4% OM
and 2 % mineralization occurred, then
4% OM X (2 X 1061b soil/a— 6 in.) X (5% N) X (2% N mineralized) = 80 lb N/a
Thus, each year, 80 lb N/a as NH4+ are mineralized, which enter the soil solution
and can be utilized by plants or other soil N processes (Fig. 4.1) .

Appe"4"K 2e.
comparable relation between p^^„
ist for other homoionic montmoril-
.at measurements of the load line
probe of the structure of water in
lling clays.
REFERENCES
J. and P. F. Low. 1958. The density
Asorbed by lithium-, sodium-, and
bentonite. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
.1963. Theory of the chemical prop.
lil colloidal systems at equilibrium,
14: 417-5h.
3. Thermodynamics. John Wiley &
York, 376 pp.
M The movement and distribution
soils. Geotechnique III: 1-17.
H. and G. H. Bolt: 1972. Water
n soil. Soil Sci: 113: 238-245.
1969. Moisture equilibrium in the
swelling soils. 1. Basic theory. Aust,
. 7: 99-120.
1970. Reply [to Ref. (12)]. Water
Res. 6: 1248-1251.
)66. Agricultural Physics. Pergamon
)rd, 230 pp.
972. Thermodynamics of swelling
systems. Soil Sci.114: 243-249.
P., G. H. Bolt, and R: D. Miller.
ling pressure of montmorillonite.
c. Am. Proc: 21: 495-497.
id-B. P. Warkentin. 1962. Introduc-
il Behavior. Macmillan, New York,
and G., D. Towner.1970. Comments
statics and hydrodynamics in swell.
by J. R. Philip. Water Resources
16-1247.
© 1973 by The Williams & Wilkins Co
TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT OF SOIL NITROGEN
MINERALIZATION
GEORGE STANFORD, M. H. FRERE, AND D. H. SCHWANINGER
Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, Maryland 20705
Received for publication December 28, 1972
,il nitrogen (N) mineralization rate is influ-
d profoundly by temperature . within the
e normally encountered under field ' condi-
�:Since mineralization practically ceases near
freezing point, the temperatures of greatest
est in soil biology generally occur in the range
ero to 35' C. Over a considerable range of
�eratures above 35° C, ammonification con-
es, but nitrification essentially ceases at 45' C
.msen and Kolenbrander 1965). In minerali-
m of soil organic N, the rate -limiting step is
ionification, and, over much of the range from
to 35' C, almost complete conversion of
i,N to_ NOB-N normally occurs in aerated
. Although the temperature dependence of
N mineralization has long been recognized,
quantitative relationship has not been elu-
ted clearly. In general, it has been considered
the decline in mineralization withh decreasing
perature follows an asymptotic curve that
7oaches zero (Harmsen and Kolenbrander
a determining the N mineralization potentials
large number of soils by aerobic incubation at
C, Stanford and Smith (1972) concluded that
�ulative N mineralized -over time conformed to
first -order -equation
log (No — Nt) = log No — k/2.303(t)
vhich No = potentially mineralizable N; N t =
nineralized in time, t; and k = the miaeraliza-
i rate constant. At 35 C, mineralization rate
not differ significantly among most of the
s, which suggested that the soils did not differ
ireciably in the forms of. organic N contribut-
to N mineralization. The importance of deter -
ling the specific effects of varying temperature
the mineralization rate constant for different
)es of soil prompted the studies herein re -
MATERIALS AND METHODS
. soils for which the N mineralization po-
No , and mineralization rate constants,
Vol. 116, No. 4
Printed in U.S.A.
k, had previously been determined. at 35' C
(Stanford and Smith 1972) were selected for
studies' on temperature -mineralization relation-
ships. These soils and data referred to above are
listed in Table 1. Detailed information on chem-
ical properties and previous management of the
soils is published elsewhere (Stanford and Smith
1972) .
Duplicate .30-g samples of soil, mixed with
equal volumes of silica sand, were placed in
leaching tubes. As described previously (Stan-
ford and Smith 1972), mineral N initially present
was removed by leaching with an aqueous solu-
tion of 0.01 M CaC12, followed by minus-N nutri-
ent solution and suction (60 cm Hg) to remove
excess solution. Three series of samples were in-
cubated at 5, 15, and 25' C for 2 weeks, and
samples again were treated as described above.
Intermittent incubations and leachings were
carried• out for four 2-week and four 4-week
periods (cumulative, 24 weeks).
Valdes of k for 5, 15, and 25° C were calculated
from. the linear regression of log (No — Nt) on t
(N. and Art expressed as ppm N in air-dry soil;
t weeks of incubation) (Stanford and Smith
1972). The value of k (weeks 1) is obtained from
the slope of the regression, k/2.303 (Stanford and
Smith 1972). In making these calculations, it was
assumed that the N mineralization potential, No ,
is unaffected by temperature. Moreover, it Ap-
pears logical that the most reliable estimate of
N,,is obtained by incubating soils at 35' C, since,
as shown later, the proportion of No mineralized
in a given time at this temperature greatly exceeds
that at the lower temperatures.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In Table 1 are shown the calculated mineraliza-
tion rate constants derived from amounts of N
mineralized in consecutive incubations over a
period of 24 to 30 weeks at the indicated tern-.
peratures. Average values 'of k for:11 soils, given
on the bottom line of the table, indicate that k
321

322 STANFORD, FRERE, AND SCHWANINGt&
TABLE 1
Nitrogen mineralization potential, No, and nitrogen mineralization
rate constant, k,
for different soil
and varying soil temperatures
Soil designations
Nitrogen
mineral-
izationpotential,
Mineralization rate constant, k (weeks-)
and source
5° C
W C
25° C
35' C
No. Ppm
.u1YyI;
Palouse sil (Wash.)
150
0.015 f .006
0.022 f .007
0.047 :d= .007
0.064 -l- .011, "1
Sprole sil (Mont.)
259
0.007 f .003
0.012 f .004
0.027 f .004
0.056 =L- .004i?� '
Parshall fsl (N. Dak.)
136
0.013 f' .003
0.015 f .007
0.030 f .006
0.050 .009
Holtville so, (Calif.)
289
0.008 f .002
0.012 � .003
0.022 � .004
0.052 �
Hagerstown sil (Pa.)
202
0.013 =i= .006
0.021 =L .010
0.038 f .012
.0041'-P�
0.063 f .012r:�.;w:
Pullman sil (Tex.)
250
0.008 =i= .002
0.013 f .004
0.032 f .005
0.044 f . 008
Minidoka sil (Idaho)
279
0.005 f .001
0.012 f .003
0.024 t .006
N• '�y
0.071
Cecil sl (Ga.)
168
0.008 f .004
0,010 f .006
0.019 =1= .009
0.052 .013 j ?
Rago sil (Colo.)
138
0.009 f .002
0.013 t .005
0.028 =b .006
0.044 f .00fr'
Aastad cl (Minn.)
290
0.007 f .004
0.011 =j= .008
0.028 f .006
0.057 t .007;nr
Grenada sil (Miss.)
271
0.011 f .005
0.013 f .008
0.026 =L: .011
0.056 + .0Y`4?
Average; 11 soils
-
0.009 =L .003
0.014 f .006
0.029 f .007
0.055 =i= .00 .3i
ti •t��i,u�:_
1 sil = silt loam; fsl = fine sand
loam; se = silt clay; sl = sand loam; cl = clay loam.
Y Y Y, Y , Y
changes approximately twofold for each 10-degree
change in temperature.
A more rigorous analysis of -the relation be-
tween temperature and mineralization rate is de-
picted in Fig. 1, using a modification of the
Arrhenius equation (Bray and White 1957) :
log k = log A - BIT (A is a constant, B is the
slope of the regression, and ,T is the absolute
temperature). The relation of log k to 11T in
Fig. 1 represents the pooled regression for 11 soils
derived from values of k and temperatures in
Table 1 (Snedecor 1956). Pooling the results in a
common regression equation is justified because
regression coefficients, B-; do not differ signifi-
cantly among soils (P < 0.01). The resulting
equation is log k = 6.16 - 2299 (1/T), from
which calculated values of k for 5, 15, 25, and
35° C are 0.008, 0.015, 0.027, and 0.049 weeks71.
Qto values for 5 to 15, 15 to 25, and 25 to 35' C,
respectively, are 1.9, 1.8, and 1.8. Because of the
very low nitrogen mineralization rate at 5°C,
estimates of k are less reliable than at higher
temperatures. The regression equation calculated
after omitting 5-degree data, log • k = 7.71 -
2758 (11T)., gave values of k for 5, 15, 25, and
35' C, respectively, of 0.006, 0.014, 0.028, and
0.056, and corresponding Qic values of 2.3, 2, and
2. Over the temperature range normally encoun-
tered in the field, therefore, we conclude that Q10 ,
the "temperature coefficient" of nitrogen min-
eralization (Bray and White 1957), is app
mately 2.
The foregoing results provide a basis for.
mating amounts of soil N mineralized u
.1.0
-1.5
ca 1= k= 6.16 22
o
.2.0
log k = 7.71 - 2758 1/T
-2.5 . . . .
3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
I/T X 103
FrG. 1. The relation between log k and tb
ciprocal of absolute temperature. The regre
lines obtained by pooling the regressions of
on 11T for 11 soils are identified as follows:
broken line is fitted to all points; the solid 1
fitted to 3 points, representing 35, 25, and 15°
TEMPERI
fluctuating temperatures. Given
daily or weekly field temperatures, c
values of k may be calculated using
equation. Amounts of N mineralize
week, kN, are based on the first -ore
(Stanford and Smith 1972) -dN/di
convenient to calculate, first of all,
of No mineralized by specified do
N = No = 100%; in succeeding
N = 100 minus the fraction of 1
mineralized. Therefore, actual ar.
mineralized during a specified perio(
ing season is represented by the pi
fraction of No mineralized. Proced
mating No have been described
Smith 1972).
SUMMARY
Mineralization of soil organic ni
several consecutive incubations at
35' C was measured on 11 soils. Ba
lative amounts of nitrogen minerali
cessive incubations, N t (t = wee

TGER= �"+' TEMPERATURE AND SOIL N MINERALIZATION 323
rate constant, k, for different soils
:onstant, k (weeks-1)
25' C 35° C
0.047 =i= .007 0.064 + .011
0.027 t .004 0.056 f .004
0.030 t .006 0.050 f .009
0.022 f .004• 0.052 f .004
0.038 f .012 0.063 f .012
0.032 =i= .005 0.044 f .008
0.024 =i= .006 0.071 =i= .011
0.019 =L .009 0.052 f .013
0.028 =1= .006 0.044 f .006
0.028 t .006 0.057 f .007
0.026 =b .011 0.056 + .014
0.029 a: .007 0.055 f .009
iy loam; cl = clay loam.
-ay and White 1957), is approxi-
ig results provide a basis for esti-
its of soil N mineralized under
log k= 6.16 - 2299 1/T
k = 7.71 - 2758 1/T
3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
1/TX 103
elation between log k and the re-
iolute temperature. The regression
by pooling the regressions of log k
soils are identified as follows: The
atted to all points; the solid line is
ts, representing 35, 25, and 15° C.
tuating temperatures. Given the average
y or weekly field temperatures, corresponding
ies of k may be calculated. using the Arrhenius
ation. Amounts of N mineralized per day or
k, kN, are based on the first -order expression
nford and Smith 1972) -Oldt = M It is
venient to calculate, first of all, the fractions
!Vo mineralized by specified dates. Initially
No = 100%; in succeeding time periods,
100 minus the fraction of No previously
ieralized. Therefore, actual amounts of N
eralized during a specified period of the grow -
'season is represented by the product; No X
;lion of No mineralized. Procedures for esti-
img No have been described (Stanford and
ith 1972).
SUMMARY
ieralization of soil organic nitrogen during
I consecutive incubations at 5, 15, 25, and
was measured on 11 soils. Based on cumu-
amounts of nitrogen mineralized after sue -
incubations, Nt (t = weeks), and soil
nitrogen mineralization potentials, No , the min-
eralization rate constant, k, for each temperature
and soil was derived from the first -order equation,
log (A. - Nt) = log No - WZ303 (t). The linear
regressions of log k on 1/T (T = absolute tem-
perature) did not differ significantly among soils.
Based on the common (pooled) regression for 11
soils, a Q,o of approximately 2 was obtained.
R,>1NERENCES
Bray, H. B. and K. White. 1957. Kinetics and
thermodynamics in biochemistry. Academic
Press, Inc.,'New York, pp.137-139.
Harmsen, G. W. and G. J. Kolenbrander. 1965.
Soil inorganic nitrogen. In Soil nitrogen, No.
10., W. V. Bartholomew and F. E. Clark (eds.),
American Society of Agronomy, Madison,
Wisconsin.
Snedecor, G. W. 1956. Statistical methods, 5th ed.,
Iowa State College Press, Ames; Iowa.
Stanford, G. and S. J. Smith. 1972. Nitrogen min-
eralization potentials of soils. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. Proc. 36: 465-472.

AQ penjd x 27F.
TRANSFORMATIONS IN SOILS
Q
1.0
0o
0
0.8
U
0.6
U
0.4
Q
0.2
w
0.0
Or
(A)
110
Aerobic Anaerobic o g \
0.6Afw
1.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SOIL WATER -FILLED PORE SPACE SOIL TEMPERATURE (°C)
(0 to 150 mm depth)
CGUR.E 4.14 Influence of soil moist -Lire (water -filled pore space) and temperature on rel
xve microbial activity in soil. Doran and Smith, SSSA Spec. Publ. 19, p. 60. & 65, 1987.

Appendix 2g. Proposed Annual Plant Availabl
Zone
'Limiting
Mapped Soil
Unit
Proposed
Irrigation rate
(Oct. -Feb.)
Proposed PAN.
Application
`
Ccess/Deficient
PAN
Winter.Rye)
Winter Rye).
lermuda+R e
in
Ib/ac
Ib/ac
1
Wa ram
23.11.
48
i -43
2
Wa ram
17.86
37
-97
3
Wa ram
16:03
37
-95
4
Noboco
141- _
3.
-305
5
Noboco
1.39
3
-305
6
Noboco
12.11
25 -
-186
7
Noboco
8.37
—17 :: -
-225
8
Wa ram
10.95
23
-169
9
Noboco
6.2:
- 13 :
, -247
10
Wa ram
24.06
50
-33
11
Wa ram
22.62
47 . _
-48
12
Wa ram
22.2
46
-52
13
Wa ram
20.72
43. -.
-68
14
Wa ram
22.45
46
-50
15
Noboco
20.62
42.
-98
16
Wa ram
21:01
43.
-65
17
Noboco
1.53
3
-302
18
Tarboro
24.3., :
50
-3
18A
Tarboro
24:3:
50
-3

t
• Ap end'lx 3C.--
Noon Car.tra Sae UnNersty is a ta'e• Department of Crop Science
5=1 Unri_zrj and a corxauent i.s: :6t:or;
cf Tha Unrvss3y of Novi Camini a
College of Agriculture 2-id Lite Sciences
Campus Box 7620
Raleigh. NC.27E95-762-
919.515.2647
919.515.7959 (fax)
Memorandum
TO: North Carolina Certified Technical Specialists
FROM: Dr. Jim Green, Chairman
NC State University Forage roduction Workgroup
v
DATE: June 29, 1998
SUBJECT: Crop Management Practices for Select Forages
Used. -in Waste Management .
The following is a four -page summary of suggestions for management practices. for some
forage crops that can -be used in waste management plans. These suggestions are a result of
discussions within the NC State University Forage Production «'orkgroup, a group comprised
Of NC State faculty and MRCS agenc}• personnel with expertise with the crops.
There are limited documented research responses of some of these practices on the soils
and environments where these crops are currently being grown.' The ForaR: Production
Workoroup has taken the available data and used the combined experiences any- realistic
estimates of key* people to come up with suggestions that will allow farmers to i:::o-txorate
these crops and practices into waSW management - plans: As data . become av2:lahle to
substantiate or refute . these suggestions, the Forage Production Workgrour .t ri6 mal;e
appropriate changes. '
Bermuda Overseeded 111th Cereal Rre and Annual Ryegrass
Cut7entiy two types of "ryegrass" are being used for winter overseedino in ftei :
animal waste managemen:. Cerea'. rve is a winter annual smallgrain tha: look, �: -:: ,:- 10
wheat, barley and oats. Annual negracs is a winter annual grass that Tools rr:::_: tali
fescue. Both of these trasses. when growing �v during the inter on bermud_ s. ._ ... ::a.•:
significant impact or: subseouen; bermuda vields. In effect, the total yiel_J; t: -,:re
growing the combination of bermuda With these winter annuals will usually ylel� i~•.: ►� : l
tons more per acre than barmuda growing alone, for the year. Therefore, 'ihe iota:: -- of
PAN /acre for the year is about l OJ lbs more than.for bermuda alone. Although
annual ryegrass are suitablecrops foe overseeditig, the management of the crop; _':::,•:en:
and thus practices implemented are &pendent onthe crop selected.

Nar.1 Carol= Stme US.'iersty 6 a Ln!_ Department of Crop Seignce
enrrersty are a eers;.¢er.; its : ee t
of Tne Urvrers.y cf Nr= car:Bra
•College of Agricul:ure and Life Sciercv
Campus Box 762_
Raiei,^i. NC 27695-762C--
919.515.2647.
919.515.7959 (fax,
Cereal Rye
The cereal rye should be planted by October 15 to provide the best opponunit)- to get winter
growth. The most consistent stands ate obtained from drilling . rye into ,short (less .than .3
inches'taIl) bermudagrass sod. If drilling is not possible, the seeds may be broadcast on shop
bermuda sod followed by a light cultivation with a disc or tillage implement. The seeding rate
for broadcast planting of seeds should be 1.5 times the rate for drilled seeds. The last
application of animal waste is to be applied to the bermuda prior to August 31. - An
application of 50 lbs/acre of Plant Available N (PAN) maybe applied betweer September 15
and October 30. -An additional 50 lbs/acre of•PAN' may be applied in February -March. If rve
growth is harvested on time and does -not significantly shade the bermuda. PA_'� rates for the
subsequent bermuda crop are based on realistic yields of bermuda. A harvest is required prior
to heading or April 7, which ever comes first. This is necessary to .minimize the potential for
shading bermuda and reducing its yields. The PAN rate for grazed systems «•ith .bermuda
overseeded with cereal rye must bereduced in accordance with .NRCS Technical
Standard #590.. .
Annual Ryegrass'
Annual ryegrass should be planted by October 15 to provide the best opportunity t.O,zet winter
growth. The most consis:err stands are obtained from drilling rye�rass into s;,;)n,, 1 h. than 3
inches tall) bermudagrass sod. If drill•in2 js not possible, the seeds may bz b: oad.::;: on shot
bermuda sod followed by a light cultivation with a disc or tillage implement: Tr,-.- s,: d::'+_ rate
for broadcast plantin_ of seeds should be �1.5 dimes the rate fo. drilled se, ;• Tr.-• last -
application of anima ... aste is to be applied to the bermuda: pr io: to • • An
application of 50 lbs/acre of (PAIN) may be applied betwi een September 1 a:.:M ;=�•- 30
An additional 50 lbs!a_re of PAS may be applied in February -Minch. I.d �l 1�. is
applied Ed-the-rye�-'�p_rass i^ -April-May.-the ! -
.-the -PAIN-rate -for- the bermuda tnt:c: h..,r; ,:,:_ ; ,: },�
corresponding amour.: This is necessary because ryegrass growth du . -'in_:- A,,:. Kill
reduce bermuda yiell; xnt shorten the time bermuda can fuliv utilrzt the
required by headrnz o: 1�- ! -' "'' r'
. i 7, wNch ever comes first to t?rev- +� �n: s...._::::• :tnC
bermuda during Apri:.`.Is% period To favor the pr d of th,' =
ests oft o uctio nc.:-.._.. .... ..tiaal
hary yegrass ui3: be required when the.rvegra ss-c�nop� r�aci:�: , t:. .
The'PA.\ rate fo: yaaz:d «•stem; with bermuda overseeded with ann•=-. -
reduced in accord_^.:. j-h NRCS Technical Standard T590.

Appendix 4. Proposed Annual Phosphorus (P205) Application, Rates and Potential
Crop-P Removal Rates.
Limiting
Mapped
Soil Unit
Proposed
P205
Application
Potential
Crop
Removal
Proposed
P205
Application
Potential,
Crop
Removal
Total Annual
P205
Application
Total Annual
P205 Potential
Crop Removal
(Rye)
(Rye)
Bermuda
Bermuda
Bermuda+R a
Bermuda+R e
Zone-----------------
—---------- —------------------ ---Ib/ac------------------ ---------------------------------------
1
Wa ram
83
13.
144
68
227
81
2
Wa ram
64.
13
118
68
182
81 .
3
Wa ram
65
13
118
68
183
81
4
Noboco
5
20
29
80
34
100
5
Noboco
5
20
28
80•
33
100
6
Noboco
"43
20
98
80
132
100
7
Noboco
30
20
69
80
99
100
8
Wa ram
39
13 -
83
68
122
81
9 '
Noboco.
22
20
58
80
81
100
10
Wa ram
86
13
149,
68
235
81
11
Wa ram
81
13
142
68
223
81
12
•Wa ram
80
13
140 - '.
68
219
81
13
Wa ram
74
13
132
68
206
81
14
Wa "ram
81
13
141
68
221
81
15
Noboco
74
20
132
80
206
100
16
Wa ram
75
13
.134
68
209
81
17
Noboco
.5
20-
30
80
36
100
18
Tarboro
87
12
119
80
206
92
18A
Tarboro
87
12
119
80
206
92

Appendix 5.- Proposed Nutrient and Heavy Metal Application Rates.
Zone
Ca
Mg.
Cr
Ni
Zn
Pb -
Cr Site Life
Ni Site
'Life
Zn Site
. Life'
Pb Site
Life
-------------- -------=-----------Ib/ac/ r------------------------------
-------------- -------------- years------- ------- --------
1
473
252
0.13
0.31
3.61
5.16 -
"22345
1204
690
52
2
378
201
0.10
0.25
2.89
4.13
27940
1505
863
65
3
381
203
0.10
0.25
2.91
4.16
27715
1493
856
64
4
70
37
0.02 _
0.05
0.53
.0.76
151001
8135
4664
= 350
5
69
37
0.02
0.05
0.53.
0.75
152794
8232
4719
.-354
6
275
14.6
0.08-
0.18
2.10
3.00
38479
2073
1188
89
7
- 207 -
110
0.06
0.14
1.58
2.26
51023
2749
1576
118
8
254.
135 '
0.07
0.17
1.94
2.77
.41663
'2245
1287
96
9
168
89
0.05
0.11
1.28
1.83
62939
3391
1944
146
10
490.
261-
0.13
0.32
3.74
5.35.
21562
1162
666
50
11
464
247
0.12.
0.30
3.54
5.06'
22773
1227
703
53
.12
457 1
243
0.12
0.30
3.49
4.98
23145 _
1247
715
54
13
430..-.
229
0.11 -
0.28
3.28
4.69
_
24589
1325
759
57
14 .
461.
245
0.12
0.30
3.52
5:03
22924
1235
708 -
53
15
428
228
0.11
0.28
3.27 '
4.67
24692
1330
763
57
16
435
231
0.12
0.29
3.32
4.75
24290.
1309
750
56
17
74
39
' 0.03
0.05
0.57
0.81
142773
7692
4409
330
18
- 430
229
0.14
0.28
3.28'
4.69
24598
1325
.760
57

Soil .Env ronmen-ta:l Consult, Ots, 1'A
11010 Raven Ridge Road ; Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] •: Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
RECEIVED / NENR / DINQ
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION
JAN 2 8 2009 December 16, 2008
Eagle Resources, Inc.
Attn: - Eric Lappala
4005 Lake Springs Court
Raleigh, NC'27613
Re: Agronomist°Report for Proposed Industrial Waste to be applied at -the Allens, Inc. -
Plant #7—SampsoniCounty, NC. S&EC Project #10,977.s3.
,I. Introduction
Soil & Environmental -Consultants; PA,.(S&EC) has completed a preliminary agronomist -
report, for the -site referenced. above. This report addresses the requirements set forth by
15A-NCAC 02T:0504. (i)-,concerning the agronomic management plan for, surface
wastewater disposal; where spray irrigation -fields are used as final wastewater receiver
-sites. The purpose of this report is to, perform an agronomic evaluation which determines
the feasibility of using portions.of a 360-ac tract for additional spray field area as a
receiver site for the future expansion of the canning facility. As part of the study, fields
were analyzed to determine agronomic limitations based on hypothetical hydraulic
loading rates of the proposed wastewater source.
Industrial wastewater generated from the Allens, Inc.- Plant #7 canning facility is
currently applied to .100.3 acres of land located south, of the canning facility. Wastewater
is pre-treated by passing through'a series of sediment ation.and storage basins before final
land application. In essence, wastewater flows out of the plant, through a-hydrosieve - .
(separates solids from liquids) and into 3-acre settling lagoon where final sedimentation
takes place. •From this sedimentation lagoon, wastewater flows into a 27-acre storage
lagoon. wher& it awaits final land application to fescue -grass and Coastal bermudagrass by
spray irrigation. As currently permitted, this site can apply 4154000 gallons of treated
effluent per day to the existing spray fields. Since Allen Canning Company wishes to
increase production capacity of the facility, an,additional360-ac tract of land is currently
being considered for wastewater'disposal. The,proposed 360 'ac parcel is. located
approximately 2 miles southwest of the existing canning facility on Rowan Road.
The new spray field configuration currently under consideration can be found in the
hydrogeological report completed by Eagle.Resources. This scenario considers using a
new drainage system in -the eastern portion of the site to lower the water table, allowing
Charlotte Office: Greensboro Office:
236 UPhillip Court, Suite C _ 3817-E Lawndale Drive
Concord, NC 28025 Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]

for additional spray,area.- As;proposed, irrigation rates vary by zone;` ranging from 12.60 -
';Ao 75.75 inches/year,"accommodating a total'dail"y wastewater flow up -Jo 104,162 gal/day.
Monthly and annual Hydraulic loading rates by individual zones 'can..be found in the
hydrogeological reportcompleted-by Eagle Resources. S&EC used these proposed
hydraulic loading rates "as-'abasis.-for, determining nutrient and heavy. riietal'loading .on
individual'zones: -
'II. -Soil Sampling Methods and'P<roposed' Cropping Scheme -
r The soils of the proposed'application sites' are described in the soil scientist's report dated
February 14, 2008 by S&EC: ',Refer•to this report,and associaied"maps'for additional soil
background -information.: Based on the•soils,evaluation, the upland soils on this tract: .
-withiri'the proposed application'areas are most similar to the Norfolk;'Wagram;-
- Goldsboro; Noboco,-Tarboro and Kalmia soil -series: After identificatiori to the series -
level; the'soils-were further categorized into map units based on similar morphological'
-characteristics and/or high frequency of association. The identified map units were.
1-)-Norfolk/Wagram4'2) GoldsboroYNoboco-arid 3),Tarboro/Kalrnia.•
For agronomic sampling'purposes;-proposed.spray,areas.were' divided'into two major
regions, based;on historical cropping conditions. '.Bas&d;on the soil scientist and -
hydrogeological evaluation;'approximately 79.58-ac'ofthe entire tract contains areas
deemed usable for spray irrigation. The, eastern half of the tract has been recently: logged
with.the intention of converting the area - into -a hay field. This spray area is.referred to as
_ the""hay field" area. The western half of the tract has "been rotated between corn, -tobacco
and other row crops in recent years: T This area is referred to as 'the."ag field" area.
Composite.samples of both areas("ag-field"Nand "hay field.') were created by collecting
random,cores from the upper. 12 inches of soil -throughout the two areas- Soil fertility ;
sample results: are'report in Appendix 1, and' summarized -in Table 1. -.In the, soil fertility .1
analysis'report; F=1 refers to the c`omposite:sample collected from the "ag field"whereas
W-2 refers to the `.`hay field",composite sample: Soils were ;not analyzed'for nitrogen due
to the dynamic nature of `soil N. - Likewise; soils were not analyzed. fo'r heavy metals
given. that historical crop management does.not ;indicate -any prior heavy metal'loading.--
Tahle,,L, Soil Fertility Results,S`ummary for.Selected`:Nutrients%Parameters.
l
-Sample'-,,-
ID".';
Sample
area
H
P
K
Ma,-
Ca
FlNa
SO4
Zn;
-
Mn
Fe
Cu_
------- ------------ --------.----
---------------- -------- ---------------
=--1---9F-1
a field.
5.4.
136
-82
,50
260
' 14
11:
4.9
•6
155.-:
.
W-2
ha field
3r
_
O,
C-
7,
1.92,
0.34.7
=In order to maximize'wastewater disposal from a nutrient=use standpoint ;,,Coastal .
bermudagrass has been proposed'as'the final receiver crop on the, spray areas. ,Coastal ;
bermudagrass,_ahybrid berrriudagrass variety, is a warm season perennial that grows
quickly iri the'summer months :and'has a high capacity to .assimilate plant nutrients,' h
-making it well=suited for wastewater disposal -'applications. - Since bermudagrass goes
dormant in the late, fall,:wintertime wastewater application-will'be-accommodated by -

over -seeding the bermudagrass:,with. winter annual'rye, Grass will be -cut. -baled and
removed off -site on an " as needed". basis.
IV: Wastewater Analysis and Nitrogen Loading' =
Laboratory analysis of wastewater `samples wasprovided,to'S&EC for the following'
dates: '3/31/2007 8/3/2007, 1'2/10/07, 3/1.9/08,.7/7/08 and 1.1-/17/08. According to
facility.officials, samples were collected from a'discharge pipe that transfers wastewater
from�the 27=ac-storage lagoon,to the existing spray fields: '
Nitrogen is -the plant nutrient. that is' -typically the-inost,limiting to wastewater application:
A suriimary, of wastewater-N fractions is provided in Table I -Bused on the data -
provided, the combined nitrate (NO3--N) and nitrite (NO2;-N) nitrogen has averaged,
approximately 0.36mg NO3-=N + NO2 -N /L: Sample results indicate an average
ammonium concentration of 15.80`mg NH4 ,-N /L. Wastewater organic-N was calculated •
by,subtracting the wastewater ammonium concentration.from the reported Total -Kjeldahl,
Nitrogen values.
Table 2: Suinhiary of N-Fractions from Allens, Inc.= Plant #7 Wastewater Analysis. '
Location' -,Date
"
TKN..
.. NH3
N:03 '
'_ NO2
Inor -N
-Or -N "
„ ...
. m /L
m /L
m /L` .
' " m IL
m /L-
m %L
Allen's'.
` ,3/2/2007 .
43.70
24.60.'
0.12 - _
; `• ,0.06,
24.72 :
19.10 .
Al len's
11 /16/2007
` 56.00
1.82 ,
0.00 , "•
'0.00 '
1.82
54,A_8
Alien's "
7/1`1/2007-
' 63.00
37.50
0.00 _
_ 0.00'
37.50 - '
2q1,0'
Allen's.
3/3/2008.
'56:60-
_ 6.33 ,.
0.00
0.06 ,
6.33
5
.Allen's
7/,7/2008. '
47' M
24,20.
0..10
0.M-
24..30
2
Alien's''
11/17/2008`
' 22.10."
0.34,; .
_,'.1.91
0.00
"2.25
-2
Average
48.12'
15.80'
-- -0.36
'' 0.00
16.15
32.32
As indicated by the wastewater'analysis, N- fractions have, historically -changed in a
_ seasonal�manner. Samples taken in March and July tend to be equally distributed
between'organic-IV and inorganic N; whereas the November samples .suggest that the vast
majority of the wastewater-N,persists as organic-N..; Most likely, atmospheric and
solution temperature play a dominate role in the, extent_to which- organic--N'mineralizes.
Because,the wastewater=N fractions wary by season;. S&EC-'separated the summer°and `
Winter', Wastewater analysis for N'loading calculations (Tables.3 and 4).. y ` .

Table 3 - Spring and Summer Wastewater=N'Fraction's., -
Location
Date
-`TKN
NH3
NO3
NO2
Inor` -N
Or =N
y'J
ni /L
m %L"-
.m /L
m /L
m /L
: m `l
- Allen`s =
, 3/2/2007,
--43.70
-24.60"
0.12-
0.00
24.72
19.16
Allen's-
7/11/2007.
63.00 ,:
37.50 --
0.00
0.00
37.50
25M ..
Allen's `.
3/3/2008
56.60 -
6.33-
0 00 ' -
. 0.00
6.33 ..
50.27
Allen's
7/7/2008
-.-47.30 :
�24.2.0 "
_ ,.0.1.0
- 0.00 -
. `„2,4.30
23.10'
Average
52:65 ,
23.16 ._
0.06 `
0.00,
23.21-
. 29.49
Table 4. Winter�Wastewater-N,.Fractions.
Location
Date-
TKN
NH3 '
NO3
' NO2 -
Inor `-N
Or -N
- ,
m /L
m %L- ..
:.rn '/L.'
m /L -
m `/L
m /L "
Allen's ;
:11/16/2007
56.60
1'82
,.M0
0.00
1.82
54.18
.'Allen's
11/17/2008 ,
22.107--
0.34.' `.
1'91 =:.'
0.00 ,"
2.25
21.76
.Average
39.05.
1.08 /
0.96 ' -
`0.06-,
2.04
-37.97
Plant available nitrogen (PAN)-ap'plication.rates _were.determined for the spray areas
-based on,seasonal wastewater analysis -and hypothetical Hydraulic loading rates. Since
the wastewaterwill'be applied to the proposed areas through a sprinkler spray system,
- some ammonium -nitrogen (NH4' -N) will probably be lost via ammonia volatilization:
S&EC assumed an ammonia volatilization coefficient of 0:5 for the present analysis.
According to the was tewater-analysis, a significant proportion of wastewater-N is present
as organic-N._ Since the wastewater. lagoon. is considered:a facultative anaerobic system,
an N, mineralization coefficient of 0.35 was used for determining PAN'for the months, of
' -March=September. , Using these estimates, the wastewater` plant available nitrogen (PAN)
_for wastewater applied dpring.the.period.of March -September was calculated as follows:
0.06 mgNO3"=N + NO2 -N7L +'0.5(23.16,_mg NH4+-N/L) + 0.35(29A9 mg organic N/L)
"21.96 mg PAN/L: -
-An N-mineralization coefficient of 0.17 was used for calculating, PAN for the months 'of
October through February. The N-mineralization rate -was reduced to, 0.17 to. account for
the ,relatively. lower -microbial activity that occurs during the ,cooler months. of the: winter.
r `THe USDA S"ampson County Soil Survey. repoits that the average'daily;temperature for _.
Clinton, NC in the months of October_ through. February is 48.90 F. -$lady and Weil
(1999).have'suggested that surface.soil.temperature typically varies. with atmospheric
temperature. Doran and Smith Q 987) suggest that soil microbial -activity is heavily
dependent.on soil temperature _and proposed `that the relative microbial activity would'be
roughl'y,80% lower at a temperature of 49° F compared town optimal soil"temperature of
86° F. 'Using these estimates; the'wastewater'plant available nitrogen (°PAN)-for',the
period of October'to Februarywas_calculated as, follows: ; 0.96 mg.NO3--N +-NO2_=N /L`+
`.0.5(1:08-mg NH4 ,-N/L).+-0':17(37.97mg organi'eNlL-),`= 9:09 mg,PAN/L.

- Although not readil' available m'the wintertime; wastewater or amc-N will be
= Y g
inineralized�by soil'- as,temperatures increase in the springtime For
summertime PAN calculations-'S&EC'assumed that an additional 17% o,f'winter applied
organic N would become plant`available in the'suminertime, iriaddition to any PAN
appliedin the summer.', This is; represented: as: follows
Summer applied,N , (0 06 mg NO3 N + N. 2 N 7L +.0.5(23 16 mg,NH4+=N/L) +t
0.35(29 49 mg organic N/L) 2196 mg PANfL'
' :Winter, residual N+ (0 96 mg;NO3-=N + NO2 N /L + Q.5 (1 '08 mg' NH4+-N/L)
0 17(37 97 mg organic N/L) 795 mg PAN/L
%'p.:mPAN+.'PAN ldN+winter-AWN 96 L9Total Summer ap
mg 29 91: mg PAN/L'°,
r
Hypothetical PAN application-rates.were determined forindividual irrigation zones and .
by -seasonal application -using the estimated PAN values :(Appendix 2).' In terms of
.nutrient management, tl e'nrtrogen,application window for bermud4ass begins on
,Maf.ch. l st aiid extends until September-30th,'while the application window= for annual rye-.'
starts _on October'l s. and: ends ,on March 3.l st'':(NCSU Nutrient Management Manual) -
Recommended annual PAN application rates' based on soil type,and Realistic Yield
Expectations,(RYE) for proposed crops are,also rr cluded-to provide a 'c'ompanson,, \ ;
between''ecommended and proposed application'rates." PAN'recomme— ndations we`re
collected'froin the North Carolina Nutrient Management,Workgroup: lgcated at ; "
r : http.%/nutrrents.soil.ncsu:edu/, 'erg.. Since°the PAN recommendatroris yaryaccording to
grass crop, fype, PAN;applicat'ion rates are also xeported according to seasonal
applications' %.
,As previously noted, the`soils m=the application areas are split among - the
Norfolk/Wagrarn,'Goldsboro/Noboco and'Tarboro/Kalm'a series. RYE data,forNorfolk,
-�
and Goldsboro soils were,'used in all. calculations since.they,make up_tl e'majority of the "
spray_ar`eas..` Ba"sed on the RYE for;hybrid (Coastal) berriudagrass grown on Norfolk
' f ; sorls;`up-to 3001bs PAN/accould be applied during the growing season, with:an:.F
1 additional application of 50 lb?6r over seeded winter rye ' The proposed
irrigation rate ranges :from 12.60=75.75, inches per year : Tle proposed application rates'
would supply 57-2'82--1b PAN/ac;during the'Coastal berinudagrass growing season
, (March lst-September'30th) and'4 50'lb PANfac7duringille_winter rye'growrrig season _
(October 1 St Febi uary'28`h) Accordingly, all: of'the'proposed PAN, application rates ;
would be Below the recommended PAN rates for Coastal bermudagras's and winter rye
production:
r`3oil Samo e.Results and, Nutrient/Heaw.Metal I:oading ;
- Based -on the: results of sampled"soils;''the average surface'. CEC of the ." field" and "hay ,
- field ";is 18. and 2:2.:meq%100g, respectively,` Although tl es&'V41ues'are'corisidered,"
relatively, low from a total -nutrient "Bolding capacity, standpoint; adding ,lime at the '
',- -

=. recommended rates 0.8-1 3f ton/ac) should increase the`pH dependant CEC aril ensure":
y
nutrient, availhbility'for optimum plant uptake..
As rioted -in the,soil fertility. test; results, current soil =test hos horus
varied' , p p
__(P)levels,
,,,
' :.'according to past management. 'Soil .test P" fij " e';"hay yf eld":is categorized'as
accordmg;to the North Carolina index value, whereas the sampled "ag field"'showed an,
`-
index rating of "very high" An index value' of "very high" indicates'that there will be no.
crop yield response, withadditional,P applications.' Although applying additional `;
;
phosphorus -to .the `.`ag f eld' area does not pose any agronomic issues tithe high soil: P
_. levels may pose an:,•envir'onmental .concern if the, site.is.suliiect to soilerosion. However,
' ! considering'the proposed cover crop;and s beneficial erosion,control:properttes'as well
as proposed stream and,waterway buffer's, additional wastewater-P. application should not_
. _. .,
-pose.a l igh riskof P loss. , SoiFerosion and`phosphorus-loss potential from each spray,
'-
= zone'could lie evaluated:using'the North ;Carolina Phosphorus Loss Assessment Tool a ;
ELAT "Low'.';'or "Medium?, PLAT-r`atin s would confirm that additional P loading'
( ) gs, _ g ,
",would'. not present,a lim tationto the proposed"wastewater-appl cation,:
4 Several other assumptions were also made in; determining P _loading on the proposed
spray.: fields:.Wastewater .total. phosphorusF (TP) values; as summarized in Table 5; are
.,
composed -.of both organic,and�.inorganic forms of P 'Since much of the wastewater: P is
probably:in an organic form, -not all.of.the P: wh be immediately plant"available: `°In'
_
addition, a sigtuficant ponion'of the inorganic wastewater-P .will, form insoluble, Fe and
Al precipitates and/or become" strongly, adsorbed to amorphous soil Fe ;minerals once land -
applied `Gi en'these assumptions, `SB EC estimates ihat:60%o of the apphed-P will '
-become plant a, alIable.(NCDA, 1999). Wastewater anal' -indicates, an average
concentrn.53 g toal`P/LUsizifesestimae;s,Ahe-total plant'`available•imt
0:66os
:phosphuf thwewaterislculateds follows1153,mgTotal-P/L x 2.29x
T.`propedalication-ratw1bP205/ac ` = l M5 'mgP'O/L: p2.
= st , th
during'the, Coastafbermudagrass growing season (March 1 September 30-,,) and 6-99 lb
` `PZQS/ac ;during-the°winter iye'growing-season (October— O February 28th):" Annual
wastewater`-P205 application -rates and estimated crop`P205.remoyal rates for all zones.are,
_
" . Bound- Appendix 3 ' i Crop phosphorus removal rate estimates are based on RYE ydata "
collected from the North-Carolina"NutrientManagement Workgroup located at:'.,", �,
y
http:%/nutrients s6il.ncsu:edu/ ie - l
' Table 5 Summary,i)f-sel6ct6d Wastewater Nutrients/Parameters from Allens, Inc:
-
_ —`Plant #7
-
Location,
Date:
T,P " "
K.
Ca
M "�
-Na
m /L ' •.
�n /L
3/2/2007, ,
; 11.6 :
n/a
_' -31.00 .
j -16.00,
. 229.0. -
-Allen's = '
'11/16/2007'
y�-•7.82
n/a
36:00:
18 06
170.0.
1'6:1
n/a
3.4:Q0.:,_,
20.00`.
-492.0`
Alien's:'
3/3/2008. •'
" 9.58
n/a ,. ;
32.00
,_-15:,70,
,157.0 _
Alien's
7/7/2008
14,4
:, n/a :
28.00
19.3'6 ''',
21 Q 0
%Allen's '
•1;1%1.7/MQ8
9;...
'69
-'n/a :.
...37.00 .
:16.30_ '
1,70.Q.,,,
Avera e.
4.
'11:53
n/a
17.56
-238.00
f
,

Potassium (K) was not measured as part of the wastewater'analysis. "Soil test results
suggest that the "-ag field" has a"moderate" level of. soil K, while the "hay field.' has a'
\"very low" -1-evel •of soil K:_ In the case of both spray areas; additional ,K should be
supplied with:a: commercial fertilizer in order'4 maintain optimum K levels for
bermudagrass production (Appendix,1). Having -sufficient K in the'soil is essential for
preventing winter die -off of Coastal- .bermudagrass when over -seeded with winter rye:-
Calcium (Ca) and -magnesium, (Mg), two secondary plant nutrients, were also present.in
the sampled wastewater.' Annual"wastewater'Ca and Mg application rates and estimated
for.all zones and for both options are found'in'Appendix 4.• At the proposed loading
_ rates, Ca would be applied, at -a rate of 94-566 -lb/ac/yr. '•Since -soil test results indicate
"low"soil CaJevels in both the "ag- field" and the "hay field", the addition of wastewater
Ca will -he beneficial to the crop, growing environment.' Soil test results show."medium"
levels of soil Mg in both .sampled ,fields. Based'on applicatiori-rates, 50-301 lb Mg/ac/yr
will be applied. Similar to Ca, the application of Mg will also be beneficial for ;
maintaining optimal growing conditions. ;
t According to the soil fertility analysis; the". average sodium (Na) level of the "ag field"
soils was 14 mg/kg soil (0.00006 meq/100.cm3.); while the "hay field" soils averaged" 12
- mg/kg soil (0.00005 meq/100 cm3). Sodium'levels above 15% of the CEC can be `
detrimental- to crop production and to the soil.structure in;the surface horizons. The soil
fertility lab results indicate, that neither of these soils meets ihisthreshold level of sodium.
The average sodium concentration of the wastewater samples is 238 mg Na/L, with the
` ~ calculated sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) equal �to-8.3. Waters.with SAR values in -this
-range, have a moderate risk of developing sodium related ptoblems-in clay soils, but have
a low risk of sodium -build-up n°sandy soil's (U.S, Salinity Laboratory, `1.954). Since the
proposed wastewater will be applied to soils .with a �loaniy sand surface "texture, there is a
low risk of developing sodic soils with continuous irrigation.. Annual soil samples should
'be'taken.to monitor sodium status in the soil. :
Heavy metal loading -and associated plant tokicities are not expected to be an agronomic-
concern'based on theproposed wastewater application. Jable 6 summarizes heavy metal
content'of the sampled wastewater. Appendix 4 contains proposed'annual heavy metal -
loading rates for zinc, nickel, chromium; and'lead based on proposed application rates.
Cadmium, mercury arsenic did not register above lab, detection"1irnits and were not -
included in site life calculations. , Lead proved 'to be the most limiting heavy metal,. with a
site life ranging from 43-260 years, depending on zone irrigation rate.. However, the -
average lead concentration was highly skewed by the wastewater sample dated-7/7/08..
` Future wastewater samples may,demonstrate an average lead concentration much lower
.than• the average reported here

.Table 6:- Summary'Of Wastewater Heavy Metal Constituents.
Location
Date
As
-Cd
= Cr
Pb
'Hg,
Zn
m /L;
m' /L
m /L .
m /L
m /L
m /L f
m /L
Alien's
3/2/2007
0-_
0
0: ,
0
0
0.1'3,
0.42
Allen's =
-1-1/1.6/2007
0
0,',
} --'0
0.
0
0 ..
0.67
Allen's
7/11/2007
0 _
- -'-0
0--
0
0
0 -
0.00
Allen's `
3/3/2008
0
0-
0
0
0
0'
0.17
Allen's -.
-7/7/2008-
0
0
0 _
2.16.
0 -
0
0.14
Allen's.'..11/1-7/200,8
0-
0_ `
U5.
0 .
0
0 ",
0.11
Average -
0.00
0:00'
.0.01
0.36
0.00:
0.02
0.25
Crop Management Considerations .
The optimal time for establishing Coastal -bermudagrass using dormant sprigs is February
through March., Dormant sprigging is the most economical method of establishing large
areas of bermudagrass, although.. sprigs will not begin'to grow until late March. When
Planting -in -the winter months, sprigs,should be covered with up to 2 inches of soil to
protect them from frost. Live sprigs (stolons with green tops) -can be planted in the late
spring after the threat of frost has past Although bermudagrass _can be established using:
live sprigs until, lat e -summer, early planting dates will ensure strong rhizome
(underground sfem) growth; essential for wintertime survival. Only high quality sources
-of sprigs certified by North Carolina Crop Improvement Association should, be used, for .
establishment.
Coastal, bermudagrass-should be cut every 4 to 'S,weeks or when it grows to 12-15 inches
tall. Once bermudagrass is overseeded with winter rye in .the fall; grass -should be cut to a •
height of"3 inches or less to encourage rye establishment. - In the early spring,
_approximately two weeks before bermudagrass is expected to turn green, mowing height
should be reduced to'3/ to 1-inch. to allow bermudagrass to recovery and out -compete the
winter rye. Since bermudagrass is very intolerant to shade, late spring cutting of winter
'rye should,be avoided as it may severely limit berriiudagrass recovery.
V.: -Conclusions 1
'Based on wastewater analysis and proposed irrigation rates, none of the�PAN application
rates. would `exceed the recommended PAN rates for -the Coastal-bermudagrass/winter'rye
crop rotation.. The proposed application rates would supply 57-282 lb PAN/ac during the
Coastal bermudagrass growingseaSon (March lst-September30th) and'4-50 lb PAN/ac
during the winter rye,growing season (October lst-February 281h)
Although soil test phosphorus levels in the "ag field" area are considered "Very High",, - r
the propensity for P, loss -should be considered very low given the proposed cropping

system combined with stream;and waterway buffers. As, proposed,, additional
wastewater-P-:applicatiori,should noi\pose a high'risk'of P-loss: Although not used in.this
analysis, the North Carolina Phosphorus Loss Assessment Tool (PLAT) could .be .used to
model'P •loss. from the site to confirm a low, risk:of
Based,on the,previous soil test results, -some of -the fields are currently low -in''soil K and
-could benefit from additional fertilizer inputs.: In some individual fields,proposed .waste
applied,Kwill not supply all ofilie-recommended K and�additional-Kshould be•supplied
with w'commercial fertilizer., Having 'sufficient "kin the .soil is: essential for preventing
= winter die -off ofCoastal .bermudagrass when over-see'ded'with annual -rye.
Soil, sairiples `demonstrated that soil''heavy metal- concentrations appear to be present at .
background levels. _Heavy metal loading and plantaoxicities are not expected to be _an. `.
agronomic concern.based on the'wastewater,�dnalysis:.On1y:Ni,-Zn,-Cr and Pb metals
registered above`detection limits in the analyzed wastewater samples. -'-Lead provedto-be
the most limiting heavy metal, •with',a site Iife-of 43-260. years, varying by spray field
This report, iscusses the general" agronomiCconditions of theAllens, Inc. —Plant #7 :
canning.facility and does not ,constitute "or imply any approval or granting of a permit as
: needed by -the client from the State. As a professional consulting firm, S&EC is-hired'for
its, professionaLopinion in these matters. Tlie rules governing'wastewater,treatment.and
application (interpreted and governed by local.and: state agencies) are evolving
constantly, and in many cases, affected by;the opinions'of individuals employed --by the
1 governing agencies:
If.y_ou have•, any questions or require additional,information theriplease give'us a Call. '
Mark Allen �.40
J► '�$ ,;s+• i �.
_N_ C.-Licensed Soil Scientist > b27

References '
1. North Carolina Nutrient Management Workgroup. 2003. Realistic yields and nitrogen
application factors for North Carolina.crops. http://nutrients.soil.nesu.edu/3jelds/
North Carolina State University, North Carolina Department of Agriculture'and
Consumer Services, North Carolina -Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Raleigh NC.,
2. NCSU Nutrient Management Manual. North Carolina Cooperative'Extension.
Reference Section 59.
1- Tisdale,.S.L., et. al. 1999. Soil Fertility and -Fertilizers: An Introduction to Nutrient
Managemert.. Oh Edition, Prentice -Hall; Inc. New -Jersey.
4: Waste Coefficients Worksheet., 1999.. North Carolina Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services Agronomic Division.

Appendix 1. Soil Analysis Report
Report Number:
R08113-0013 A&L Eastern Laboratories, Inc.
Account Number: 7621 Whitepine Road Richmond, Virginia 23237 [phone]
45479 Fax No. [phone] Email:,[e-mail]
Send To: SOIL &`ENVIRONMENTAL Grower:. CANNERY
CONSULTANTS PA 1097733
11010 RAVEN RIDGE RD
RALEIGH; NC 27614
SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
Page: 1 Date Received: 4/22/200a. Date of Analysis: 4/23/2008 Date of Report: 4/24/200&
Submitted By: MARK ALLEN
Analytical Method(s):
_.: :.:.. n",.,
f -.. . r.✓.: .a..
:.,: .}
': :, ,
,':+. a ,. :, w n..-:x..F
..._:.. _, ..'F. . _::. y.. ,. , ..
,, ..H..,
Or anic:"Matter�•<
. ., ,..: , r '✓: :.. ^,. ',�!
,�-. :. -,M1r: ).... .t'er ,,.,, -..✓.{ n.;«. {F'�,. fb? ..,
r. tt;......., . n.v,
r„ :,�,,,.Ph�s horus� �,., ��
.:a�: :i.
,.. ... ✓. .,.
} :P.otasslum,.-
s.v'f
.Ma neslum.
',* r tiw d..
� �Calc�um �
.;i^
v ,t �" 4
�j: Soditiin �
-<.'. .:f
.Y
m w, . ,.., .
':ti: ''
_ F
H n
{ :_ F
Y y
sAc d
,Y �,� ' h','.
� E C.•���
ti. r �^-;., v
/o,: ENR z
:, ....
Available
i . .; ,:: ., ,,.,
,,-. , e ervez...
R s
, c s ':... a :..:
.K :.�,�:
i ...,,: - r u �?.
MG rr
J,
,/ i,x . ....
• ., ,�
.�..) ,,. ;... a..
... k,. 1. F*•
f' f'..
. :
,.. 1
,a, .,,,,:s,
.�' .,.:-� n� fR
.. .,
<.--1.., .....: i.: ..
SYU.t . ,. � . ,
,F.'.n ..,. ,..:.,
,>r.�+ ,s.:<
j-..-... ..,,
,', ,�, ,.:n.n:-. ,Y,Y ✓
,, _�; ,Y:.
t { ^.rr... �'°' -''
„r
.., '. v ry�,.1
, ,
,".}} 5 ..+,"§t:. -t
'•Rat
-i':
� .. x ..� . '.ti
:. e.<t! .0
�
rY7 "
v, k1
,.r. , ,�;� �r�e
., ::� ,.. �.,
,.,.
:�'x � :•s
:G, :�,•': -' ��
P m_ Rae
+, , R to
m:.' ate.
, m "� Rate'
;,,
.� H .M
;•Index
= e /dt) a.
; :me ' 00
F-1
7337
1.3 .12 L
136 VH
82 M
50 M
260' L
14 L
5.4 ,.
6.9
0.8
2.8
NC=113 '
NC=42
W-2
7338
2..3 92 - L
26 L
28 VL
35 M
190 L
12 VL
4.7 '
6.8
1.4
2.7
NC=22
NC=14
Sam ln
•AL::.���
,« w:v„
,...�..., , �.��.._,.
,-..
K 3 M ��r-,,aCa._w ,,.Na, H
t N
SO -S ,
ZN
MN: �
�a FE �
CU?`
sB,; � ,,
,. _-..
_. „
0 0
.NO3
P.:
-.z
,.:
.,
_
;..: ..
wGL _;
tt .,..,,,-.{,,, -.
,_ ,,, ,
,..,,� �,..a,:ut,
40 ,s,:. .0 ,,...,{ ... •..,i'0 ..
/o. • >a lo= �� r 4 /0 s, {,/o * � 1-/o4ds
..•..,h.� �..'�...a.,, ..r.,w.. �.,, ,.,�"-.�-.. <�,,.,
..a.
rn ••vl3ate
PP, '.',rr,
.w..,
�� m �; Rate
r,.-f?R .,s•,
.A..I„
m, m ,:Rate
�..RP,.,.r
m �=Rate ��
PR. ,.,� .v,PP
m :`:Rate
.�+:f.
�,,.
-'�� m..�cRate
,-P,P: r,
xPR�u,-..s,.Ra�.
t
:ins c ,xRa srt
_/ m: ..te�pR
�..xRat '�
-��.
to
ePRO?.r,tR?_..
F-1
7.6
15.0
46.9
2.2
28.3
:
11 , - ;, L.
4.9 H
6 L
155 VH
1.9 H
0.2 VL
0.08 VL
NC=28
NC=1231
NC=38
NC=95
W-2
2.6
10.7
X.8
1.9
50.0.
14 L
0.9 VL .
7 L-
192 VH
0.3 VL
0.1 'VL
0.07 V.L1
1
NC=35
NC=23
NC=44
NC=15
-
NC-FIV
This report applies to the sample(s) tested. Samples are retained a
'Values on this report represent the plant available nutrients in the soil. Explanation of symbols: % (percent), ppm (parts permillion), Ibs/A (pounds per acre), maximum of thirty days after testing. Soil Analysis prepared by:
A & L EASTERN LABORATORIES, INC.,
Rating after each value: VL (Very Low), L (Low), M (Medium), H (High), VH (Very High). ms/cm (milli -mhos per centimeter), meq/100g (milli -equivalent per.100,grams).. �
ENR - Estimated Nitrogen Release. C.E.C. - Cation Exchange Capacity. Conversions: ppm x 2 = Ibs/A, Soluble. Salts ms/cm x 640 = ppm: by:
Paul Chu, Ph.D.
N(

Report Number:
Rum �
A&L Eastern Laboratories Inc.
AcccoountuntNNumber:
45479 7621 Whitepine Road Richmond, Virginia [phone]
Fax No. (804) 271-64.46 Email: [e-mail]
To: SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL For: CANNERY Copy To: MARK ALLEN
CONSULTANTS PA 10977.S3
11010 RAVEN RIDGE RD
RALEIGH, NC 27614
Date Received:, 04/22/2008
Date Reported: 04/24/2008
SOIL FERTILITY. RECOMMENDATIONS
Page: 1
... } ..1. ,, y.
�,:
"`%- ,.. 4 i.. ... ., ..: .,..
� ��
,.. ...�.
�_
f r(,.,-. +......_4.
. :..
. .....
en:
. w:
s h ate:.
p-.,.i.. s 4•
Ss:Ro
i ... ,
..Y
f
,T.
� t A-.
#^l .
�Ma a se.:,
r:l`:
:: ron i
�;Co er =
/� _
=..•Boron,._
...U...,, ,,. ,.�..,
nn
7 �_,
�..
6.. ...-. c... i.
� 4 a,. t : , , ,:
�... ..:.'
�,. ,, ,...,•Nitro
o.
+..-
GFh
J,C"...
.��_�
�:-
.. , t.. ..a..
.. .,... ,...rw..+..
a..
.�.. .- ...
k .s
.
:.'.^
�rl,_
.}h:•r
.. :- Ytl.
..Y;.: � '�i
I
5.,4Y N}. ...»:....
.._._. k..,.
.rt.... .,
. ..
_.:... t:.-
'..'-
:et. r..<3
:�,
•.
,.
.......
.l 1
.Y
, u .u, r ty.
A >. . s �,
.,. . , .�,,.
��� ... ,..�
r� Ib/A . �,
. Ib1A .,:�
a � r,IblA.
fblA .,
..,Ib/A ,..,,
, blA . , �
,:..�, Ib/A ..,
Ib/A xk
. fblA,. •,
G, Ib1A..< ,
F-1
Bermuda
5 tons
0.8
65
0
290
20
20
0.0
**
0
0
0.0
W-2
Bermuda
5 tons
1.3
65
120
420
35
20
0.0
"*
0
1
0.0
ALE-R,c
Samples F-1, W-2: Apply dolomitic lime to raise pH .and improve the magnesium level.
Samples F-1, W-2: If dolomitic lime is not used, apply required magnesium with magnesium oxide. Epsom Salts, K-Mag or Sul-PO-Mag.
Samples F-1, W-2: Apply additional 65 pounds of nitrogen after every cutting and harvest'of hay.
Samples F-1, W-2: Apply N on warm season grass only after late spring when grass starts growing.
Samples F-1, W-2: The recommended potash is the total pounds/acre needed to achieve the specified yield goal. Apply 1/2 or 1/3 (100-150
pounds) of the total at the first application. in spring or fall. Application of the remaining should be determined by the yield achieved after the
first cutting and the moisture condition. If in drought condition and yield is low the following applications should be reduced or eliminated.
Samples F-1, W-2: Manganese level is low in soil, however, grass or legume need only small amounts of manganese to grow well and
seldom show deficient in manganese. If the plant is used for animal feed, manganese supplement may be added to prevent nutrient
imbalance.
"The recommendations are based on research data and experience, but NO GUARANTEE or WARRANTY expressed or implied, concerning crop performance is made." _
C
Our reports and letters are for the exclusive and confidential use of our clients, and may not be reproduced in whole or in part„ nor may any reference be made to the
work, the results, or the company in any advertising, news release, or other public announcements without obtaining our prior written authorization. Copyright 1977. aul Chu, Ph. D.

Appendix 2. Proposed Annual Plant Available
Proposed al Annual Annual
Irrigation rate. Proposed PAN Recom PAN recommended Excess/Deficient
(Oct.-Feb.l ' Awliication I p plication PAN PAN
Winter R e)
(Winter R e).
taint
Zone
in
lb/ac
Ib
1
23.9
43
2
18.73
34
3
18.97
34
4
1.85
3,
5
1.76
3
6
13.47
24
7
.9.5
17
8
12.3
22
9
6.72
12
10
24.78
45
ti
lb/ac
Ib/ac
350
-56
350
-110
350
-107
62
350
-
60
350
-
186
350
-
145
350
174
350
-
116
350
-
303
350
11
21.95
40
" -
W-
-' "
12
23.02
41
285
267
289
264
274
64
332
350
-65
350
-83
13
21.32
38
350
-61
14
23.39
42
350
-86
15
21.02
38
350
-76
16
21.97
40
350
-28E
17
2.05
4
350
-18
18
27.53
50

-Appendix 3. Proposed Annual 'Phosphorus (P205) Application Rates and Potential
Crop-P Removal Rates.'
Proposed .
P205.
Application
-Potential
Crop
Removal,
Proposed
P205
Application. ...
Potential-
Crop-
Removal
Total -Annual.
P205
Application
Total Annual
P205 Potential
Crop, Removal
(Rye)
(Rye)
Bermuda
Bermuda
Bermuda+R e'
Bermuda+R e
_Zone
Ib/ac.
1 ,
86 _
20
154
80
240
100,
2
67
20"
128
80
195-
'100
3 -
68-
20
129
80,
198
100
4 -
` 7, -
20
-40
'80
47
100
5
6
20
39
80 `'
45
100
6:
48
.20
102
80
1.50
-100
7
34
20
81
80 , -
115
.100
8
44'
20
96
80
140
100
9
24
20
67,
80
91
100
10
89
'20
159,
80
248
100
11
79
20
145
80
223
100
12-
83
„-20
150
80
233
-100
13
76
20
142
­80
"218
100
14
84;
20
152
80
236
100
15
75".-•
20
140
'80
215
100
16
-.79 - ,
20
145
80-
224
100
17
T ,
20
42
80
49
100
18
": 99
20 '
.173,,_
80.
272 - '
100

Appendix 4. Proposed 'Nutrient and Heavy Metal Application Ra tes.
,. .
Zone
Ca
: M
Cr
Ni
Zn
Pb
Cr Site
Life
Ni Site,,
Life
Zn Site
Life
Pb Site,
Life
------------------=------------- Ib/ac/yr----- =--------= -----------------
1
500•-
266
0.13 ,
0.33
3.82
5.46
21133
1139
653
- 49,
2
407
216
0.10
0.27
3.11.
4.44
25975
' 1.399 ..
802
60
3
4.11
219:
0.10
0.27
3,14
4.49
•25697
1384
794
59
4
97 -
52
0.02
0.06
0.74
1.06
108837
5864
3361
252
5
94 -
50
0.02
0.06 .
0.72
1.03
112292
6050 .
3468
260
6
312 .
166 -
0.08
0.21
2'.38-
3.41 '
33857
.1824
1'046
78
7
241
128
0.06
0.16
1.84 �"
. ' 2.62
43954
2368
1357.
102
8
291�
155-
0.07
-0.19
2.22
3.18
-36307
1956
-1121
84
9.
190 "
1.01
0.05
'0.12
1.45
2.08
55551
2993
1716
129
10
516
275
0.13
0.34
3.94 ' •
5.63
'-20482
1103'
633
47
11
465
247
0.12
0.31
3.55
5.08
22722
1224 -
702 ' _
53
12
484
258
0.1.2\
0.32
3.70
5'.29
21824
1176 - ;
674
51
13
454
241,
0.11
0.30
3.47 ..
4-.95
23286
1255
719
54 ,
14 '
491 -
-26.1
0.12
0.32.
3.75
5.36
21519
1159
665
50
_
15
448
238 :
0.11
0.29
3.42 • .
" 4.89 -
. 23581
1270
728
55
16
1.7
466
102
248
54.
0.12
0.03
0.31
0.07,
3.55
0.78
5.08
.1.11
22703.
103882
1223 -.
5597
701
3208
53
240
' 18
566
301
0.14
0.37
4.32 . ;
6.18
18678
1006
577 -
43

Contents
Contents.......................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures
"'
List of Tables
"'
Introduction......................................................................................................................................
I
Purpose........................................................................................................................................
1
Disclaimer...................................................................................................................................
2
Approach..........................................................................................................................................2
ExistingInformation Review...........................................................................................................4
Topographic Information Sources...............................................................................................
4
Stream and Drainage Features....................................................................................................
4
SoilsData Sources......................................................................................................................
4
ClimaticData Sources.................................................................................................................
4
Hydrogeology Data Sources.......................................................................................................
4
Project Geographic Information System and Database.; .................................................................
5
FieldInvestigation...........................................................................................................................5
Identification of Wells within 500 Feet of Application Areas ....................................................
5
Monitoring Wells, Piezometers, and Test Wells........................................................................
6
Water Level Measurements........................................................................................................
8
Hydraulic Conductivity Tests...................................................................................................
10
PumpingTests.......................................................................................................................
10
KsatMeasurements...............................................................................................................
10
ModelConstruction.......................................................................................................................12
ConceptualModel.....................................................................................................................
12
HydrostratigraphicUnits.......................................................................................................
12
Hydraulic Heads for Model Calibration...............................................................................
14
Rechargeand Discharge.......................................................................................................
14
SimulationModel ................. .....................................................................:...............................
15
ModelGrid............................................................................................................................
15
BoundaryConditions............................................................................................................
15
ModelCalibration.....................................................................................................................
16
Single Layer Approximation Test..........................................................................................
16
Three Layer Model Calibration
HydraulicMounding Analysis.......................................................................................................19
SensitivityAnalysis ............................................. :.........................................................................
22
Compliance Monitoring Wells......................................................................................................23
Background Groundwater Quality.................................................................................................23
Conclusions....................................................................................................................................24
Attachment A. —Cone Penetrometer (CPT) Logs from S&ME ....................................................26
Attachment B.—Boring and Monitoring Well Logs from S&ME................................................27
Attachment.C—Completion Reports and Logs for Compliance Wells (R-5 from S&ME)..........
29
Attachment D.—Pumping Test Data from S&ME ........................................................................30
Attachment E.—Laboratory Reports for Compliance Monitoring Wells for Samples Taken
Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc ii

List of Figures
Figure 1.-- Location Map ..................................
Figure 2.-- Log of town of Clinton Well .(U35G) from the North Carolina Visual3
. ................ .............
Hy
Framework............................... .................. .............. :.............................................. 13
Figure 3.--Results:.of Model Calibration to April 2006 Water Levels in Monitoring Wells and
Piezometers.............................. .............................................. ..`................................................. 19
Figure 4.-- Simulated Watertable Elevation and One -Foot Depth to Water for the Mounding.
Analysis.................... .......................................... ............ ........ .................................................. 21
List of Tables
Table 1.-- Water Wells Within 500 Feet of Sprayfield Boundaries . ...........
.............:..................... 6
Table 2.-- Construction Details for Piezometers, Monitoring Wells and. Test'Wells...................... 7
Table 3.-- Construction Detail Summary for Compliance Wells ...........................................:....... 8
Table 4.-=Water Level Measurements in.Piezometers and Monitoring Wells........... ...................... 9
Table 5.-7Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity Tests ........................... ........... ................................ 11
Table 6. -- Summary of Hydrostratigraphic Units Used for Groundwater Model ........................ 14
Table 7.-- Results of manual and PEST Calibration for the Single Layer Approximation Model.
.. ........ ...................... ..... .............. 17
Table 8.—Calibration Statistics for the Three -Layer 1VIode1.........:.......:...................................... 17.
Table 9.=- Observed and Computed Water Levels for the.Best-Fit Three -Layer Model........::.... 18
Table 10.-- Sensitivity of Modeled Watertable Depth to Hydraulic Conductivity by Zone for
Values of Hydraulic Conductivity Less than the Calibrated.Value of 12: ft/day.................... 22
Table .11.-- Sensitivity of Area in Each Zone with Watertable Depth Greater than One Foot to
Hydraulic Conductivity Values -Greater than the Calibrated Value of ............'... 22
Table 12.-- Background Groundwater Chemistry........................................................................:............ 23
Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 111

a?(k 1Re5afm5
Introduction
This report dbcuments the results of the hydrogeologic investigation in support of the application
for a modification to non -discharge permit WQ0004268 for additional sprayfield areas for the
disposal of treated wastewater. This permit modification does not request additional wastewater
treatment capacity above the present limit of 415,000 gallons per day and consequently will not
require the permitting and construction -of additional wet -weather storage capacity. This project
was performed by Eagle Resources, P.A. under contract to Allens Inc.
The area that includes the additional sprayfield capacity is referred to as the Rowan Road site
which comprises approximately 353 acres lying south of Rowan Road and east of State Road
1933, approximately 3.6 miles west-southwest of Turkey, NC (Figure 1). The topographic relief
at the site is flat, and elevations range from approximately 80 to 135 feet. All elevations in this
report are reported relative to the 1988 North American Vertical Datum (NAVD88).
Purpose
This hydrogeologic study has been completed in support of modifications to the existing non -
discharge permit as required by 15A NCAC 2T, and conforms to the criteria outlined in 15A
NCAC 2T .0504(e). The purpose of the hydrogeologic study is to provide the necessary
information and analyses to document the occurrence and movement of groundwater beneath and
in the vicinity of the planned sprayfield(s), to determine the maximum area with suitable soils
and maximum irrigation rates that can be applied while maintaining the minimum depth to the
Seasonal High Water Table of one foot, and to evaluate and recommend compliance
groundwater monitoring locations for the sprayfields. In particular, 15A NCAC 2T .0504 (e)
Irequires the following information to be included:
(1) A description of the regional and local geology and hydrogeology;
(2) A description, based on field observations of the site, of the site topographic setting, streams,
springs and other groundwater discharge features, drainage features, existing and abandoned
wells, rock outcrops, and other features that may affect the movement of the contaminant plume
and treated wastewater;
(3) Changes in lithology underlying the site;
(4) Depth to bedrock and occurrence of any rock outcrops;
(5) The hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity of the affected aquifer(s);
(6) Depth to the seasonal high water table;
(7) A discussion of the relationship between the affected aquifers of the site to local and regional
geologic and hydrogeologic features;
Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc

(8) A discussion of the groundwater flow regime ,of the site prior,to operation of the proposed
facility and post operation of the proposed facility focusing on the relationship of the system to
groundwater receptors, groundwater discharge features, and groundwater flow media; and
(9) If the SHWT• is within six feet of the, surface, a mounding analysis to predict the level of the
SHWT after wastewater application.
Disclaimer
Some analyses contained in this report relied upon data and information.provided by others.
'Eagle Resourceg P.A. makes no representations regarding the completeness, accuracy and
reliability of that data and information.
Approach ...
The analyses documented in this report resulted from gathering and assessing existing sources of -
information as well as from field investigations of geologic,- hydrologic, and soils conditions.
The following tasks were, implemented in the approach:
• Review of existing data and information" and basemap preparation
• Construction of project Geographic Information System and Database. .
• Field Investigation and Testing _
• Inventory of private water supply wells in ,the vicinity of the study area
• Data Analysis and Modeling
• Report preparation
1
i J
Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 2

r, - -1
EXPLANATION
= Property Boundary
MEIrrigation Areas
-0e
"A
�x
SR
0)
1907
S 1919;
V.
S'R 1341
pryAllens
IncPIant#7
—7t
N�
4
W
4
a
�P.
R". 1924
7--
N
�0
W E
Nq'
S
0
3
4
e-V
%
Basemap: ESR1 World Streetmap
Ad,=Gy-i Sound Sckmco-ftrmation -e Sogmfwz
41105 Lake Springs Court, Raleigh, NC 27613
WWWeaQle�-Urces-com
Rowan Road Irrigation Location Map
Allens, Inc Plant #7m Turkey, NC
Figure
Date Promect Number Approved:
jj1jn/qnnA isall 1 r r I —nal,
3

i f "(
Existing Information Review
A review of existing regional and site -specific topographic, hydrologic, climatic, soils, geologic,
and hydrogeologic, information was conducted to serve as the framework for site specific field
studies and analyses.
Topographic Information Sources
• USGS 7.5 minute U.S.G.S: topographic map, Turkey, NC quadranglez;
• Two -foot topographic elevation contours developed from LIDAR Data for Sampson,
County by, the North Carolina Department of Transportation website3;
• Site topographic contours provided by McConnell Engineering 4; and ;
• Locations of monitoring wells, test wells, and irrigation areas provided by Allens, Inc
from previous investigations'°'
Stream :and Drainage Features
• USGS 7.5 minute U.S.G.S. topographic map Turkey Quadrangles;
'F„
• Natural Color, High Resolution Orthophotos taken in 20067; and
Soils Data Sources
• Soil & Environmental Consultants Soil Scientist Reports;
• Soil & Environmental Consultants, Agronomist Report9
• Soil & Material Engineers Soil Scientist and Agronomist Report10; and
• NRCS Online Soils Report.for Sampson Countyll
Climatic Data Sources
• National Climatic Data Center Monthly Station Data for Clinton 2 S, NC12 and Clinton;
2NE, NC13
Hydrogeology Data Sources
U.S. Geological Survey Regional Hydrogeologic 8tudies14,15,16;
Z tiitp://data.e6ocomm.com/c-,ttaiop,/US/6,1083/—l156/group] 58-3.html
3 http://ww%v.ncdot.or /ig t/gis/
4 AutoCAD drawing A30701-,Base.dwg
5Soil & Material Engineers, 2001. Limited Hydrogeologic Evaluation 118-Acre Proposed Spray Irrigation Site Allen
Canning Company, Turkey, NC
6 Soil & Material Engineers, 2007. Hydrogeology Summary.Report Allen Canning Company Proposed Wastewater
Spray Irrigation, Turkey, NC.
7 2006 flight orthophotos from the National Agriculture Inventory Program v<IMAl.mapmart.com
$Soil and Environmental Consultants, 2008, Soil Scientist Evaluation, Rowan Road Site, Allens, Inc, Turkey, NC
9 Soil and Environmental Consultants, Agronomist Evaluation, Rowan Road Site, Allens, Inc, Turkey, NC
10 Soil Scientist /,Agronomist Report for Permit Modification Allen Canning Company Wastewater Spray Irrigation
Permit No. WQ0004268 Turkey,,North Carolina.
11 http://soildatamart.nres.usda.gov/Survey.aspx?County=NC163
12 http:/hvw�v4.ncdc-.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?H-%NDI--StnSreh—Stn1D-20013607 - -
13 http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cizi-win/wwcgi.dl l?wwD]—StnSreh--StliI D-20013613
14 Eimers, J.L., Lyke, W.L., and Brockman, A.R., 1990, Simulation of ground -water flow in aquifers in Cretaceous
rocks in the central Coastal Plain, North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report .
89-4153, 101 p.
Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 4

C� :,
tWe A76-5a -ce5
North Carolina Visual Hydrogeologic Framework 17; and
Soil & Material Engineers Hydrogeologic Reports5,6
Project Geographic Information System and Database
Base -map features for this study were prepared from digital maps and records acquired from the
Sampson County GIS, the North Carolina State University GIS website, U.S. Geological Survey
website, site plans including state plane grid coordinates and elevations prepared by McConnell
and Associates, site coordinates and elevations from geo-referenced drawings from previous
S&ME hydrogeologic and Soils Reports, and GPS Mapping by Eagle Resources, P.A. and
S&EC: These digital maps and datasets were used to prepare the project Geographic
Information System (GIS) and integrated Geodatabase. The commercial GIS program ArcInfo®
version 9.2 was used for this purpose.
The project Geodatabase for this study included the standard environmental and water resources
database used by Eagle Resources for such studies. This database is structured to be used with
either Microsoft Access or Microsoft SQL Server. The database schema includes tables that
contain information on topography, site development, well and sampling locations, water level
measurements, results of chemical analyses of samples, results of hydraulic tests, boring logs of
test holes, well completion information, logs of simulation model runs, and chemical analyses.
Field Investigation
Field investigations were conducted that included both the project site including proposed and
new sprayfields as well as the surrounding area to obtain the necessary information to support
the conceptual and numeric groundwater flow models prepared for this report and to document
the presence of wells within 500 feet of the sprayfield boundaries.
Identification of Wells within 500 Feet of Application Areas
Site visits and examination of home sites and buildings aerial photos show five water wells
within 500 feet of the proposed spray application area for the proposed sprayfield. One of these
wells is located on the Rowan Road property, and the remaining wells are located on adjacent
properties as shown on Figure 2. The available information on these five wells is shown in Table
2. If any additional wells are located during clearing and sprayfield development, they will be
properly abandoned prior to commencement of sprayfield operation.
Eight compliance monitoring wells have been installed in locations that are down -gradient from
the proposed fields, and one well has been installed up -gradient from the fields. These well
locations are within 500 Feet of the disposal boundary. Their locations are shown on Figure 2
and the construction details of the existing wells are shown in Table 2. The proposed
compliance monitoring wells are located at the review boundary down gradient of the proposed
sprayfield application areas. As shown on Figure 2, the review boundary is located midway
between the boundary of the application areas and the compliance boundary.
15 Giese, G.L., Eimers, J.L., and Coble, R.W., 1997, Simulation of ground -water flow in the Coastal Plain aquifer
system of North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1404—M, 142 p.
16 Winner, M.D., Jr., and Coble, R.W., 1996, Hydrogeologic framework of the North Carolina Coastal Plain, in
Regional Aquifer -System Analysis -Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1404-I, 106 p. + 14 pls.
17 hLp://w".newater.org/Data and Modeling/Ground Water Databases/frametstnew.pbp
Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 1 5

We -
Surface
Sampson
Elevation
County Tax
Site —ID
Eastirig Ft
Northing Ft
Ft
Owner
Address-
Parcel ID
P.O. Box 250 Siloam,.'. ;
WWA
2226562
446138
117
Allen Canning Co
Springs AR 72761
' '15362
3491 Rowan Road
WW-2
2226902
446521
119
Douglas Craig Carr
Clinton, NC 28328
242000202
176 Moltonville Road
WW-3
2228178
:. 446135
93
Milton Douglas Carr
Clinton, NC 28328
2420085
-
P.O. Box 1314 Clinton
WW=4
2225716
445098
106
Betty H. McLellan
NC 28328
16208
3071 Beamon Woods
WW-5
2225759
444901
...103
Garfield Beamon
Road Clinton, NC 28328
14491
Table I.— Water Wells Within 800 Feet of Spraytield Boundaries.
Monitoring, Wells, Piezometers, and Test Wells
Records and data from previous investigations by S&ME5,6 were used for this study. These
included 21 Cone Penetrometer (CPT) soundings, six (6 ) Hollow Stem Auger (HSA) borings,'
17 piezometers installed using push technology, four (4) monitoring wells and three (3) test wells -
installed using HSA. The locations of these are shown in Figure 2 and the completion details are
shown in Table 2. Additionally, Eagle Resources installed eight.new monitoring wells that -were "
located so as to serve as compliance monitoring wells located at the review boundary based upon - .
wetted area boundaries determined by this study.
The new monitoring wells were installed by Protocol Sampling Services under subcontract to
Eagle Resources using the hollow stem auger methods. The new monitoring wells are completed
with above grade inch steel protective casings set in a concrete pad finished flush with the
ground surface and are fitted with locking covers.'All wells and borings installed by S&ME that
were able to be found have been properly abandoned by Protocol Sampling Services; a NC
licensed Water Well Contractor.
The completion records and well logs for, the new monitoring wells and piezometers as prepared
by S&ME for the existing wells and by Protocol Sampling Services for the new monitoring wells
are included as Attachment A.'
Table 3 provides the construction details for the new compliance monitoring wells. All ground
surface and measuring point elevations were those provided in the S&ME report6,
Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc .6

I�
wke 1pe'vra-5
Site ID
Site Type
Easting Ft
Northing
Ft
Surface
Elev-
ation
Ft
Boring
Depth
Ft
Screen Depth
Ft
Boring
Diam-
eter
In
Casing
Diam-
eter
In
Instal -
lation
Method
Installed
B
Top
Bottom
B-2
Boring
2,226,094
445,725
115
40.0
none
none
3.25
none
HSA
S&ME
B-6
Boring
2,226,792
444,220
91
40.0
none
none
3.25
none
HSA
S8,ME
B-10
Boring
2,226,832
445,346
98
40.0
none
I none
4.25
none
HSA
S8ME
B-11
Boring
2,227,654
444,378
98
40.0
none
none
4.25
none
HSA
B-16
Boring
2,228,242
444,792
95
40.0
none
none
3.25
none
HSA
-S8ME
S&ME
B-19
Boring
2,228,889
444,042
93
50.0
none
none
3.25
none
HSA
S&ME
CPT-1
CPT
2,226,453
445,817
115
57.0
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S8,ME
CPT-2
CPT
2,226,100
445,699
115
64.2
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S&ME
CPT-3
CPT
2,227,286
445,340
100
30.5
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S8ME
CPT-4
CPT
2,227,315
444,892
104
48.0
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S&ME
CPT-5
CPT
2,227,180
444,401
97
31.8
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S&ME
CPT-6
CPT
2,226,749
444,220
91
32.8
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S8ME
CPT-7
CPT
2,226,341
444,852
103.
36.4
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S8ME
CPT-8
CPT
2,226,410
445,010
108
43.8
none
none .
unk
none
CPT
S8ME
CPT-9
CPT
2,226,372
445,406
113
40.7
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S8ME
CPT-10
CPT
2,226,809
445,335
106
41.7
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S8ME
CPT-11
CPT
2,227,677
444,415
98
35.5
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S8ME
CPT-12
CPT
2,227,743
444,797
100
53.0
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S8,ME
CPT-13
CPT
2,227,832
445,257
99
42.2
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S8ME
CPT-14
CPT
2,228,040
445,838
97
25.7
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S8ME
CPT-15
CPT
2,228,142
444,409
96
45.4
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S&ME
CPT-16
CPT -
2,228,291
444,795
95
50.9
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S&ME
CPT-17
CPT -
2,228,678
445,298
94
34.4,
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S8ME
CPT-18
CPT
2,228,481
445,658
97
54.8
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S&ME
CPT-19
CPT
2,228,852
444,045
94
37.7
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S&ME
CPT-20
CPT
2,229,658
444,149
91
59.2
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S&ME
CPT 21
CPT
2,229,391
445,016
89
31.4
none
none
unk
none
CPT
S&ME
OW-1
Obs Well
2,228,849
444,058
94
19.2
3.6
18.2
4.25
2
HSA
S8ME
OW-2
Obs Well
2,228,805
444,063
94
19.0
3.7
18.3
4.25
2
HSA
S8ME
OW-3
Obs Well
2,227,633
444,415
98
19.2
4.2
18.9
6.25
2
HSA
S8ME
OW-4
Obs Well
2,227,590
444,413
98
19.5
4.3
19.0
3.25
2
HSA
S8ME
P-1
Piezometer
2,226,779
445,862
112
10.0
9.0
10.0
unk
1
Push
S8ME
P-2
Piezometer
2,226,059
445,693
115
10.0
9.0
10.0
unk
1
Push
S8ME
P-3
Piezometer
2,226,387
445,162
110
10.0
9.0
10.0
unk
1
Push
S8ME
P-4
Piezometer
2,226,335
444,507
99
10.0
9.0
10.0
unk
1
Push
S8ME
P-5
Piezometer
2,226,864
445,326
106
10.0
9.0
10.0
unk
1
Push
S8ME
P-6
Piezometer
2,227,274
444,887
104
10.0
9.0
10.0
unk
1
Push
S8ME
P-7
Piezometer
2,227,142
444,418
97
10.0
9.0
10.0
unk,
1
Push
S8ME
P-8.
Piezometer
2,227,915
444,970
100
10.0
9.0
10.0
unk
1
Push
S8ME
P-9
Piezometer
2,227,990
445,847
97
10.0
9.0
10.0
unk
1
Push
S8ME
P-10
Piezometer
2,228,558
445,538
95
10.0
9.0
10.0
unk
1
Push
S8ME
P-11
Piezometer
2,228,387
444,865
93
10.0
9.0
10.0
unk
1
Push
S8ME
P-12
Piezometer
2,228,313
444,208
97
10.0
9.0
10.0
unk
1
Push
S8ME
P-13
Piezometer
2,229,176
444,507
93
10.0
9.0
10.0
unk
1
Push
S8ME
P-14
Piezometer
2,229,375
443,839
91
10.0
9.0
10.0
unk
1
Push
S8,ME
P-15
Piezometer
2,229,682
444,928
89
10.0
9.0
10.0
unk
1
Push
S8ME
P-16
Piezometer
2,229,968
443,986
90
10.0
9.0
10.0
unk
1
Push
S8ME
P-17
Piezometer
2,228,839
444,045
94
10.0
9.0
10.0
unk
1
Push
S8ME
RW-1
Test Well
2,228,851
444,051
94
19.5
4.0
18.5
6.25
2
HSA
S8ME
RW-2
Test Well
2,227,671
444,413
98
19.2
4.3
18.8
1 6.25
1 2
HSA
S8ME
RW-3
Test Well
1 2,227,673
1 444,4121
1 44.3
1 34.4
1 43.9
1 6.25
1 4
1 HSA
S8ME
Table 2: - Construction Details for Piezometers, Monitoring Wells and Test Wells..
Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc

Well
ID
Easting
Ft NAD83
Northing
Ft NAD83
Surface
Elev-
ation
FT
NAVD88
Top Cas-
ing Elev-
ation FT
NAVD88
Well
Depth
Ft
Screen
Depth
Ft
Sand Pack
Depth Ft
Bentonite
Seal Depth
Ft
Cement
Grout..
Boring
Diary}
eter
In
Casing
Diam-
eter .''elation
In
Instal-;
Method
Instal -
led by.
Top
Bot.
Top
Bot.
Top
Bot.
Top
Bot.
RA
2,228,891
445,653
87.2
90.5
1 15
2
12
1.5
121
0:5
1.5
0
0.5
61
2
HSA
PSS
R-2
2,229,383
445,196
86.1
89.1
15
2
12
1.5
12
0.5
1,5
0
0.5
6
2
HSA
PSS .
R-3
2,230,053
444,682
87.0
90.0
18
5
15
4
15
3
4
0'
3
6
2
HSA
PSS
R-4
2,229,4921
443,682
88.5
92.0
15
2
121
1.5
12
0.51
1.5
01
1.5
6
2
HSA
PSS
R-5
2,227,878
443,978
95.4
97.6
28
8
28
6.5
28
none
0
6.5
6
2
HSA:
S8ME
R-6
2,226,727
4.44,187
93.2
95.8
18
5
15
4
151
3
4
0
3
6
2
HSA•.. _
PSS
R-7
2,226,250
444,901
104.4
107.4
15
2
12
1.5
121
0.51
1.5
0
0.5
6
` 21
HSA
I PSS
R-8
2,226,467
, 446,134
118.7
121.71
18
5
15
4
151
31
4
0
3
6
_ 2
HSA
PSS
Table 3.-- Construction Detail Summary for Compliance Wells
Water Level Measurements
One round of water level measurements was made at the site on April 4, 2006 as reported by,
S&ME. Eagle Resources measured water levels in those wells found operational at the site on
11/19/2007. Water levels were measured in the seven new compliance wells following well
development and recovery by Protocol Sampling Services on 11/7/2008 and in all compliance
wells by Microbac Laboratories during the first round of sampling these wells on November 17,
2008. Table 4 summarizes these measurements.
Well ID
Easting
Northing
Date
Measured
Depth to.
Water
(TOC) R'
TOC
Elevation R
Water Level
Bev.. (NAVD88
R)
Depth to
Water (GS) R
OW-1
2,228,849.1
444,058.4
4/4/2006
3.90.
95.97
92.07
1.21
2,228,849.1
444,058.4
11/19/2007
7.02
95.97
88.95
A33
OW-2
2,228,805.0
444,062.7
4/4/20061
3.90
95.75
91.85
2.11
2,228,805.0
444,062.7
11/19/2007
6.92
95.75
88.83
5.13
OW-3
2,227,633.5
444,415.5
4/4/2006
4.90
100.22
95.32
3.11
2,227,633.5
444,415.5
11/19/2007
7.40.
100.22
92.82
5.61
OW-4
2,227,590.4
444,412.6.
4/4/2006
4.50
99.85
95.35
3.13
2,227,590.4
444,412.6
11/19/2007
7.01
99.85
92:84
- 5.64
P-1
2,226,778.9
445,861.8
4/4/2006
8.50
116.89
108.39
.3.52
P-10
2,228,557.8
445,538.1
4/4/2006
3.30
97.30
94.00
1.52
P-11
2,228,386.8
444,865.0
4/4/2006
.2.10
96.59
94.49
(0.64)
2,228,386.8
444,865.0
11/19/2007
5.68
96.59
90.91
2.94
P-12
2,228,313.0
444,208.1
4/4/2006
3.70
99.45
95.75
0.79
P-13
2,229,176.0
444,507.4
4/4/2006
3.90
93.75
89.85
3.15
P-14
2,229,375.2
443,839.1
4/4/2006
3.80
94.15
90.35
0.35
P-15
2,229,682.5
444,927.6
4/4/2006
4.40
94.60
90.20
(0.99)
0-16
2,229,967.6
443,985.7
4/4/2006
.• 6.80
92.82
86.02
4.05
P-17
2,228,838.7
444,044.6
4/4/2006
3.70
97.24
93.54
0.10
2,228,838.7
444,044.6
11/19/20071
8.30
97.24
88.94
4.70
P-2
2,226,059.4
445,693.2
4/4/2006
5.10
117.44
112.34
2.89
P-3
2,226,386.8
"445,162.3
4/4/2006
5.20
112.91.
107.71
2.34
P-4
2,226,335.1
444,507.4
4/4/2006
3.501
101.87
1 98.37
0.94
2,226,863.7
445,326.0
4/4/2006
3.701
109.66
1 105.96
0.55
Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 8
0

ea V.-P, ksa -cgs
Table 4: -Water Level Measurements in Piezometers and Monitoring Wells.
Well ID
Easting
Northing
Date
Measured
Depth to
Water
(TOC) Ft
TOC
Elevation Ft
Water Level
Elev. (NAVD88
Ft)
Depth to
Water (GS)
Ft
P-6
2,227,274.4
444,886.5
4/4/2006
6.10
107.35
101.25
3.10
2,227,142.3
444,418.3
4/4/2006
4.70
100.98
96.28
0.58
P 8
2,227,915.0
444,969.8
4/4/2006
4.80
102.53
97.73
1.97
2,227,915.0
444,969.8
11/19/2007
7.78
102.53
94.75
4.95
P-9
2,227,990.2
445,847.3
4/4/2006
5.00
100.12
95.1'2
1.91
2,227,990.2
445,847.3
11/19/2007
8.40
100.12
91.72
5.31
RW-1
2,228,851.4
444,050.6
4/4/2006
3.90
95.58
91.68
1.60
2,228,851.4
444,050.6
11/19/2007
6.74
95.58
88.84
4.44
RW-2
2,227,670.8
444,412.6
4/4/2006
4.80
100.05
95.25
3.03
2,227,670.8
444,412.6
11/19/2007
6.22
100.05
93.83
4.45
RW-3
2,227,672.7
444,411.6
4/4/2006
12.70
99.80
87.10
11.18
2,227,672.7
444,411.6
11/19/2007
15.40
99.80
84.40
13.88
R-1
2,228,931.8
445,653.3
11/7/2008
6.55
88.26
81.71•
3.56
2,228,931.8
445,653.3
11/17/2008
5.20
88.26
83.06
2.21
R 2
2,229,400.5
445,268.8
11/7/2008
6.55
86.12
79.57
3.55
2,229,400.5
445,268.8
11/17/2008
4.10
86.12
82.02
1.10
R-3
2,230,129.4
444,700.0
11/7/2008
8.45
83.20
74.75
5.45
2,230,129.4
444,700.0
11/17/2008
7.10
83.20
76.10
4.10
R-4
2,229,500.6
443,678.6
11/7/2008
6.45
89.20
82.75
3.45
2,229,500.6
443,678.6
11/17/2008
7.70
89.20
81.50
4.70
R-5
2,227,882.1
443,978.2
1/16/2001
11.92
92.19
80.27
9.17
2,227,882.1
443,978.2
11/16/2007
5.00
92.19
87.19
2.25
2,227,882.1
443,978.2
3/3/2008
13.00
92.19
79.19
10.25
2,227,882.1
443,978.2
7/7/2008
6.50
92.19
85.69
3.75
2,227,882.1
443,978.2
11/17/2008
10.70
92.19
81.49
7.95
R-6
2,226,780.9
444,183.3
11/7/2008
8.65
93.46
84.81
5.65
2,226,780.9
444,183.3
11/17/2008
6.70
93.46
86.76
3.70
R-7
2,226,192.3
444,963.4
11/7/2008
6.55
105.63
99.08
3.55
2,226,192.3
444,963.4
11/17/2008
4.90
105.63
100.73
1.90
R-8
2,226,467.3
446,136.8
11/7/2008
8.25
120.66
112.41
5.25
2,226,467.3
446,136.8
1 11/17/20081
4.90
1 120.66
1 115.76
1 1.90
Table 4 (Concluded).-- Water Level Measurements in Piezometers and Monitoring Wells.
The large depth to water level in well R-5 for 3/3/08 is a result of the extreme drought that
persisted from the end of November 2007 through the end of March 200818
18 U.S Drought Monitor: littp://,Aww.d rought.uni.edu/din/thunibnails/2007.eif and
htip://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/thumbnails/l-008.gi
Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc

e
��et�5�"GeS,•,
Hydraulic Conductivity Tests
Pumping Tests
During Apri1200.6 S&ME conducted a 22-hour pumping test at a constant pumping rate of
approximately one (1) gallon per minute on test well RW=1 and a 24-hour test at a constant.
pumping rate of approximately six (6) gallons per minute on test well RW-2. For the pumping
test of RW-2, water level measurements were made in observation wells OW-1 which is .
approximately 30 feet from RW-1 and in OW-2 which is approximately 55 feet from RW_ 4. For:e1
the pumping test on RW-2, water level measurements were made on observations wells OW=3 ..
which is. approximately 30 feet from RW-2 and in OW-4 which is approximately 70 feet from
RW-2. The results of the interpretation of these tests by S&ME are shown in Table 5. We have
reviewed these results and concur with the methodology used and, the 'results. However, we note
that for the test on RW-1, the value of storage coefficient calculated from the early-time_curve is
larger than the value calculated from the late time curve, which does not agree with the theory of
the method used. As all analyses used for the present report are steady state; no storage
coefficient values are necessary, so this inconsistency is not important.
S&ME also conducted a test to assess the hydraulic connection across the confining layer that
occurs at beneath the site. This test was conducted by first pumping RW-2 for 6 gallons per
minute for 24-hours and measuring the water level response,in the deep aquifer in RW-3 which
is screened only in the deep aquifer., The second part of this test pumped RW-3 at 17 gallons per
minute for 3 hours and measuring water level response in the shallow aquifer in RW-2 and OW-
3 and OW-4. Both of these parts of the test showed no measurable water level response in the
non -pumped aquifer.
Ksat Measurements
S&EC measured the values of the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) of each horizon of the
soil units judged to'be suitable for spray irrigation. S&ME reported Ksat measurements in
multiple horizons at eight (8) locations within the boundaries of soil units that S&ME judged to
be suitable. The locations of the Ksat measurements are shown on Figure 1 and the results of the
measurements are shown in Table 5.
Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc
.10

Oaj8 �85arCV5 .
Depth of
Hydraulic
I rans-
Tested Interval
Cond-
mis-
Storage
Soil Horizon or
Ft
Test
Analysis
uctivity
sivity
Coef-
Data
Site ID
Formation
Method
Method
ft/day
ft^2/day
ficient
Source
Top
Bottom
RW-1
Observation
22-hour
Kh = 11.7
S = 0.002,
Wells OW-1
Surficial Aquifer
4.00
17.61
pumping
Neuman
Kv= 0.21
159
Sy = 0.004
S&ME
& OW-2
at 1 gpm
RW-2
Observation
Surficial Aquifer
4.00
17.61
24-hour
pumping
Neuman
Kh = 9.2
123
S = 0.009,
S&ME
Wells OW-3
Kv= 0.11
Sy = 0.023
& OW-4
at gpm
Norfolk/
E
1.00
0.13
n/a
n/a
Bt1
2.67
0.67
n/a
n/a
Ksat-1
'
CHP
Glover
S&EC
Wagram
Bt2
4.67
.1.38
n/a
n/a
Norfolk /
E
1.17
4.19
n/a
n/a
Btl
2.50
0.25
n/a
n/a
Ksat-4
CHP
Glover
S&EC
Wagram
Bt2
5.00
0.29
n/a
n/a
Norfolk /
E
1.00
0.62
n/a
n/a
Btl
2.33
1.77
n/a
n/a
Ksat-6
CHP
Glover
S&EC
Wagram
Bt2
4.75
0.64
n/a
n/a
Ksat SME-
Norfolk/
BT/E
1.58
5.44
n/a
n/a
CHP
Glover
S&ME
Bt
3.00
0.10
n/a
n/a
54
Wagram
Ksat SME-
Norfolk /
Bt
CHP
Glover
49
Wagram
2.58
0.82
n/a
n/a
S&ME
Ksat-SME-
Norfolk/
E
1.00
6.52
n/a
n/a
CHP
Glover
Bt
2.00
6.26
n/a
n/a
33
Wagram
S&ME
Ksat SME-
Norfolk/
Bt
2.00
CHP
Glover
5.26
n/a
n/a
Bt
3.33
1.32
n/a
n/a
16
Wagram
S&ME
Norfolk/
Ksat_SME-1'
Wagram
Bt
2.50
CHP
Glover
5.16
n/a
n/a
S&ME
Goldsboro /
E
1.00
1.01
n/a
n/a
Btl
2.25
0.04
n/a
n/a
Ksat-2
CHP
Glover
S&EC
Noboco
Bt2
4.08
0.20
n/a
n/a
Goldsboro /
E
0.83
0.24
n/a
n/a
Btl
2.00
0.61
n/a
n/a
Ksat-3
CHP
Glover
S&EC
Noboco
Bt2
3.58
0.23
n/a
n/a
Goldsboro /
E
0.83
0.90
n/a
n/a
Btl
2.00
1.05
n/a
n/a
Ksat-5
CHP
Glover
S&EC
Noboco
Bt2
2.75
0.55
n/a
n/a
Ksat SME-
Goldsboro /
E
1.50
0.32
n/a
n/a
Btl
2.33
0.20
n/a
n/a
CHP
Glover
S&ME
22
Noboco
Bt2
2.33
0.34
n/a
n/a
Ksat SME-
Goldsboro /
Bt
1.33
CHP
Glover
0.16
n/a
n/a
Bt
2.17
0.10
n/a
n/a
47
Noboco
S&ME
Ksat-7
Tarboro /
Bw
2.33
CHP
Glover
5.37
n/a
n/a ,
C
4.58
23.25
n/a
n/a
Kalmia
S&EC
Ksat-8
Tarboro /
Bw
1.83
CHP
Glover
16.07
n/a
n/a
C
5.00
43.68
n/a
n/a
S&EC
Kalmia
Tarboro /
Bw
2.42
5.21
n/a
n/a
Ksat-9
CHP
Glover
C
5.08
58.09
n/a
n/a
Kalmia
Ksat SME-
Tarboro /
Bt
2.50
CHP
Glover
20.56
n/a
n/a
S&ME
28
1 Kalmia
Table 5: - Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity Tests.
Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 1.1

Model Construction
Conceptual Model
The conceptual model of the site was constructed using information provided by both regional,,,;,;
studies and reports an previous studies S&MEs,6,lo The model was constructed by exteMingilie
regional model boundaries to hydrologic features (topographic'divides) or a'sufficierit distance
from the spray irrigation site so, that the use of either a drain or no flow boundary would not
affect the results of mounding analyses. Figure 1 shows the modeled area and thelocation of the.
new spray irrigation site.
Hydrostratigraphic. Units
The hydrogeologic framework for the conceptual model was taken from regional geologic,and :
hydrogeologic studies9"O" l The site is underlain 'by approximately 15 feet of fine-grained,;,; .
surficial materials referred to as the Surficial Aquifer that overly the Black Creek Confining Unit
and the Black Creek Aquifer. Based upon the log of a deep well from the North Carolina Visual
Hydrogeologic Framework as shown in,Figure 3, the Black Creek Aquifer is underlain by the
Upper and Lower Cape Fear Confining Units and Aquifers and basement rocks. Well U35G
shown in Figure 3 is located approximately 3.5 miles west of the Rowan Road site. A similar
deep test well from the DWR database is located at Turkey approximately 3 miles northeast of
the site and shows essentially the same elevation of formation tops and thickness of the Black
Creek Confining Unit.
The site hydrostratigraphy was estimated using logs of CPT soundings, test wells,, observation
wells, and piezometers installed by S&ME5.6 that are -summarized in Table 2. Based upon these.
it is apparent that the drainages at the margins of the Rowan Road site are eroded into the Black
Creek Confining unit., Also based upon these logs the RW-3 is screened -in the upper part of the
Black Creek Aquifer and the previously discussed test of RW-2 and RW-3 demonstrated the very
low permeability of the Black Creek Confining Unit: For completeness, the logs and CPT
soundings for reported by S&ME are included 'as Attachment A to this report.
Ii-
Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 12

Hydrogeologic Framework,
Database Detail for Well .
7j Data �
Coun ty i Sampson ,
Latitude 34.975275
_
Longitude -^!-78.308337
Location Accuracy
I
Quad �[
U 35G
Name
Town of
_Clinton
Depth ,
Land Surface
455`a-
152 m_.
Black Creek CU
100-
(Black_Creek
_
79
Upper Cape Fear CU
-70�
Upper Cape Fear __IF
LL 114 _- #
Lower Cape Fear CU
Lower Cape Fear
-184
-206 y
Basement I
-303 1
U35G
-60
,.
y -160
c
-
-
s
0
a1
.a
�+ -260
4-
-
--
-_.-.-- -
a
d
0
-360
L
LMM
-460
- -
O.alle,kesa.rme
❑ Surficial
® Upper Tertiary CU
❑'Upper Tertiary
M Yorktown CU
El Yorktown
I7 Pu ngo RI ver CU
Pungo River'
p Castle Mayne CU
Castle Hayne
0 Beaufort CU
El Beaufort
® Peedee CU
Peedee
M Black Creek CU
11 Black Creek
® Upper Cape Fear CU
❑ Upper Cape Fear
91 Lower Cape Fear CU
El Lower Cape Fear
0 Lower Cretaceous CU
ED Lower Cretaceous
ID Basement
Figure 2: - Log of town of Clinton Well (U35G) from the North Carolina Visual Hydrogeologic Framework19
The conceptual model and the numerical model include the Surficial Aquifer, the Black Creek
Confining Unit and the upper portion of the Black Creek Aquifer as described below
1) 'Surficial Aquifer: Surficial materials extending to a depth of approximately 15 feet. The
top of the Surficial Unit was taken as the land surface. The base of the Surficial Unit was
approximated by subtracting 15 ft from the land surface. It also reflects the apparent
configuration of the base of the Surficial Unit at the Site based on logs of piezometers
and monitoring wells.
The initial horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity of the Surficial Unit was
estimated to be 12 ft per day based upon the aquifer tests of RW-1 and RW-2 reported by
S&ME. As discussed subsequently, it was not necessary to modify these values to
calibrate the groundwater model. Because the Surficial Aquifer was simulated using a
single layer, the vertical conductivity is not explicitly included in the model equations.
19 hf p://wN�Nv.ncwater.org/Data and Modeling/Ground Water Databases/ftamework.php
Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 13

Table 5• summarizes the initial hydraulic conductivity values used for the Surficial it, .
and underlying units.
2) Black Creek Confining Unit: a low hydraulic layer that was assigned a uniform
thickness of five (5) feet based upon the log of RW-3, the regional well U35G and
leakance values reported by the USGS regional model for this unit10. The base of this
unit was determined in the model by subtracting five (5) feet from the bottom of the
Surficial Aquifer. Table 5 shows the hydraulic properties used for the -Black Creek :<
Confining Unit.
3) Upper portion of Black Creek Aquifer:.The upper portion of the Black Creek Aquifer,
was included in the model as extending from the base of the Black Creek Confining Unit,,
to an arbitrary plane surface at an elevation of 50 feet NAVD88.
The hydraulic properties for the Black -Creek Aquifer were estimated from the U.S.G.S
regional groundwater model and are shown in Table. 5.
H diaulic Conductivity, Way
Hydrostratigraphic Unit
Thickness, ft
Lithology
Kx
Kv
Kz
Surficial Aquifer
15
Sand to Silty
12
12
1
_
Sand
Black Creek Confining
5
Clay
0.0003
0.0003 •
0.0003
Unit
Upper Part of Black
Base of BCCU to
Creek Aquifer
an elevation of 50
Sandstone
20
20
20
ft NAVD88
Table 6. -- Summary of Hydrostratigraphic Unit's Used for Groundwater Model
Hydraulic Heads for Model Calibration ,
Because the water levels measured by S&ME on April 4, 2006 as shown in Table 3 provide the
largest number of measurements on the same date in the modeled area. These were used for
model calibration.
Recharge and Discharge
Recharge to the modeled area results from the balance between infiltrated .precipitation and
evapotranspiration (ET) from the soil zone. Because all .of the watertable depths at the Rowan
Road site are less than 10 feet the model was used to compute the net recharge rate as follows:
1. An average.rate of 39 inches per year of precipitation was applied to the top of the model
based upon climatic records for Clinton, NC.
2. ET from groundwater was simulated using a depth -dependent function that decreased
from the maximum valued of 3.6 inches per -year for.PET when.the watertable was at the
land surface to zero at a watertable depth of 8 feet. As discussed subsequently, this
extinction depth for ET was increased to 10 feet during model _calibration.
Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 14

3. The effective recharge rate was determined by subtracting ET from groundwater
computed by the model from the precipitation that was applied as recharge. .
This method of simulating recharge to groundwater when combined with the use of a drain
boundary condition applied to the entire land surface of the model has been found to produce
more realistic models than specifying an a priori recharge rate over the entire model. However
the utility of this method requires sufficient number and distribution of measured water levels to
check against during model calibration. This condition was met for the present study. The same
method was used to determine the recharge rates under irrigated conditions for the mounding
analysis discussed subsequently.
Simulation Model
The analyses documented in this report used MODFLOW-2000 which is developed and
maintained as a public domain code by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) The model was
developed, calibrated, and applied within the Groundwater Modeling System (GMSTM) which
was developed for the U.S... Department of Defense, and which is a commercial product of ems-
i, Inc.
Model Grid
The finite difference grid used for the simulation model covers the area shown in Figure 1, and
comprises 230 rows oriented east west, 302 columns oriented nortn-south,3and 4 layers. The
grid spacing over the entire model is 20 feet by 20 feet and corresponds to the previously
discussed grid used to approximate the land surface.
Layer one (1) represents the Surficial Aquifer and extends for a uniform thickness of 15 feet
from the land surface. Layer two (2) represents the Black Creek Confining Unit and Layer three
(3) the upper part of the Black Creek Aquifer. The top of layer one was taken as the land
surface. The land surface was modeled using a 20 by 20 -foot grid constructed using the NC
DOT 2-foot topographic contours outside of the Rowan Road property and site topographic
contours provided by McConnell Associates Engineering for the interior of the Rowan Road
Site.
The top of Layer2 was determined by subtracting 15 feet from the land surface, the top of layer 3
Was determined by subtracting 20 feet from the land surface. The bottom of layer 3 corresponded
to the bottom of the model and was set at a constant elevation of 50 feet NAVD 88.
Boundary Conditions
Drain boundary conditions were assigned to entire upper surface of model (the land surface).
This boundary condition allows the site to drain if and when the watertable intercepts the land
surface. The combination of the detailed topographic surface available from the surveyed site
topography, and the 20-foot grid spacing provided a good representation of the elevation of the
drains. The drain conductance was set at 10 ftZ/day/ft.
In addition to the areal drain boundary condition used to simulate diffuse discharge to the land
surface in the wetland and natural drainage courses, linear drainage features were used to
simulate the five existing drains shown on Figure 2 as well as the proposed drain to be
Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 15

constructed in the. middle of Zone 18. Field surveys were conducted to estimate the depth that thee"
existing drains are incised below the prevailing topography. The depth of incision ranges from 3
feet to 5 feet along portions of the long east west drain at the southern portion of the property as
shown on Figure 2. An average depth of incision for the existing linear drains of 4 feet was used
in the model. The proposed new drain in Zone 18 was" specified
No flow boundary conditions were used in all`layers along the model boundary shown.in Figure
2 as well as to the bottom of Layer. 3. These correspond to either topographic divides or the
thalweg of natural drainages.
Model Calibration
The calibration of a groundwater model is achieved by adjusting initial'estimates of hydraulic . ,
properties and boundary conditions to achieve an acceptable fit between simulated water levels' ;-,,=
and observed water levels in wells that are representative.of the simulated hydrologic, units: This
fitting of simulated to observed water levels is the same process'that is, used, in curve matching
during pumping test analysis to determine aquifer properties. However, model calibration results
in a more realistic representation of a hydrologic system than can be achieved by the use of type
curves in aquifer test analysis. This is because numerical models do not require the use of
simplifying assumptions regarding flow geometry, boundary conditions and, homogeneity -in.
hydraulic properties that are necessary to construct the analytical solutions represented by the.
type curves.
The groundwater model was calibrated by matching simulated water levels in the 23 wells and
piezometers measured on April 4, 2006 'as reported by S&ME6 and shown in Table I.
All calibration and mounding analyses conducted for this report were steady state to demonstrate
the maximum potential. water level elevations in response to hydraulic loading. This, approach is
considered conservative because no credit is taken for the additional water that the Surficial Unit
would accept into storage as the water table rises. No storage properties are required,for steady
state analyses for any of the hydrostratigraphic units. This also eliminates another potential
source of uncertainty in simulated water levels.
Single Layer Approximation Test
To assess the reasonableness of the preliminary model parameters reported by S&ME6, the
hydraulic conductivity of layers 2 and 3 were set to an extremely low value of 0.00001 ft/day
(3.5 x 10-9 cm/sec). This created essentially a single layer model. Examination of the fit to
observed water levels showed that while acceptable, simulated values were generally higher than
observed values. The first adjustment to correct this was to increase the ET extinction depth to
10 feet. While some improvement was achieved, simulated water levels were still too high.
Manual incremental increases in the hydraulic conductivity of the Surficial Aquifer were used to
improve the fit by examination of calibration statistics as shown in Table 6:
While a value of the Normalized Root Mean Square Residual (NRMSR) of less than 10%.is
generally considered acceptable, it was felt that a better fit might be achieved using automatic
adjustment of hydraulic conductivity, of the Surficial Aquifer. Consequently, the automatic
Parameter Estimation (PEST) component of GMS was used to determine the value of hydraulic
conductivity of the Surficial Aquifer that provided the best fit when starting with values of 5 feet
per day and 20 feet per day, or approximately one half and twice the initial estimated value of.1.2
Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 16

feet per day. The results of this analysis resulted in a best fit value of 18.4 ft/day as shown in
Table 6.
Model Parameters Assessed for Adjustment
Fit Statistics
HK
ET
Precipitation
Mean Res
Mean
Abs Res
RMSR
RMSR%
of Range
Ex Depth
ET Max
ET Surf
ft/day
ft
in/yr
Ft
in/yr
ft/day
ft
ft
ft
12
8
36
LS
39.42
0.009
(0.89764)
1.04
1.22
4.51 %
12
10
36
LS
39.42
0.009
(0.64860)
0.84
1.05
3.88%
14
10
36
LS
39.42
0.009
(0.41858)
0.69
0.92
3.40%
16
101
361
LS
39.42
0.009
(0.21190)
0.64
0.841
3.11 %
18.36
101
361
LS
1 39.421
0..009
0.00112
0.65
0.81
1 3.00%
Table 7: - Results of manual and PEST Calibration for the Single Layer Approximation Model.
Three Layer Model Calibration
As discussed above, the field tests on RW-2 and RW-3 reported by S&ME and demonstrate that
the Black Creek Confining Layer provides an effective hydraulic barrier between the Surficial
and Black Creek Aquifers. The preceding PEST calibration of the single layer approximation
model resulted in increasing the hydraulic conductivity of the Surficial Aquifer. To provide a
more a complete hydrogeologic analysis and to test the reasonableness of using the value of 12
feet per day for this conductivity value from the on -site pumping tests, calibration of the three -
layer model was tested. This calibration began by assigning a value of 0.00003 ft/day (1 x 10-7
for the hydraulic conductivity of the Black Creek Confining Unit and 20 ft per day for the Black
Creek Aquifer as shown in Table 5.
Calibration of the three -layer model was implemented by starting with the value of hydraulic
conductivity from the PEST analysis of the single layer approximation model and manually
adjusting it until the lowest value of NRMSR was achieved. Table 8 shows the calibration
statistics for the three -layer model. Table 9 shows the values of the observed and simulated water
levels and Figure 4 shows the visual goodness of fit, which is considered excellent. The best fit
was achieved using the same value of 12 ft/day derived from the pumping tests on RW-1 and
RW-2.
Model Parameters Assessed for Adjustment
Fit Statistics
HK
ET
Precipitation
Mean Res
Mean
Abs Res
RMSR
RMSR%
of Range
Ex Depth
ET Max
ET Surf
ft/day
ft
in/yr
Ft
in/yr
ft/day
ft I
ft
ft
15.
10
36
LS
39.42
0.009
0.368
0.82
0.97
3.56%
14
10
36
LS
39.42
0.009
0.256
0.79
0.92
3.41 %
12
10
36
LS
39.42
0.009
0.006
0.71
0.88
3.24%
11
10
36
LS
39.42
0.009
(0.13)
0.69
0.88
3.26%
11.5
10
36
LS
39.42
0.009
(0.06)
0.70
0.88
3.24%
12.5
10
36
LS
39.421
0.009
1 0.07
0.73
0.88
3.2
Table 8.-Calibration Statistics for the Three -Layer Model.
Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 17

Well
Easting
Ft NAVD88
Northing .
Ft-NAVD88
Observed
Water
Level Ft
Computed
Water level
Ft
P-10
2,228,558
445,538
91.66
_ 91.26
P-11
2,228,387
444, 865
92.00
93.28 ,
P-9
2,227,990
445,847
92.54
93.19
PA
2, 226, 779.
445,862
105.75
107.55
P-3
2,226,387
445,162
105.32
105.10
P-5
2,226,864
445,326
103.45
102.07
P-8
2,227,915
444,970
95.41
96.48
P.-6
2,227,274
i 444,887
99.24
98.44
P-4
2,226,335
444,507
96.16
96.42
P-7
2, 227,142-
444,418
92.97
93.02
RW-2
2,227,671
444,413
94.15
94.09
OW-3
2,227,633
444,415
94.26
94.03
OW-4
2,227,590
444,413
94.32
93.86
P-12
2,228,313
444,208,
93.34
91.42
P-13
2,229,176
444,507
89.52
90.12
RWA
2,228,851
444,051
90.29
89.85
OW-1
2,228,849
444,058
90.34
89.91
OW-2
2,228,805
444,063
90.22
89.97
P717
2,228,839
444,045
90.50
89.82
P-14
2,229,375
443,839
87.99
•86.98
P-16
2,229,968
443,986
83.53
84.33
P-15
1 2,229, 682
1 444,92.81
84.961
85.41
P-2
1 2,226,059
1 445,6931
110.63
111.82
Table 9: - Observed and Computed Water Levels for the Best -Fit Three -Layer Model.
Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doic

120.00
115.00
0 110.00
Q
z
LL
c 105.00
m
lL
y 100.00
a1
J
ate+
95.00
a
7
a
E
U 90.00
85.00
80.00
jWePesarces
rt
-1
-
__'-4—
t i
♦
Observed and Computed
FT
--
- T -
-
-;
♦
-!-i-� --
-
i
i
41--t
-'—
,
!
i
;
I
, I ,
80.00 85.00 90.00 95.00 100.00 105.00 110.00 115.00 120.00
Observed Water Level Elevation, Ft NAVD
Figure 3.--Results of Model Calibration to April 2006 Water Levels in Monitoring Wells and Piezometers.
Hydraulic Mounding Analysis
The calibrated model was used to simulate the water table configuration and the depth to water
for by increasing the irrigation recharge to the reasonable maximum values that would not result
in the watertable being less than 1 foot below any of the irrigation zones. The initial recharge
rates for this process were determined by multiplying the geometric mean Ksat value for the
most restrictive horizon for the most restrictive soil present in an irrigation zone. The geometric
mean Ksat-values were determined by S&EC and are reported in the Soil Scientist report for the
Rowan Road Sites.
Initial boundaries of irrigation zones corresponded to boundaries of soil units as mapped by
S&EC. However during the mounding analysis, it was necessary to further subdivide areas
containing the same soil and to apply different recharge rates to the subdivisions. This process
was used to maximize the irrigation capacity of the entire Rowan Road site, while keeping the
Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 19

:i +
Aaik•e
recharge rates used less than the drainage rates recommended by S&EC in the Soil Scientist
Evaluation reports.. Some irrigation zones (for example Zone 18) were developed to include
more than one soil unit. In these cases, the applied recharge was restricted to that allowable for
the most restrictive soil unit present in the zone.
The recharge rates that resulted in the maximum irrigation rates for all 18 irrigation zones, that,,:;`:'-=
resulted in a water table depth of greater than one foot under all zones were determined as.. -
follows:
1. Apply the 801h percent total, precipitation'as recharge for all areas of the model outside of
the irrigation zones;
2. Determine the maximum recharge rate for each zone that.fesults in the watertable being a
minimum of one foot below the land surface within that zone and adjacent zones. This'
rate is effectively the total of recharge from precipitation and applied irrigation;
3. Allow the model to compute the amount of recharged water removed by ET using the
linear function of ET vs. depth to the watertable that sets ET at the maximum average
PET at the land surface and"zero at a depth of 10 feet and tabulate the ET loss from each
irrigation zone. - - •,
4. Compute the actual net drainage as the difference between the applied recharge and water
removed by ET for each irrigation zone; and
5. Use the net drainage as the drainage in the water balance to compute hydraulic loading
.rates for each zone.
The results of the mounding analyses are shown in Figure 5 by the contour showing the limits of
areas where the simulated depth to watertable is equal to one foot. Figure 5 also shows the
simulated steady state water table configuration for the Surficial Unit for these loading rates.
The mounding analysis was used to eliminate areas of the sprayfields that havethe potential for
the permanent watertable under the 801h percent wettest year conditions to be less than one foot
below land surface. There is one small area (less than 700 fe, or 0.'015 acres) in Zone 17 (Figure
5) that is a depression that needs to be filled with suitable soil to eliminate the potential for a
water table less than one foot within the area.
Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc
20

��
ii
somm""Mmoul
m
="Fawwwwmw
=Migg"Mmmmm
=wFqwwwmmw
=Miggammmmm
=ws99"WMwwW
mmmmmmmmm
mm
mmmmmm
MMF;gmwmwmw
mmmmmmmmm
=wEE9wmmwmw
mmmmmmmmm
mmmommmmm
MWEEMMMMMM
=wMwMwwMW
EXPLANATION
Fleld Investigation L—tl—
LOCLTYPE
T.-
zone li
z
P
-3.
ii
Z06. v
7,
V1,
. .. . ..........
. .......... ....
14
J J . ...... ..
zwv J J I'll I'll .1 J -1
.. .........
I Imh - 200 feet
2()11 —400 800 1,200 1,600 '
Feet

sae �'e�arces
Figure 4, Simulated Watertable Elevation and One -Foot Depth to Water for the Mounding Analysis.
j
Allen Canning Hydrogeologic Report Rev 022109.doc 21

Senaitiw4Y Anai aia
Y
A sensitivity analysis was conducted with the calibrated model to evaluate.potential uncertainiies
in the value of hydraulic conductivity of the Surficial Unit. Sensitivity to hydraulic conductivity
of layer one of the model 30% less than and 50% greater than the calibrated value of 12 ft/day. .
Zone
Area DTW > 1.0, Ac
Kh=12
Kh=10
Kh=8
1
1.93
1.93
1.62
2
3.23
2.41
1.14
3
11.69
10.14
5.21
4 1
1.89
1.63
0.92
5
0.78
0.71
0.48
6
1.94
1.94
1.94
7
1.00
0.88
0.61
8
2.59
2.24
0.98
9
0.79
0.78
0.74
10
1 1.83
1.83
1.83
11
0.67
0.67
0.67
12
3.74
3.19
2.20
13
2.13
2.13
2.12
14
7.65
6.72
5.22
15
0.97
0.97
0.97
16
7.20
- 7.09
6.40
17
2.27
0.79
0.21
18.00
16.87
15.20
12.10
Total
1 69.15
1 61.24,1
45.37
For the sensitivity analyses using values of hydraulic
conductivity less than the calibrated value, the
sensitivity variable evaluated was the area of each
zone with a modeled depth to water of less than 1 ft ..
under conditions of the 80`h % wettest precipitation -.-
The results of this analysis are summarized in Table _
10. Because of the excellent agreement between
measured and computed water levels as shown in
Tables 8 and 9 and on Figure 4, it is considered
unlikely that the effective hydraulic conductivity is
significantly less; than the calibrated value of 12
ft/day.
Table 10.-- Sensitivity of Modeled Watertable Depth to.
Hydraulic Conductivity by Zone for Values of Hydraulic
Conductivity Less than the Calibrated Value of 12 ft/day.
Table 11 summarizes the sensitivity analyses using
values of hydraulic conductivity 2 ft/day using
sensitivity variables equal to the minimum, maximum,
and mean water table depth within each Zone
Depth to Watertable
Kh = 12 (Calibrated Model)
Kh = 14
Kh = 16
Kh = 18
Zone
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean•
Min
Max
Mean
1
1.80
4.70
3.07
2.30
5.16
3.53
2.71
5.56
3.93
3.05
5.91
4.27
2
1.23
3.05
.1.95
1.72
3.51
2.37
2.14
'3.89
2.73
2.49
4.23
3.03
3
1.12
3.12
2.08
1.49
3.58
2.53
1.80
3.98
2.90
2.01
4.34
3.23
4
1.06
2.42
1.73
1.32
2.71
2.02
1.54
2.96
2.28
1.73
3.18
2.49
5
1.10
2.20
1.65
1.27
2.41
1 1.86
1.41
2.59
2.03
1.53
2.75
2.18
6
1.59
4.53
2.83
1.75
4.65
3.02
1.87
1 4.74
3.17
1.98
4.81-
3.30
7
1.08
2.17
1.74
1.44 ,
2.47
2.05
1.75
2.72
2.31
2.01
2.94
2.54
8
1 1.27
3.14
2.02
1.80'
3.55
2.50
2.23
-3.90
2.90
"2.52
4.20
3.24
9
1.32
3.89
2.75
1.63
4.12
3.02
1.89
4.31
3.25
2.11
4.47
3.45
10
2.89
5.20
3.65
3.14
5.33
3.86
3.33
5.44
4.03
3.48
5.52
4.16
11
1.88
3.18
2.42
2.18
3.37
2.67
2.42
3.52
2.87
2.63
3.64
3.04
12
1.20
4.29
2.45
1.72
4.63
2.87
2.15
4.91
3.22
2.52
5.14
3.52
13
2.07
8.50
4.29
2.50
8.78
4.71
2.'85
1 8.99
5.06
3.16
9.17
5.36
14
0.95
5.40
2.56
1.28
5.72
2.95
1.51
5.98
3.28
1.71
6.21
3.55
15
2.19
4.96
3.68
2.44
5.18
3.97
2.65
5.35
4.21
2-.84
5.50
4.41
16
1.08
7.74
3.09
1.23
8.06
3.44
1.35
8.33
3.74
1.46
8.55
3.99
17
1.08
1 3.71
1 1.42,
1.21
3.92
1.73
1.21 •
3.92
1.73 ,
1.48
4.28
2.23
18
1.14
1 6.18
1 3.11
1.54
6.35
3.48
1.74
6.49
3.78
1 1.87
6.73
Table 11.-- Sensitivity of Area in Each Zone with Watertable Depth Greater than One Foot to Hydraulic
Conductivity Values Greater than the Calibrated Value of.
Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc
22

Compliance Monitoring Wells
As discussed previously, seven new monitoring wells were installed in November 2008. These
wells and a monitoring well previously constructed by S&ME (RW-5) will serve as the
compliance monitoring system for the Rowan Road site. The details of the compliance wells are
shown in Table 3 and their locations are shown on Figure 2. Wells RW-I, RW-2, RW-3, RW-4,,
RW-6, RW-7, and RW-8 were installed by Protocol Sampling Services, a Licensed North
Carolina Well Contractor under subcontract to Eagle Resources.
Background Groundwater Quality
Groundwater quality beneath the Rowan Road was assessed by S&ME on April 13, 2006 by
sampling four (4) test wells and analyzing them for four of the seven parameters required by
permit WQ0004268. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 12.
Well ID
Sample
Date
N
-+3
o:
U E
o
OU E
v)
s
o=
m
;_
a)
" o
z z
�
tv Cj
E 6
� o
C/)
o f
a
a�
W E
NC 2L Groundwater
Standard
250
ns
n/a
10
n/a
500
6.5-8.5
250
P-15
4/13/2006
25
n/a
n/a
19
n/a
200
n/a
n/a
P-4
4/13/2006
36
n/a
n/a
14
n/a
210
n/a
n/a
P-15
4/13/2006
15
n/a
n/a
3
n/a
44
n/a
n/a
OW-2
4/13/2006
7.0
n/a
n/a
< 0.10
n/a
< 20
n/a
n/a
OW-3
4/13/2006
38
n/a
n/a
26
n/a
280
n/a
n/a
R-1
11/17/2008
12.3
50.3
75
0.58
16.0
71
5.26
12.0
R-2
11/17/2008
9.25
25.5
158
2.76
16.1
108
4.87
48.4
R-3
11/17/2008
5.5
63.1
118
3.0
15.0
56.6
4.37
31.8
R-4
11/17/2008
6.5
18.6
763
1.22
15.8
55.6
4.92
15.4
R-5
11 /16/07
19.5
17.8
n/a
0.21
n/a
158
5.62
47.4
3/3/08
8.0
13.5
n/a
1.24
n/a
138
6.39
18.7
.7/7/08
10
19.9
n/a
<.10
n/a
106
3.96
<5.0
11/17/2008
9.25
19.6
81
< 0.10
17.1
74
5.76
8.01
R-6
11/17/2008
45
46.8
288
4.83
18.1
77
1 4.72
34.2
R-7,
111/17/20081
21.2
13.1
110
0.4
18.1
66
4.74
12.6
R-8
1 11/17/2008
26.5
1 < 5.0
1 381
24.1
21.9
200
1 4.66
22.4
n/a: no analysis reported; ns: no standard
Table 12: - Background Groundwater Chemistry.
Allen. Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 23

Compliance monitoring well R-5 has been sampled and analyzed by Aliens in conjunction with
the sampling and analysis required)by permit WQ0004268 since November 200720. The results
of these analyses are also shown in Table 12. Note that the nitrate values in the test wells P-1, P-
4. and 6W-3 shown in Table 12 are significantly.higher than the values for OW-2 and P-15:
These differences are attributed to the. fact that at the time the samples'were taken in OW-2 and
P-15, the eastern part of the Rowan Road site in which these wells were located had not been
cleared for cropping based upon reports by R. Wells and T. Langston of Aliens, and upon, Figure •;
2 of the S&ME Hydrogeologic Report6.. Conversely, based -upon the same sources, the`area:
where the elevated nitrate values were detected apparently had been cropped for sometime. The
elevated nitrate levels are likely the result of nitrogen fertilizer being applied in excess of
agronomic demand.
To further assess pre -irrigation groundwater quality conditions for the'Rowan Road site the
compliance monitoring wells were sampled on November 17, 2008 as part of the regularly
scheduled fall sampling that includes monitoring wells for the existing irrigation areas north of
Rowan Road. The results of these analyses'are shown in Table 12.
The nitrate levels in all the compliance wells except R-8 are below the NC 2L standard of 10
mg/l. Well R-8 is also in the area that has been cropped for many years, and this well is also up -
gradient of all proposed irrigation zones.
Conclusions
A defensible conceptual hydrogeologic model of the Rowan Road site and'.surrounding areas has
been constructed using available information from public domain sources, field investigations,
and tests by other contractors for Aliens.
A three-dimensional -groundwater flow model has been constructed and successfully tested
against measured groundwater level measurements. The simulated groundwater flow patterns
are consistent with the conceptual model. The agreement between measured and observed water
level elevations is well within industry and NCDENR guidelines. Consequently the model can
reliably be used to assess the likely average water table configuration and' depth to water table
under conditions where irrigation is applied to the existing and expanded sprayfields.
A uniform value of hydraulic conductivity equal to the value determined by a previous contractor
from a long term pumping test was used in the simulation model for the surficial aquifer. Values
for hydraulic conductivity of the underlying Black Creek confining Layer and the Upper Black
Creek Aquifer were taken from regional studies by the U.S. Geological Survey. Acceptable
model calibration was achieved by applying recharge from average precipitation and simulating
evapotranspiration from groundwater as a function of the depth to the watertable.
The calibrated model was used to develop the boundaries of 18 irrigation zones and to determine
the maximum rate of recharge that under steady state conditions resulted in'a depth to water
greater than one foot beneath each zone. The recharge used in the mounding analysis was the
sum of the 801h% wettest year precipitation and applied irrigation water.
20Reid Wells, Personal Communication:" Monitoring Wells Spreadsheet' November 2008.
Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 24

�r� lB "V-42G 5
The recharge rates resulting from the mounding analysis were used as the drainage rates in the
water balance to determine the recommended hydraulic loading rates for each zone. The
drainage rates were used to calculate an effective drainage coefficient (ratio of the drainage rate
to the geometric mean vertical hydraulic conductivity or Ksat for the most restrictive horizon) for
the most restrictive soil present in each irrigation zone. All the computed drainage coefficients
and drainage rates are less than those recommended in the Soil Scientist Report for the Rowan
Road Site.
Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 25

S&ME Inc. [phone]
Northing:
Date: 14/Feb/2006
620 Wando Park Boulevard
Easting:
`
Test ID: CPT-1
#SAM "Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Elevation: :
Project: 1584-060-009
[e-mail]
Client: Allen Canning
www.smeinc.com
Job Site: Allen Canning
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT
6 (tsf) O (tSf 600 0 (0/0) 6 O (tsf) '30 .0 class. FR _ 1 O
24
C
36
48
60 Maximum depth: 57.03 (it)
Ssnds
Santl Mix
Sand Mix I
u'
D
r
r
m
z
D
z .
z
12
z
M
24
36
48
'60
Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref Robertson 1990)
Q Estimated Phreatic Surface

i c
1
r
t
r A
r
SWE Inc. [phone]
Northing:
Date: 14/Feb/2006
620 Wando Park Boulevard
*SM Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Easting:
Elevation:
Test ID: CPT-2 -
Project: 1584-06-009 .
Client: Allen Canning
Job Site: Allen Canning.
[e-mail]
www.smeinc.com
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio dOR Pore Pressure SBT
6 (tsf) 0 (tsf) 600 0 (%) 6 0 (tsf) 30 0 Class. FIR10
O
,
.13
-
26
i
0
D
I—
f"'
m
z
.z
z
13
Z C.
26
39
52
65:
Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref: Robertson 1990)
W
Q Estimated Phreatic Surface

3
1
N
A
V
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT
6 (tsf) O (tsf) 600 0 (%) 6 0 (tsf) 300 Class. FR 10
O
13
26
39
52
65 I 1 1 1 1 I I
Maximum depth: 30.46 (ft)
Sande
Send Mbt
26
39
52
........... .65
Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref. Robertson 1990)
QEstimated Phreatic Surface
N
m
m
-�7
r
W
m

-
3
2
C
3
5
6
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT
s (tst? 0 (tst) 600 0 (0/0) 6 0 (tst) 30 0 class. FR 10
o
3
B
9
2
Maximum depth: 47.97 (ft)
• = . 1 � I li - jS 1
0
>7
r-
I—
m
z
n
I
z.
z
13 Z
G)
26
39
52
65
Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref Robertson 1990) W
Q Estimated Phreatic Surface
Maximum depth: 47.97 (ft)
• = . 1 � I li - jS 1
0
>7
r-
I—
m
z
n
I
z.
z
13 Z
G)
26
39
52
65
Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref Robertson 1990) W
Q Estimated Phreatic Surface
26
39
52
65
Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref Robertson 1990) W
Q Estimated Phreatic Surface
Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref Robertson 1990) W
Q Estimated Phreatic Surface

"
3
N
A
C
SWE Inc. [phone]
Northing:
Date: 14/Feb/2006
620 Wando Park Boulevard
*SM Mt.:Pleasant; SC 29464
[e-mail]
Easting:
Elevation: i
Test ID: CPT-5
Pro'ect: 1584-06-009
Client: Allen Canning
www.smeine.com
Job Site: Alien Canning
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure, SBT
8 (tst) 0 (tst) 600 0 (°Yo) 6 0 (tst) 30 O Class. FIR 10
0 A 7
13
3-
39
52
65 '
Maximum depth: 31.78 (ft)
O
Sands
13
GrSend
Sands
3and'Mbr
Sands
26
Gr Sand
39
52
' 65
Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref. Robertson 1990)
SZ Estimated Phreatic Surface

I
r.
K
SWE Inc. - -•(643)SS4-0005 Nortning: uaie:-orwrepicuva m
620 Wand' Park Boulevard Easting: Test ID: CPT-6 - 7
ss Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Elevation: Project: 1584-06-009
[e-mail] - Client: Allen Canning'
w
wrwwi.smeinc.com Job Site- Allen Canning = m
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio CORD Pore Pressure • -SBT
8 (tsf) O (tsf) 600 0 . (%) _ 6 0. (tsf) 30 _ 0 Class. FIR 10 -
O
13
26
v
39
52
65
0
D
r
.
m
z
3)
Z
Z .
13
Z
z.
26
39
S2
65
Maximum depth: 32.00 (ft) Class FR: Friction patio Classitioati0n (Ref: Robertson ,1990) -0
Q Estimated Phreatic Surface

3
I
A
S&ME Inc. [phone]
Northing:
:-14/Feb/2006 ;
620 Wando Park Boulevard
#S= Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Easting:
Elevation:
LTestID: CPT-7
ct: 1.584-06-009 .
' [e-mail]
Client: Allen Canning
www.smeinc.com
Job Site: Allen Canning
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT
6 (tst) 0 (tsf) 600 ' O M 6 0 (tsf) 30 0 Class. FIR 10
O
13
26
x
t
a
v
O
39
52
65'
Maximum depth: 36.42 (ft)
I
m
0
O
D
r
r
m
z
c�
D
z
z
13
z
G7
26
39
52 /
65
Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref: Robertson 1990)
SZ Estimated Pnreatio Surface

.A
0
13
26
Q'.
d
39
52
- 6fi
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR- Pore Pressure SBT
6 (tsf) 0 (tsf) 600 0 - 6 • O (tsf) 30 O Class FIR 70
Q
_ Maximum depth:-43.75 (e) Class FIR: Friction. Ratio Classification (Ref. Robertson 1990) -
Q Estimated Phreatic Surface

3
3D
-C
. I
- N
A
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT
e (tsf) O (tsf) 600 O (%) 6 O (tst) 30 O Class. FIR 10
0
13
26
39
52
65 '
Maximum depth: 40.73 (ft)
Sz
N
(M
G
W
O
• D
r
m
z
n
z
z
13
Z
0
26
Send Mix
39
sands
52
65
Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref: Robertson 1990)
Q Estimated Phreatic Surface

.
_
3
-
A
A
t -
CL
m
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT
6 (tsf) - 0 (tsf) 600 0 (%) 6 O (tsf) 30 O Class.:FR 10
0
13
26
39
52
65
Maximum depth: 41.40-( t)
0
D
r
m
z
c�
D
z
z
13 Z
L7 ,
26
39
52
M
65
F,
Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref: Robertson 1990) �
57 Estimated Phreatic Surface

r r r �
r i r r. i
� � i r•
r r i r
t• r
.
3
D
{
A
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT
6 (tsf) O (tsf) Goo O (%) 6 O (tsf) 30 O Class. FIR 10
O
1,3
26
L
Q
0
39
52
S5
Maximum depth: 36.54 (ft)
Gr Sand
Sands
Sand Mix
•
1
N
f9
0
fd
r
39
52
65
;s
Class FR: Frlctiw Ratio, Classlfloatlon (Ret Robertson 1990)
SZ Estimated Phreabc Surface
L.

s� r
r�: r� r -- �
r r
r'
r
•r
r r
r� r
r-. � r
r� �1�
r'
3
_
A
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR -Pare Pressure SBT
6 (tsf) 0 (tsf) 800 0 (0/0)- 6 0 (tsf) 30 O Class. FR 90 ,
2E
`
L
gc
6E
Maiimum depth: 53.00 (ft)
i
•
I
-
Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref Robertson 1990)
Q Estimated Phreatic Surface
. 1.
R1
m
m-
ram•
.
(nl
•
F,
D
r
r
m
z
n
D
Z
Z
13
Z
L7
26
39 •
52
55

'3
D
N
.A
v
SWE Inc. [phone]
Northing:
Date: 14/Peb12006
620 Wando Park Boulevard.
*SyMt. Pleasant; SC 29464
[e-mail]
Easting:
Elevation:
Test ID: CPT-13
Pro'ect: 1584-06-009
Client: Allen Canning
www.smeinc. corn
Job Site: Allen Canning
Sleeve Stress, Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT
6 (tst) O (tat) 60o O (%) 6 0 (tsf) 30 0 Class. FIR 10
0
13
26
39
52
65
Maximum depth: 42.15 (ft)
I
N
m
19
Sands I
4
D
r
r-
m
z
n
�z
z
13
Z
L1
26
39
52
Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref: Robertson 1990) ••
Q Estimated Phreatic Surface

O
• �
13
-.
26
t
39
52
-
65
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT
6 (tsf) O (tsf) 600 O. (%) 5 0 (tsf) '30 O Class. FR - 10
Ma)dmum depth: 25.70 (ft)
m
m
W
N
O
3)
r
F
z
c�
z
_ - z
13
Z
G7
26
39
52
( e
Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref: Robertson'19W)
Q Estimated Phreatic Surface

U f 1 f I I
O
13
26
39
52
eve Stress
(tsf) O
Maximum depth: 45.41 (ft)
3
D
-C
' 1
N
A
Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT
(tsf) 600 0 (0/0) 6 O (tsf) 30 O Class. FIR 10
Class PR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref: Robertson 1990)
Q Estimated Phreatic Surface
- N
- - m
m
W '
r
D
r
r
m
z
C)
D
Z
Z_
Z
9)

3leave Stress Tlp Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT
(ts1) 0 - (tst) 600 - 0 (%) 6 O (ts1) , 30 0 Class. FR' 10
Q
Mapmum depth:60.91 (H) ClaseFR: Friction Ratio Classification (ReE:Robertson 1990)
V Estimated Ohreatic Surface -
' N
t9
G
r�
W
N
J -
-
33 .
r
r
m
z
n
D
z ..
z
13
z
26
39
52
85
.

r r r l r r r r I I r r I r r r r r r
S&ME Inc. [phone]
Northing:
Date: 15/Feb/2006
ssm620 Wanda Park Boulevard
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
[e-mail]
Easting:
Elevation:
Test ID: CPT-17
Proiect: 1584-06-009
Client: Allen Canning
www.smeinc.com
Job Site: Allen Canning
Sleeve Stress
B (tst) 0
0
13
26
C
is
a
0
fl
39
52
85
Maximum depth: 34.39 (It)
Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT
(tst) Boo 0 (%). 6 0 ' (tst) 30 0 Class. FR 10
I y-
Sande
Sand Mix I
I Sands II
0
D
r
m
Z
n
D
Z
Z
13 z
26
39
52
65
Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref: Robertson 1990)
SZEstimated Phreatic Surface
00
o "

-
A
0
13
26
v
52
S&ME Inc. [phone]
Northing:
Date: 15IFeb/2006
620 Wando Park Boulevard
#SW Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
[e-mail]
Easting: '
Elevation:, . ]Project:
Test ID:- CPT-18
1584-06-009
Client: Allen Canning
www.smeinc.com
Job Site: Allen Canning
IU
m
m
w
N
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR 'Pore Pressure SST '
6' (tat) -O 091) Soo O M 6 0 (tst) 30 0 Class. FR ' 10
Class FR. Friction Ratio Classification (Ref Robertson 1 .
990)-
$ZEstimated Phreatic,Surface '
7 .
3)
I—
m
z
n
.
z
13
z
L7 ..
26
52
15

Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT
6 (tsf) O (tsf) BOO 0 B O (ts1) 30 0 Class_ FIR 10
0
13
25
C
t
a
m
n
39
52
65'
Ma:dmum depth; 37.74 (ft)
N
m
t9
W
4'
R]
0
r-
f
m
z
D
Z
Z '
.13
Z
0
Sands
25
OrSend
39
52
Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref. Robertson 1990)
SZFstimated Phreatic'Surface
i

I . t r (.^ r . - t . .. t
t -
t :_• I .
r r - c�
t � r .-
;t,
� t:
t -
i
3
S&ME Inc...-[phone]
Northing:
Date: 15/Feb/2006
620 Wando Park Boulevard
Easting:
Test ID: CPT-20
*Sm Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Elevation::
Project: 1584-06-009
[e-mail] ;
Client Allen Canning
www.smeinc.com
Job Site: Allen Canning
a
13
26
C
-
G
a
m
39
52
"
65
m
m
w
N
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress. COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT
6 (tsf) O (tsf) 600 0 (%). B 0 (tsf) 30 0 Class- FR 10
u
33
1—
m
z
c)
D
Z
Z
13
Z
26
39
52
._ Meximum de ' ' I-i
pth: 59.25 (ft) Gass FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref•. Robertson 1990) '
j7 Estimated Phreat c. Surface

3
D
N
A .
. S&ME Inc. [phone]
Northing:
Date: 15/Feb/2006
620 Wando Park Boulevard
#SMMt. Pleasant, SC 29464
[e-mail]
www.smeinc.com
Easting:
Elevation:
Test ID: CPT-21
Pra ect: 1584-06-009
Client: Allen Canning
I Job Site: Allen Canning
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT
6 (tsf) 0 (tsf) 600 O (%) -6 0 (tsf) 30 0 Class. FIR 10
0
13
26
39
52
O
—I
D
r
65
Maximum depth: 31.39 (ft)
N
N
Sands I
Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref: Robertson 1990)
S[Estimated Phreatic Surface
26
39
52
I
ru
m
N

MAY-24-2007 0: 16 ALLEN CANNING
P.02
PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING
TURKEY, NORTH CAROLINA
BORING LOG B-2
1584-06-000
DATE DRILLED: 312106
ELEVATION:
NOTES:
DRILLING METHOD: 3'/1' H.S.A: ,.
BORING DEPTH:. 40.0
LOGGED BY: LBUTLER
WATER LEVEL:
DRILLER: R. Norwood
DRILL RIG: OME-560
w
fl
U
:C O
° o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
>
1
w
a
3
O -=+
F g
¢ ,
ry
v
w u1
a s
M �
san z-
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
blcws/ft
( )
10 20 30 .610.8.0.
w
z
Gray Tan Silty Fine SAND
4
Orange Brown Slightly Clayey Fine Slightly Sandy SILT
7
5
Red Tan Orange Silty CLAY
4
- _i.';N0nMQe_BMMM
Fine Sandy SILT with MIca
Gray White Silty Fine SAND
3-
and Tan Orange Silty CLAY
10—Gray
5
Orange Rcmm Silly Fine to Medium SAND (Saturated)
4
Orange Brown SlItyFine .to Medium SAND Interiayered
with red and orange Silty clay
Laminated Gray and Orange, CLAY
15
2
-
Gray Black Silty CLAY interlayered with fine sand seams
5
7
20
10
it
25
Black CLAY with Gray micaceous medium to fine sand
10
seams'at 18.8 - 18.9,20.8-21.0, 21.2-21.3,.21.4-21.5,
22.9.23, 23.2-23.3, 23.6-24.6, 25-25.2, 25.6-25.7,
-
28.2-28.4, 28.7-29, 29.1-29.2, 29.3-29.4, 31,1-31.3,
31.5-31.85, 32.2-32.3, 32;5-32.65, 32.7-32.8
17
30
12
15
35
13
Gray Black CLAY intedayered'with black gray medium to
. .
16
Black CLAY sand seams at 38.5-38.61' 38,75-38.8
17
40
Boring Terminated at 40 Feet
NOTES:'
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT
REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
... 3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 9
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SENCES

MAY-24-2007 13"16 ALLEN CANNING
P.03
' 'PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING
TURKEY, NORTH CAROLINA:
: BORING LOG B-fi
1584.06409
NOTES:
DATE DRILLED: 3f2f06
ELEVATION:
DRILLING METHOD; 3 W1 H.S.A.
BORING DEPTH: 40.0
+..
LOGGED BY: LBUTLER- ..
WATER.LEVEL:
DRILLER:• R. Norwood
DRILL RIG: CME-550.
J
o
"w
'•
STANDARD PENETRATION TESL DATA
_
_ ,
a o
WQ
g
aCL
�
{blows/f}` ,
a>
O
J
_
toZ
:Z
y-ui
10 20 30
- 6080
k Very Silty Fine SAND
B1ac _
3
Tan Brown Slightly Clayey SILT ..:.
3
.
tGF
lightly Sandy Silty CLAY (Moist)
7
-
ne to Coarse SAND
5
10
5
Gray Fine SAND with Wood Fragments
Gray Fine to Coarse SAND with Rounded Quartz Pebbles
6
+...
15
25
Green Gray Very Silty Fine SAND with Mica; interlayered
black clay 15 to 15.5 feet
21
�nj.
,Green Gray Fine SAND Altemating with Black Clay ,
19
20
12
1
Green CLAY with Thin seams of Gray Fine Sand
w
36
25
Black CLAY with thin seams of Gray Fine Sand
19
20
'�.
Green Fine SAND Altemating with seams of Black Clay19
.
(Clay seams 28.4do 28.8 feet and Sand seams 29 to 29.`4
'
30 .
feet.and 30.6 to 31 feet
34
42
WGreen
Gray Slightly Silty Fine SAND -
36
35
z `
Dark Green Slightly,Sandy Clayey SILT
Z
;
a
�-
40
Baring Terminated at 40 Feet
Page: 9
NOTES:
-of
1. ` THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF"A REPORT FOR THE NAMED
W
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT ,
REPORT.'
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION' TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
"
.3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT. ; .
ENGINEERING • TESTING
4. WATER LEVELIS"AT TIME�OP EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY:
EWRONMENrAL SERVICES

MAY-24-2007 13:16 RLLEN CRNNING
P.04
PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING
TURKEY, NORTH CAROLINA
BORING LOG B-10
1584.08-009
NOTES:
DATE DRILLED: 2128106
ELEVATION:
DRILLING METHOD: 41/4" H.S.A.
BORING DEPTH: •50.0
LOGGED BY: LBUTLER
WATER LEVEL:
DRILLER: R. Norwood
DRILL RIG: CME-550
v
J
p
ut
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
w
a o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
a
�o'" )
❑ "
<
-j
rn z
Z
10 20 30 60 80
-,QLay_aLU,� Fine Very Sandy SILT
x
4
Tan Brown and Gray Slightly Clayey Fine Very Sandy
5
SILT
5
8
-4111
Orange Brown Very Silty CLAY
_
Gray Fine Sandy SILT (Moist) to Medium to Fine Sandy
7
Slit with Mica
12
Gray and Orange Silty Fine to Coarse SAND (Saturated)
107.
FIrown Orange Finp SAND with S'lly Clay Beams
5
Brown Orange Silty Fine to Coarse SAND with Rounded
15
9
Gray Silty Fine SAND with Course to Fine Sand Seams,
htly
11
•
Black Slightly Clayey SILT with Thin Micaceous seams
and Fine White Sand Seams (Da P)
20
10
Gray Black Fine Slightly Sandy SILT with Mica, with
g
irregular fine sand pockets, clay seam 22 to 23 feet
254
9
10
23
30
Dark Green Silty Fine to Medium SAND with clay seams
53
>
from 30.5 to 31 feet; Micaceous (Moist)
22
i 35
26
%Gray Rlack Fine SlWhfly Sandy Clayey SILT
Black Green CLAY with Dark Green Medium to Fine Sand
30
Black Green CLAY Interayered with silty medium to Flne
sand (Organics at 35.75 feet)
36
40
45
r
Dark Green Silty Fine to Medium SAND Saturated
Black Green CLAY Interlayered with silty medium to One
_
�
11
z 45
Green Black CLAY Fine sand seams 1/32" thick every 3"
15
from 46 to 48 feet
16
15
R
j 50
Boring Terminated at 50 Feet
c
e
a
'
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT
REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1566.
... 3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 9 of 1
*SAME.
ENGINEERING * TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

NRY-24-2007 13:16 ALLEN CANNING
low:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE NAM
PROJECT AND, MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT
REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN ,
GENERAL ACCORDANCE VNTH ASTM D•1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
4. .WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING
TURKEY;-NQRTH.CAROUNA BORING•LAG B41.
1584-06-009 • - '
NOTES:
DATE DRILLED 312106 ELEVATION:
DRILLING METHOD: 3'/4" H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 40.0 ;
LOGGED BY: LBUTLER WATER LEVEL:
DRILLER.'FL Norwood DRILL RIG: CME•550 '
q w. w STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA;
v co, a a
a blowslft)
a' z o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION. o ¢ �* t >
--' �'Z
" w� z
Gray Silty Fine SAND 3'
Orange Brawn Fine Very Sandy SILT (Damp, moist at 3 . 3
feet).
5 14
Tan Orange and White Slightly Silty Fine $AND (Moist)
Gray White Fine to Coarse SAND (Saturated) slightly
micaceous 7
Tan to Orange Silty Fine to.Coarse SAND with Rounded
14 • ,
Tan Orange Silty Fine to Coarse SAND - 5
Orange Gray Fine Slightly Sandy Clayey SILT (Low.
' 3
Orange Siity Fine SAND
15.. „ 19
-\(' rAy Silty Fine RAND with Organics 7
25
Alternating Gray Fine. Sand And Black CLAY (Moist)
7
20" ;
Green'CLAY with iriegular,inclusions of gray green sand., a
IL
(Moist) -
z 9,
25 .12
Black CLAY with seams of gray fine sand; organic debris. - 13
x {4
NOTES:
ED `

MRY-24-2007 13:17 ' ALLEN CANNING
P.06
r..
w..
PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING
TURKEY, NORTH CAROLINA
BORING LOG B-11
1584-067009
NOTES:
DATE DRILLED: 312106
ELEVATION:
DRILLING METHOD: 3 1/4" N.S.A.
BORING DEPTH: 40.0
LOGGED BY: LOUTLER
WATER LEVEL:
DRILLER: R. Norwood
DRILL RIG: CME-550
U
w
z0
w
STANDARD. PENETRATION TEST DATA
W
a d
a o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
N
(L
t
(�° �)
.—t
O
IW
Z
>
z
Jch
10 20 30 .6.0.8.0.
"
Black CLAY with seems of gray fine send; organic debris.
condnued)21
Finely LaminatedBlack CLAY And gray green fine sand
•
23
Green CLAY with irregular inclusions of gray green -fine
kr,rppn Gray Fine
35
37
— fork CLAY
Green Fine SAND with Mica with black organic silt
•
-Gray
with fine sand seams from 35.3 to 35.7 feet
32
Green GraV Fine SAND with Mica
30
Black Finely Laminated CLAY with seams of gray fine
send
40
'ray Forii
goring Terminated at 40 feet
V
-
u
e
ie
z
L
L
_
4
'a
I'
(VOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT
REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
1 STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT,
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
r

MAY-24-2007 13:17 ;: ALLEN CANNING P.0'7',
.W..
I-
" PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING
TURKEY, NORTH CAROLINA,
BORING LOG B
-
1684-06-009
NOTES:
DATE DRILLED: 311106
ELEVATION:',
`•; .
DRILLING METHOD: 3 W': H.S.A.
BORING DEPTH: 40.0
LOGGED BY:. LBUTLER
WATER LEVEL:
DRILLER: R. Norwood
DRILL RIG: CME-550
U
a,
p
w• w
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
)
3:t7
R
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
d
..
ii a
a
(blows/fi)
¢.
W it
o
(n Z
z
6080
.
4
Gray Slightly Silty Fine to Medium SAND (Damp)
?
5
4
Gray Fine Sandy CLAY (Moist) -
11
Tan Silty Fine to Coarse. SAND (Saturated)
3
10
•
Orange Tan Slightly Clayey Silty Fine to Coarse SAND
7
krri;y Very Silty F Urn SAND
15
Green Gray Fine Slightly Sandy Very Clayey SILT (Damp);
10
with mica; clay and rock fragments
9
20
24
Green Gray Silty Fine SAND (Saturated) with Mica.
Green Gray Fine Slightly Sandy Very Clayey SILT (pamp
25
-
16
14
Green Black Very Silty CLAY with Thin, trine Sand Seams'
1 T "
Green Gray Silty. Fine to Medium SAND with Mica and'`
M
30
13
,
o
,
22
35
Green Black CLAY with Thin, Fine Sand Seams at
15
'30.6-30.65, 31.2=31.3,, 53.4-33.6, 38:5-38.55, 39.4=39:6
'15
21
40
Boring Terminated at 40 Feet
x
0
,
-NOTES:
1, THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT,
REPORT,
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION; TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM DA556.
4 3, STRATIFICATION AND. GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT,
4. WATER LEVEtJS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

MAY-24-2007 0: 17
i
ALLEN CANNING
..,
.r
P.09
- dJ ,
PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING
1
BORING LOG B-19
TURKEY, NORTH CAROLINA
1584.06.009
jl
NOTES:
DATE DRILLED: 3/1lOB
ELEVATION:
DRILLING METHOD: 3'/4" H.S.A:
BORING DEPTH: 50.0
LOGGED BY: LBUTLER
WATER LEVEL:
DRILLER: R. Norwood
DRILL RIG: CME-SSO
j
LD
Lc ut
STANDARD PENETRATICN TEST DATA
x ,�
�a
w0
z
a o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
W
t- g
ra' �,
a s
a
(blowsRt)
3
Z
.."...
J
¢
W oy
U% Z
1d 20 30 6080
9
Tara Brown Slightly Clayey Silty Fide SAND
5
1
Orange Tan Brown to Red and Tan Orange Fine Sandy
5
SILT
Tan Silty Fine SAND with Mica
1Z
Orange Slightly Silty Fine to Medium $AND (Saturated)
With Mica
•
7
Orange Fine to Coarse SAND with Rounded Quartz
1 0
Red and Tan Orange Fine Slightty Sandy Clayey SILT
9
Green Gray Fine Slightly Sandy Clayey SILT (Moist) with
Tan Brown Slightly Clayey Fine Sandy SILT
Finely Laminated Black CLAY with Gray Fine Sand
Tan Silty Fine to Coarse SAND with Mica
5
15
'
.
Green Gray Fine SAND with Mica Interlayered with Black
cla
22
Black CLAY Interlayered with Gray Green Fine Sand
Green. Gray Fine SAND Interlayered with Bladc Clay
Q
19
a
Uj 20
y
13
a
Black CLAY with Thin Gray Green Fine Sand Seams from'
Z
19.1 to 19.3 feet and from 20.1 to 20.4 feet
I
Z
13
25
14
Finely Laminated Black CLAY And Gray Green Fine Sand
oAND
_
21
Black CLAY with Thin Fine Sand Seams', organic seam at
$
29.5 feet
�
NOTES:
..� 1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT
REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTN1 DAW6.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY,

`,ALLEN CANNING' ,; ' P- 09
a.r
L-
6
MAY-24-2007 "•13:17
r
PROJECT:
.. ALLEN CANNING
TURKEY, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-19 ;
15a4-06-009
NOTES:` .
DATE DRILLED: 311106 - ELEVATION:
DRILLING METHOD: 3 V4" H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 50.0
LOGGED BY: LBUTLER WATER LEVEL: `
DRILLER: R. Norwood DRILL RIG: CARE-550•
v > O Ui a STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w
_.�._
w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION' W ¢ m ' Q+ (litowsfft)
o ¢ w 'n z z
10 20 30 .6.0.8.0.
15
35 Dark Green Silty Fine to Medium SAND (Saturated) clay 16
seams 35.1 to 35.2 feet, 35.5 to 35.6 feet; silty clay seams
35.25 to 35.3 feet, 38.5 to 38.6 feet; organic layer 35.2-to
35.25 feet; slightly indurated seams 40 to 41 feet 34
47
73
Dark Green Shale (Weathered Seam)
51
45 61
00,
Dark Green" Very Sifty:Fine SAND; Possible Organic.
Seams at 47.2 and 48.5 feet 16
11
a 50 Boring. Terminated at 50 Feet
Z
5
cc
NOTES: , . " Page 2 Of 2
1, THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT
REPORT.&ME
_
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN'
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1688,
3. STRATIFICATION -AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
ENOINENG •TESTING
4. WATER LEVEL IS A'r TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. ENVIRON NfAL SERVICE$
NOTES: , . " Page 2 Of 2
1, THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT
REPORT.&ME
_
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN'
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1688,
3. STRATIFICATION -AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
ENOINENG •TESTING
4. WATER LEVEL IS A'r TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. ENVIRON NfAL SERVICE$

r..
MAY-24-2007 13:17 ALLEN CANNING
COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. OW-1
PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING
PROJECT NO: 1684-06-009 WATER LEVEL:
PROJECT LOCATION: TURKEY, NORTH CAROLINA
LATITUDE:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: R. Norwood LONGITUDE:
DRILLING METHOD: 41/a" H.S.A. TOP OF CASING ELEVATION:
DATE DRILLED: 3120106 DATUM: MSL
i nc;r.r=n Rv. LBUTLER
P.10
Sheet 1 of
STRATA
WELL
DETAILS
v
❑
o
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
m
DESCRIPTION
2
r..
u�i
o ,.
w
PROTECTIVE CASING
0
0.00
GS
Diameter.
Type:
Tan Fine Sandy
0.20
BS
Interval:
Fine Very
LSa'ndySILTwith
3.00
FPnics
3.60
TSC
RISER CASING
Green Fine
CLAY
Diameter: 2"
Black Very Silty Fine
5
Type: PVC
SAND
Interval; +1.7 to 3.6
Tan Slightly Silty Fine
SAND
GROUT
Gray Tan Slightly Silty
Fine to Medium
Type;
AND
10
Interval:
Orange Tan Fine to
Coarse SAND with
Rounded Quartz
SEAL
Fragments
Type: Bentonite
Interval: 0.2-3.0
Black CLAY with
Green Gray Fine Sand
15
Seams
FILTERPACK
Gray Green Fine to
Medium SAND with
18.20
BSC
Type: #2 Sand
Black Clay Seams
18.60
19.20
TO
interval: 3.0-19.2
,Black CLAY
ZZ
SCREEN
Diameter. 2"
Type: 0.010
3
Interval: 3.6 to 18.2
a
LEGEND -
FILTER_PACK
BENTONITE TOC TOP OF CASING
z
GS GROUND SURFACE
® CEMENT GROUT BS BENTONITE SEAL
L
OVA CUTTINGS / BACKFILL FP FILTER PACK
TSd TOP OF SCREEN
c
STATIC WATER LEVEL SSC BOTTOM OF SCREEN
o
TD TOTAL DEPTH
CG CEMENT GROUT
m
J
COMPLETION REPORT OF
WELL No. OW-1
EERING . Sheet 1 of 1

MAY-24-2007 13k17 ALLEN CANNING
..COMPLETION REPORT OF. WELL NO.OW-Z Sheet Y of 1
PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING
PROJECT NO:. 1684-06-009 WATER.LEVEL::..
PROJECT LOCATION: TURKEY, NORTH CAROLINA,
LATITUDE:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: R. Norwood LONGITUDE:,
1 u TOP OF CASING ELEVATION:' .
DRILLING METHOD: 4 /a H.S.A.
DATE DRILLED: 3120106 DATUM:MSL
i n�r_zri ov. I RI ITT PD
STRATA
WELL
DETAILS
W
❑
o
>-
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
m
DESCRIPTION';
❑
rn
w `-
O
uj
PROTECTIVE CASING; :.
0
0.00
GS
Diameter
Type:
Gray Brown Fine Very,
0.30
SS,
Sandv SILT
Interval:
Tan Brown Fine
Sandy SILT (Damp)
3.D0 .
FP
3.70
TSC
RISER CASING
Diameter.' 2" '
Orange and Gray
Brown Slightly Silty
5
_
Type: PVC
Fine SAND (Moist)
Interval: +1.6 to 3.7
GROUT
Tan Fine to Medium
SAND with Thin Clay
Seams Moist
10
Type:
Interval:
Tan Gray Fine Sand
and Fine to Medium
SAND (Saturated)
SEAL
Type: Bentonite
Interval: 0.363.0
Black CLAY with
Green Gray Fine Sand
15
Seams
FiLTERPACK
Gray Green Fine to
Medium SAND with:
Type #2 Sand
Seams
18.30
18.70
.BSC
TD
_
Interval: 3:0-19
with
Fine Sand
19.00
T
LGI
SCREEN
Fine to
ND with
Diameter.. 2"
Seams
Type: 0,010
4
_interval: $.7aol8.3
LEGEND
Q PILTER PACK
. BENTONITE TOC TOP OF CASING
i
® CEMENT GROUT GS GROUND SURFACE
BS ' BENTONITE SEAL'
z
®CUTTINGS / BACKFILL • , FP FILTER PACK
TOP OF SCREEN
TSC
a
t STATIC WATER LEVEL, BSC BOTTOM OF SCREEN
TD TOTAL DEPTH
CG CEMENT GROUT
COMPLETION REPORT OF
- WELL No. OW 2-
SWE
,
z Sheet 1 of 1

MAY-24-2007 0:V ALLEN CANNING
COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. OW-3
PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING
PROJECT NO: 1584-06-D09 WATER LEVEL:
PROJECT LOCATION: TURKEY, NORTH CAROLINA
LATITUDE:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: R. Norwood LONGITUDE:
DRILLING METHOD: 6'/4' H.S.A. TOP OF CASING. ELEVATION:
DATUM: MSL
DATE DRILLED: 3/15106
1 nnnrn Rv. LRUTLER
P.12
Sheet 1 of 1
STRATA
WELL
DETAILS
z
p
ul
p
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
m
DESCRIPTION
g
Me
p
a
NLu
Av
w
PROTECTIVE CASING
0
0.00
GS
Diameter.
Type:
Brown Tan Fine
0.60
BS
Sandy SILT
Interval:
3.20
4.zo
FP
Tsc
'
RISER CASING
Gray Brown Silty Fine
SAND
Orange Fine SAND
5
Diameter: 2"
.Type: PVC
Interval: +1.1 to 4.2
Gray Silty Fine SAND
GROUT
Type:
10
Interval:
SEAL
Type: Bentonite
interval: 0.6-3A
Gray Tan Silty Fine to
Medium SAND
15
FILTERPACK
Brown Slightly Clayey
Fine to Coarse Sandy
Type: #2 Sand
SILT
%18.90
19.20
BSC
TD
Interval: 3.M19.2 "
SCREEN
Green CLAY
Diameter. 2"
Type: 0.010
9
Interval: 4.2 to 18.9
LEGEND
FILTER PACK
Z.
BENTONITE TOO TOP OF CASING
z
®CEMENT GROUT GS GROUND SURFACE
BS BENTONITE SEAL
z
® CUTTINGS I BACKFILL FP FILTER PACK
TSC TOP OF SCREEN
STATIC WATER LEVEL BSC BOTTOM OF SCREEN
TO TOTAL DEPTH
CG CEMENT GROUT
J
COMPLETION REPORT OF
WELL No. OW-3 •
o -
Sheet 1 "of 1
o
N

NRY-24-2007 13:17 RLLEN CANNING P.13
COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL.No.:OW-4 Sheet i of 1
PROJECT.- ALLI N CANNING. �
PROJECT NO: 1684-06-009 WATER LEVEL:
PROJECT LOCATION: TURKEY, NORTH CAROLINA _
LATITUDE:
.,. DRILLING CONTRACTOR: • R. NOr1NOod LONGITUDE:
DRILLING. METHOD: 3114" W.S.A.
TOP OF CASING ELEVATION;
DATE DRILLED: 3116106 DATUM: MSL
LOGGED BY: L' BUTLER
N_
6-
STRATA
WELL
DETAILS
x v.,
o
o'
WELL. CONSTRUCTION- DETAILS
m
DESCRIPTION
?
W
O
W
PROTECTIVE CASING•
0
0.00
GS I
Diameter.
Type:
Tan Brown Silty Fine
6.36
BS
SAND
Interval:
3.30
4.30
FP
TSC
RISER CASING
Gray Silty Fine to
Medium SAND
`
Diameter: 2'.'
6
_
Type: PVC
Interval:. +1.0 to 4.3
GROUT
Gray Silty Fine to
Coarse SAND
10,
Type:
Interval:
Gray Brown Very Silty
Fine SAND
Gray White Fine to
Coarse SAND
SEAL
Type:. Bentonite
�9
Interval:' 0.3-3.3 ;
Brown Green Very
Silty Fine SAND,
FI LTERPACK
Type: #2 Sand
19.00
BSC
interval: 3.3-19.5
19.3.0
19.60
TD
Green CLAY
SCREEN '.
Diameter. 2"
Type: 0.010
interval: 4.3 to 19
a
LEGEND.'_
FILTER PACK
■ BENTONITE TOC TOP OF CASING
GS GROUND
®CEMENT GROUT BS BENTONITE SEAL SURFACE
® CUTTINGS I BACKFILL ' FP FILTER PACK
TSC TOP OF SCREEN
_
STATIC WATER LEVEL BSC BOTTOM OF SCREEN
-
TD . ` TOTAL DEPTH
CG.- CEMENT GROUT
a -
COMPLETION REPORT.OF
WELL No. OW-4, - •
Saw
6
Sheet 1 of 1
o ► IIWIJN&
s .sTc

6-
MAY-24-2007 13:18 ALLEN CANNING P.14
COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. RW-1 Sheet 1 of 1 .
i
PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING
PROJECT NO: 1684-06-009 WATER LEVEL:
PROJECT LOCATION: TURKEY, NORTH CAROLINA
LATITUDE:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: R. Norwood LONGITUDE:
DRILLING METHOD: 6t/a' H.S.A. TOP OF CASING ELEVATION:
DATE DRILLED: 3117106 DATUM: MSL
MnnFo FY. LRUTLER
4
i
STRATA
WELL
DETAILS
�e
o
0
>�
W
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
DESCRIPTION
m
}
N
H-�
W'
0
PROTECTIVE CASING
0
0.00
GS
Diameter:
Type:
Tan Brown Fine Very
0.40
BS
Sandy SILT
Interval:'
3.40
4.00
FP
TSC
RISER CASING
5
Diameter: 4"
Type: PVC
Interval: +1.4 to 4.0
Tan Silty Fine SAND
GROUT
Tan Very Silty Fine
10
Type:
Interval:
SAND
SEAL
Type: Bentonite
Interval: 0.4-3.4
Brown Green Clayey
Silty Fine SAND
15
FILTERPACK
��'
18.50
18.90
19.50
BSC
TD
Type: #2 Sand
Interval: 3.4-19.5
SCREEN
Green Fine Slightly
iandy CLAY
; �
Black CLAY
Diameter. 4"
Type: 0.010
Interval: 4.0 to 18.5
LEGEND
Q FILTER PACK
. BENTONITE TOC TOP OF CASING
® CEMENT GROUT GS GROUND SURFACE
BS BENTONITE SEAL
CUTTINGS ! BACKFILL FP FILTER PACK
TSC TOP OF SCREEN
STATIC WATER LEVEL BSC BOTTOM OF SCREEN
TD TOTAL DEPTH
CG CEMENT GROUT
I
COMPLETION REPORT OF
SWELL No. RW-1
I ENQGMEEWNG � ]E99 Sheet 1 of 1
ROM AL RVNGES

MAY-24-2007 13:18 ALLEW CANNING P..is;
COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL NO: RW-2- Sheet.1 of 1
PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING }
PROJECT NO:, 1584-06-009 -WATER LEVEL:.,
PROJECT LOCATION: TURKEY, NORTH CAROLINA
LATITUDE:', ; ..
r- DRILLING, CONTRACTOR: R. Norwood LONGITUDE:
DRILLING METHOD: 6Y4''H.S.A. TOP OF CASING ELEVATION:
DATE DRILLED: 3/16106 DATUM: MSL -
i nr_r_Gn Rv . 1 RI ITI PR '
a-
STRATA
WELL
n
o-
m
DETAILS
w9
g
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
DESCRIPTION
a
n
w
rat
�.
fA
W ..
O
w . .-
PROTECTIVE CASING
0
0.00
GS
Diameter.
Type:
Brown Tan Fine
0,40
BS
Sandy SILT
Interval:
3.90
FP
RISER CASING
4.30.
TSC
Diameter. 4"
Tan Very Silty Fine
6
Type: PVC ;
SAND
Interval: +1.1 to 4.3
GROUT
Gray Silty Fine to
Medium SAND
7ypi;:..
10
Interval:
SEAL
Type:. Bentonite
Tan Orange F ne to
Coarse SAND
Interval .0.4-3.9
15
Gray Brown Slightly
Clayey Fine to Coarse
Sandy SILT
FILTERPACK
Type: #2 Sand
�'.
18,60
19.20
BSC
TD
, Interval 3.9-19.2
'SCREEN", '
reen CLAY j
Diameter. 4"
Type: 0.010
Interval: 4.3 to 18.8.
LEGEND
L� FILTER PACK
..BENTONITE' TOC TOP OF CASING
>;
® CEMENT GROUT GS GROUND SURFACE
BS • BENTONITE SEAL
CUTTINGS ! BACKFILL FP FILTER PACK
ORB TSC TOP OF SCREEN
1, STATIC WATER LEVEL BSc BOTTOM OF. SCREEN
= TD TOTAL DEPTH
CG CEMENT GROUT
COMPLETION REPORT OF
WELL No. RW-2
j ENGINEERING�I - Sheet 1 of 1

.MAY-24-2007 13:18 ALLEN-CANNING
COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. RW-3
'PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING
PROJECT NO: 1584-06-009 WATER LEVEL:.
PROJECT LOCATION: TURKEY, NORTH CAROLINA
'LATITUDE:
.. DRILLING CONTRACTOR: R. Norwood LONGITUDE:
DRILLING METHOD: 6'/4" H.S.A. TOP OF CASING ELEVATION:
DATE DRILLED: 3116/06 DATUM: MSL
LOGGED BY:' LBUTLER .
4
P.16
Sheet 1 of 1
I .
STRATA
WELL
o
0
m
DETAILS
w
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
DESCRIPTION
v
Uu
o
W
PROTECTIVE CASING
0
0.00
0.50
GS
Diameter.
Type:
Brown Tan Fine
BS
Sandy SILT
Interval:
5
5.50
CG
RISER CASING
Diameter, 4"
Tan Silty Fine SAND.
Type: PVC,
Tan Very Silty Fine to
1U
Interval: +1.0 to 34.4
Medium SAND
GROUT
15
Type: Neat Cement Grout
Interval: 5.5-29.7
Brown Gray Slightly
•;
Clayey Silty Fine
SAND
SEAL
Type: Bentonite
Brown Green Fine
Slightly Sandy CLAY
20
Interval: 0.5-5.5 and 29.7-33.4
Green to Black Fine
Slightly Sandy CLAY
FILTERPACK
25
Type: #2 Sand
Interval: 33.4-44.3
29.70
es
30
SCREEN'
Diameter. jV
33.40
FP
Type: 0.010
34.40
TSC
Interval: 34.4 to 43.9
Brown Green Fine
35
'
SAND
LEGEND
40
FILTER PACK
'•
■ BENTONITE TOC TOP OF CASING
43.90,
BSC
®CEMENT GROUT GS GROUND SURFACE
SENTONITE SEAL BS
TD
CUTTINGS I BACKFILL FP FILTER PACK
® TSC TOP OF SCREEN
t STATIC WATER LEVEE. BSC BOTTOM OF SCREEN
I
TD TOTAL DEPTH
CG CEMENT GROUT
COMPLETION REPORT -OF
WELL No. RW-3
�ALTpSTING Sheet 1 of 1
TOTAL P.16

r
1_ Y QNRE,SIDENTIAL WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources- Division of Water Quality
WEI., CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION 4 2527
1. WELL CONTRACTOR:
David E. Meyer
Well Contractor (Individual) Name
Protocol Sampling Service, Inc.
Well Contractor Company Name
STREET ADDRESS PO Box 31133
Raleigh NC 27622
City or Town State Zip Code
91( 9 )- 210-6547
Area code- Phone number
2. WELL INFORMATION:
SITE WELL ID#(ifapplicable) CV/-6
WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT;iI(IrappliceLle)
OTHER ASSOCIATED PERMIT #(if applicable)
3. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box) Monitoring Municipal/Publicl7
Indus trialloommercialp Agriculturali3 Recovelyp Injec0onl3
IrrigalionU Otherp` (list use)
DATE DRILLED October 31 2008
TIME COMPLETED 1300 AM13 PM17
4. WELL LOCATION:
CITY: Turkey COUNTY Sampson
Rowan Road
(Street Name. Numbers, Community, Subdivision, Lot No., Parcel, Zip Code)
TOPOGRAPHIC./ LAND SETTING:
0 Slope I] Valley 0 Flat M Ridge 13 Other
(check appropriate box) May be in degrees,
LATITUDE 34.971024 minutes, seconds or
LONGITUDE
78, 234232 in a decimal format
Latitude/longitude source: D GPS 0 Topographic map
(location of well must be shown on a USGS topo map and
attached to this fort if not using GPS)
6. FACILITY- is the name of the business where the welt Is located
FACILITY ID #(if applicable)
NAME OFFACILiTYAllen Canninp
STREET ADDRESS 5900 Turkey Highway
Turkey NC
28393
City or Town State
Zip Code
CONTACT PERSON Mr. Tommy Langston
MAILING ADDRESS.5900 Turkey Highway
Turkey NC
28393
City or Town State
Tip Code
(910 - 596-0026
Area code - Phone number
6. WELL DETAILS:
a. TOTAL DEPTH: 15.0
b. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? YES13 NOM
c. WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing: 6.55 FT.
(Use "+" if Above Top of Casing)
d. TOP OF CASING IS 3.0 FT. Above Land Surface*
"Top of casing terminated at/or below land surface may require
a variance in accordance with 15A NCAC 2C .0118.
e. YIELD (gpm): 1 METHOD OF TEST pump
f. DISINFECTION: Type na . Amount na
g. WATERZONES(depth):
From 6.0 To 12.0 From To
Frorn To From . To
From To • From To
7. CASING: Depth Diameter Thickness/Weight Material
From +3.0 To -2.0 Ft. 2" Sch40 pvc _
From To Ft.
From To Ft
8. GROUT: Depth Material Method
From Q•0 To -0.5 Ft. Portland pour
From -0.5 To -1.5 Ft. Bentonite pour
From To Ft.
9. SCREEN:
Depth
Diameter
Slot Size• Material
From -2.0
To -12.0
Ft,-2"
In 0.010 in. vim_
From
To
Ft,
In. in.
From
To
Ft,
in, in.
10, SANDIGRAVEL PACK:
Depth
Size
Material
From -1.5
To -12.0
Ft. #3
quartz sand
From
To
Ft.
From
To
Ft.
11.13RILLING LOG
From
TO
Formation Description
0.0
3.0'
_ Brown silty sand (SM)
3.0
5.0'
Dark brown clayey sand (8C)
5.0
8.0'
Black clayey sand (SC)
8.0
12.0'
Black sandy clay (MIL)
12. REMARKS:
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
15A NCAC 2C, WELL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, ANDTHAT A COPY OF THIS
7;1'--
DIED TO THE WELL OWNER.
11 /712008
SIGNATURE OF CERTIFIED WELL CONTRACTOR DATE
David E. Meyer
PRINTED NAME OF PERSON CONSTRUCTING THE WELL
Submit the original to the Division of Water Quality within 30 days. Attn: InFormation Mgt., Form GW-1 b
1617 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone No. [phone] ext 568. Rev.12/07
9 -d 8E1,09ZE616 Xd.3 10301021d Wd60 t01 6002 92 AoN

1_ 1' QNRESIDEN7',�fiL WELL CONSTRUCTION RIECORD
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources- Division of Water Quality
WELL CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION # 2527
1, WELL CONTRACTOR:
David E. Meyer
Well Contractor (Individual) Name
Protocol Sampling Service, Inc.
Well Contractor Company Name
STREETADDRESS PO Box 31133
Raleigh NC 27622
City or Town . State Zip Code
9( 19-210-6547
Area code- Phone number
2. WELL INFORMATION:
SITE WELL ID #g applicable) CW-5
WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMrr#pf applicable)
OTHER ASSOCIATED PERMIT#(If applicable)
3. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box) Monitoring( -[I MuniclpallPublic❑
Industrial/Commereial❑ Agriculturall3 Recovery[( Injection❑
IrrigatiorG Other❑ (Ilst use)
DATE DRILLED October 31, 2008
TIME COMPLETED 1700 AMD PMff
4. WELL LOCATION:
CITY: Turkey COUNTY Sampson
Rowan Road
(Street Name, Numbers, Community, Subdivision, Lot No., Parcel, Zip Code)
TOPOGRAPHIC I LAND SETTING:
❑ Slope ❑ Valley ❑ Flat 0 Ridge ❑ Other
(check appropriate box)
May be in degrees,
LATITUDE 34.969446 minutes, seconds or
LONGITUDE 78.231813 in a decimal format
Latitude/longitude source: 0 GPS ❑ Topographic trap
(location of well must be shown on a USGS topo map and
attached to this form if not using SIPS)
6. FACILITY- is" name of the buslnesswhere the Well is located.
FACILITY ID *(if applicable)
NAME OF FACILITY Allen Canning
STREETADDRESS 5900 Turkey Highway
Turkey NC 28393
City or Town State Zip Code
CONTACT PERSON Mr. Tommy Langston
MAILING ADDRESS 5900 Turkey Highway
Turkey NC 28393
City or Town State Zip Code
(910 )- 596-0028
Area code - Phone number
S. WELL DETAILS:
a. TOTAL DEPTH: 18.0
b. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? YES❑ NOD
c. WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing: 8A5 FT.
(Use "+" If Above Top of Casing)
d. TOP OF CASING IS 3.0 FT. Above Land Surface"
'Top of casing terminated
atfor below land surface may require
a variance In accordance with 15A NCAC 2C .0118.
e. YIELD (gpm): 2
METHOD OF TEST pump
f. DISINFECTION: Type na Amount na
g. WATER ZONES (depth):
From 7.0 To 15.0
From To
From To
From To
From To
From To
7. CASING: Depth
Diameter ThlcknessArWight Material
From +3.0 To -5.0-Ft.
2" SCh40 pyc
From To
Ft.
From To
Ft.
8. GROUT: Depth
Material Method
From 0.0 To -3.0
Fl, Portland pour
From -3.0 To -4.0
Ft. Bentonite pour
From ITa
Ft.
g. SCREEN: Depth
Diameter Slot Size Material
From -5.0 To -15.0
Ft. 2" in. 0.010 in,PVC
From To
Ft. in. In.
From To
Ft. In. In.
10. SANDIGRAVEL PACK:
Depth
Size Material
From -4.0 To -15.0
Ft. #3 quartz sand
From To
Ft.
From To
Ft.
I (.DRILLING LOG
From To
Formation Description
0.0
3.0'
Brown silty sand (SM)
3.0
5.0'
_Yellowish brown clayey sand (SCL
5.0
8.0'
Reddish yellow clayey sand (SC)
8.0
13.0'
Red clayey sand (SC)
13.0
15.0'
Dark gray clay (ML)
12. REMARKS:
1 DO HEREBY CERTIFYTH THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCT
ED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
15A NCAC 2C, WELL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, AND THAT A COPY OF TMS
BEEN PRfVIDED TO THE WELL OWNER.
I .•. 11/7/2008
e
SIGNATURE OF CERTIFIED WELL CONTRACTOR DATE
David E. Meyer
PRINTED NAME OF PERSON CONSTRUCTING THE WELL
Submit the original to the Division of Water Quality within 30 days. Attn: Information MgL, Form GW-1b
1617 Mall Service Center- Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone No, [phone] ext 668. Rev.12/07
S-d 86L092EGTG Xdd 1030IONd WY62:01 800a 92 AON

NoNRE IDENTLIL ,WELL CONSTRUMON RECORD
;rd "North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources- Division of Water Quality
4 ERTIFICATION # 2527 .
'r�..... �. WELL,CONTRACTOR C
1. YVELL,CONTRACTOR: d. TOP OFCASING IS 3.0. FT. Above Land Surface'
*Top of casing terminated attor below land surface may require
David E. Meyer ' a variance in accordance with 15A NCAC 2C,.0118
Well Contractor (individual) Name. e: YIELD (gpm): 5^METHOD OF TEST PUMn
Protocol Sampling Service, Inc. -
f. DISINFECTION: Type ne Amount na
Well Contractor Company Name
STREET ADDRESS PO .Box 31133
p: WATER ZONES (depth):
From 6.0' To 15,0 ' 'From To
Raleigh NC 27622 From To From `. To
CityorTown 'State _ .. Zip Code.. From To` From To
91_1_210.6547
Area Code- Phone number 7;' CASING.` . `Depth Diameter. TnidsnesslVllelyht Material
2. WELL INFORMATION:
SITE WELL ID A(d applldable) CW-4 From +3:0 To -2.0 Ft. 2" 040 pvc
From To Ft.
WELLICONSTRUCTION PERMITA(irapplicable)
From To Ft.`
OTHER ASSOCIATED PERM IT*(If applicable)
8. GROUT: Depth. Material Method
3., WELL USE (Check Applicable Box) Moniloring2l MuniapallPublicp , - -
IndustrieVComrnercial❑ Agricultural13 Recovery❑ Injection[, From O 0 To -0 5 FL,Portland pouf
Irrigation[. OtherO -,(list use) From -0.5 To -1:5 Ft. Bentonite pour
DATE DRILLED October 31; 2008 From To Ft.TIME COMPLETED 1200 AMU PM1 S. SCREEN: Depth Diameter. Slat Size Material
4. WELL LOCATION: : 2 0 12.0 Ft 2°. _ In. 0.010 in..PVC
Sampson, From To -
CITY: Turkev ' am COUNTY p From To Ft. - in. In.
Rowan Road From To' Ft: in: En.
(Street Name, Numbers, Community, Subdivision, 4ot No., Parcel, Zip' Code) 10. SAND/GRAVEL PACK
TOPOGRAPHIC / LAND SETTING:, Depth, ,. Size. Material
i7 Slope ❑Valley.❑tFlal D Ridge C, Other
(check appropriate box) t From -1.5-, -to -12 0 FL43 quartz sand
May be in degrees From To . Ft,
LATITUDE 34.966653 minutes, seconds or
78.233938 in a decimal format From- To Ft.
LONGITUDE _ _
tatitudellongitude source: 0 GPS ❑ Topographic map 11.DRILL ING LOG
Frorn To ForrrlaUon DeSCription_
(locaffon of well must be shown on a USGS topo magand
attached,to this form if notusing GPS) 0.0 3.0' Brown silty sand {SM)
3.0 5.0' -Yellowish brown clayey sand (SC)
6. FACILITY- is me name of the business where ihe well is located. ' , 5.0 10.0.1, Dark brown dayev sand (SC1
FACILITY ID *(If applicable) 10:0 - 12.0' . Black sandy Clay (MIL)
NAMEOF FACILITY -Allen Canning
STREET ADDRESS 5900 Turkey Highway '
Turkey NC 28393
City or Town State Zip Code
CONTACT PERSON Mr. Tofnnly Langston
MAILING ADDRESS 5900 Turkey Highway
Turkev NC 28393 iz. REMARKS. v
City or Town -State -,Zip Code
91( 0 _ 596-0028
Area code Phone number
G.-WELL DETAILS: I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS-WELLWAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
15A NCAC 2C, WELL CO RUCTION STANDARDS, AND TWIT ACOPY OF THIS
a. TOTAL DEPTH:1-5.0L�AS B�ENP VIDEDTOTHE WELL OWNER.
' C 111712008,
b, DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? YESQ NOO
c. WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing: 6.45 .. FT;
SIGNATURE OF CERTIFIED WELL CONTRACTOR, DATE
(Use "+' If Above Top or Casing) David E. Meyer'
.PRINTED NAME OF PERSON: CONSTRUCTING` THE WELL
Submit the original.to the Division of Water Quality Within 30 days. Attn: Information Mgt, 'Form GW-1 b.
1617 Mail Service Center— Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone No. (919) 733-701,5 ext 568. Rev.12lOT.
"d. BEL0926ST6 XUJ 1'0001021d wuaa:,:DT t3DDZ 9Z'` Ao14 `

Nov 02 07 01:37p p. 2
MELL COM t �N RE
Raab Cmdn - DommeM QfMnkowmd and NomdEtammm Dw;mmeWof Qw&y-emwbdwAw3"d
lW=C*W.lWLCWM UNUMMAL) NAM
'I
2. viiL Low.rica.
Mid" M%Qpe nvalky ME-14
tLW- oawvwnGMt3T%wVapbk mep
2= VRXU m I
F= TO Nqut—DowflPil"
Ass oodr rlw [WMI-M
4. XWXX
wfsV=lmR,=)5=mwm-T ym m wo
s. TOP ON wim IS FT.j%bCM0 LqM &rDb&-
1. Yn= WaX — REMM OrITAT—
to.W.Am ZOW;s (depth);
IL IX3WV2iQ,qlTyM__ SI-W &VOWQP 15d dinSUM 10 TAGM front W 3,: [I=
Wail Ukkmn twr. rL4u. 4or Ouwniy RcwJsL law1mie We fiud
0k;pmr ItMft* ABA Pcmmn and PQ4*L
13- Oka=; rxpfb &fxmw Method,
Ft
41,
14. SCMIM DWLh Obmcw mots= Abnaw
15. 3A%MNtMAVPrlbACQ
Daptb
te. R* , �,r,.,.,��'z�:..� ='� ail tni'f�C�''� � } �► rjw-t fb'� � �-
submwe rid Mtijmt to elm DivmwD PrWaler Oaafffyt Cs aumdvm%Seetso% jd16 MOM Xfr*VCtAw.
Rakizat, Nc!
VMse NO,.( P) "MIU, vfitkfjh 30 dayl, Q%W -I MI. 07MO4111

a
yi SrAT•y'}�
-� 1 !' OjYRES', DENTM WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Jn l North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources- Division of Water Quality
WELL CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION # 2527
1. WELL CONTRACTOR:
David E. Meyer
Well Contractor (Individual) Name
Protocol Sampling Service, Inc.
Well Contractor Company Name
STREET ADDRESS PO BOX 31133
Raleigh NC 27622
City or Town State Zip Code
9f 19 )- 210-6547
Area code- Phone number
2, WELL INFORMATION:
SITE WELL ID #(If applicable) CW-7
WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT4(ifapplicable)
OTHER ASSOCIATED PERMIT #(if applicable)
3. WELL USE (Check Appllcabie Box) Monitoring @ Munlcipal/Public[l
Industrial/Commercial[I Agricultural❑ RecoveryEl Injection❑
IrrigationU Othera (list use)
DATE DRILLED October 31, 2008
TIME COMPLETED 1400 AM13 PMO
4. WELL LOCATION:
CITY: Turkey COUNTY Sampson
Rowan Road
(Street Name, Numbers, Community, Subdivision, Lot No., Parcel. Zip Code)
TOPOGRAPHIC /LAND SETTING:
❑ Slope ❑ Valley ❑ Fiat 0 Ridge 13 Other
(check appropriate box) May be in degrees,
LATITUDE 34.972091 minutes, seconds or
LONGITUDE
78• 235786 in a decimal format
Latitude/longitude source: 13 GPS ❑ Topographic map
(location or well must be shown on a USGS topo map and
attached to this tort if not using GPS)
5. FACILITY- is the name of the business where the well Is located
FACILITY ID of applicable)
NAME OF FACILITY Allen Canning
STREET ADDRESS 5900 Turkey Highway
Turkey NC 28393
City or Town State Zip Code
CONTACT PERSON Mr. Tommy Langston
MAILING ADDRESS 5900 Turkey Highway
Turkey NC 28393
City or Town Stale Zip Code
(910 - 596-0028
Area code - Phone number
6. WELL DETAILS:
a. TOTAL DEPTH: 15.0
b. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? YESU NOE
c. WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing: 6.55 FT,
(Use '+" If Above Top of Casing)
d. TOP OF CASING is 3.0 FT. Above Land Surface'
"Top of casing terminated
atlor below land surface may require
a variance in accordance with 15A NCAC 2C .0118.
e. YIELD (gpm): 1
METHOD OF TEST pump
f. DISINFECTION: Typo na Amount na
g. WATER ZONES (depth):
From 6.0 To 12.0
From To
From To
From To
From To
From To
7. CASING: Depth
Diameter ThicknessAtMight Material
From +3.0 To -2.0
Ft. 2" Sch40 Pvc
From To
Ft -
Fro mTo
Ft.
8. GROUT: Depth
Material Method
From 0.0 To -0.5
Ft. Portland pour
From -0.5 To -1.5
Ft. 136ntonite pour
From To
Ft.
9. SCREEN: Depth
Diameter Slot Size Material
From-2.0 To -12.0
Ft. 2" in. 0.010 in. PVC
From To-
Ft. In. in.
From To-
Ft. In- in.
10. SAND/GRAVEL PACK:
Depth
Size Material
From -1.5 To -12.0
Ft. #3 quartz sand
From To
Ft.
From To
Ft.
11.DRILLING LOG
From To Formation Description
0.0 3.0' Brown silty sand (SM)
3.0 5.0' Dark brown clayey sand (SC)
5.0 8.0' Black clayey sand (SC)
8.0 12.0' Black sandy clay (ML)
12. REMARKS:
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
15A NCAC 2C, WELL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, AND THAT A COPY OF THIS
g BEEN PROM TO THE WELL OANER.
p. 11/712008
SIGNATURE OF CERTI D WELL CONTRACTOR DATE
David E. Meyer
PRINTED NAME OF PERSON CONSTRUCTING THE WELL
Submit the original to the Division of Water Quality within 30 days. Attn: Information Mgt., Form GW-1b
1617 Mall Service Center- Raleigh, INC 27699-1617 Phone No. [phone] ext.668. Rev.12/07
L-d 8EL09ZEBT13 XUA-10001Clad WY06=0T 800Z 9Z AOW

Attachment C—Completion Reports and Logs for Compliance Wells
(R-5 from S&ME)
i
i
Allens Canning Final Hyorogeologic Report.doc 29
i

Dec 19 2008 1:44PM PROTOCOL FAX [phone] P.1
NONRESIDENTIAL WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources- Division of Water Quality
WELL CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION # 2-5 Z-i
1. WELL CONTRACTOR:.
David E. Meyer
Weil Contractor (Individual) Name
Protocol Sampling Service, Inc.
Well Contractor Company Name
STREETADDRESS PO Box 31133
Raleigh NC 27622
City or Town State Zip Code
9( 19 )-210-6547
Area code- Phone number
2. WELL INFORMATION:
SITE WELL ID #(If applicabie) C1N 1
WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMrr#(itappllcable)
OTHER ASSOCIATED PERMIT #(If applicable)
3. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box) Monitoring21 Munldpel(Public[3
Industrial/Commeiclattl Agricuiturall] Recovery(3 Injection]]
Irrigation() Otheril (list use)
DATE DRILLED October 31, 2008
TIME COMPLETED 0900 AMII PM[
4. WELL LOCATION:
ciTY: Turkey COUNTY Sampson
Rowan Road
(Staeet Name, Numbers, Community, Subdivision, Lot No., Parcel, Zip Code)
TOPOGRAPHIC / LAND SETTING:
0 Slope 13 Valley U Flat p Ridge d Other
(check appropriate box) May be in degrees,
LATITUDE. 34.973471 minutes, seconds or
LONGITUDE 78,244000 in a decimal format
Latitude/longitude source: 0 GPS 0 Topographic map
(location of well must be shown on a USGS topo map and
attached to this form if not using GPS)
5, FACILITY -is me name ofihebuetrresswnerathewenislocated.
FACILITY ID #(if applicable)
NAME OF FACILITY_Aiien Canninca
STREET ADDRESS 5900 Turkey Highway
Turkey NC
28393
City or Town State
Zip Code
CONTACT PERSON Mr. Tommy Langston
MAILING ADDRESS 5900 Turkey Highway
Turkey NC
28393
City or Town State
Zip Code
91( 0 )-596-0028
Area code - Phone number
6. WELL DETAILS:
a. TOTAL DEPTH: 18.0
b. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? YES13 NOS
C. WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing; 8.2-9 FT.
(Use "+• if Above Top Of Casing)
d. TOP OF CASING IS 3.0 FT. Above Land Surface"
"Top of casing terminated at/or below land surface may require
a variance in accordance with 15A NCAC 2C .01 ia.
a. YIELD (gpm): 3-5 METHOD OF TEST pump
f. DISINFECTION: Type ne Amount na
g. WATER ZONES (depth):
From 7.0 To 15.0 From To
From To From To
From To From . To
7. CASING: Depth Diameter TlucknessJWeight Material
From +3.0 Tb -5.0 Ft. 2" Sch40 pvc
From To Ft.
From To Ft.
8. GROUT: Depth Material Method
From 0.0 To -3.4 Ft. Portland pour
From -3.0 To -4.0 Ft. Bentonite pour
From To Ft.
9. SCREEN: Depth Diameter Slot Size Material
From-5-0 To -15,0 Ft 2" In. 0.010 in,PVC
From To Ft. In. in.
From To Ft in. in.
10. SAND/GRAVEL PACK:
Depth Size Material
From -4.0 To -15.0 FL #3 quartz sand
From To Ft.
From To Ft,
11.DRILLING LOG
From To Formation Description
0.0 5.0' Reddish brown calvev sand (SC)
5.0 10.0' Dark red sandy clay (CU
10.0 13.0' Yellowish red clayey sand (SC)
13.0 15.0' Dark grav clay (ML} _
12. REMARKS:
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
15A NCAC 2C, WELL PONSTRUCTION STANDARCB, AND THAT A COPY OF THIS
REyPRD HAS BEENAPROACED TO THE WELL OWNER.
TURE
11/7/2008
DATE
David E. Meyer
PRINTED NAME OF PERSON CONSTRUCTING THE WELL
Submit the original to the Division of Water Quality Within 30 days. Attn: Information Mgt., Form GW-1b
1617 Mail Service Center- Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone No. [phone] ext 66s. Rev.12/07

r
y,
i
MONITOR WELL SCHEMATIC
EXPAjNSION PLUG.
* BOREHOLE O.D. �JZ
•GEOLOGIST -
* MATERIAL O.D. Z STATIC WATER LEVEL be?S
MATERIAL TYPE S G o DATE - MEASURED i I I5 IO �i
* SCREEN SLOT SIZE 0,010
* Dimensions in
Locx
Inches PROTECTIVE OUTER COVER
F:MSH GRADE
NA3M SOIL
GROUT
BENTONITE
SAND PACK
DEPTH TO . TOP OF
DES
BENTONITE
DEPTH TO. TOP OF
SAND
-
DEPTH TO TOP OF
+
SCREEN
NOTES''
NOT TO SCALE = __
ALL DEPTHS REFERENCED — _ DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF
FROM. FINISH GRADE IN FEET SCREEN
TOTAL DEPTH 'Z•Q
MONITOR WELL _
DATE DRILLED 10/3!� 1 d$. P,p•'Box 31133•v TUWF-Y (A PJ0H C0Vgy;
Ratelgh, NC 27622 ut�
DRILLING METHOD NsA PROD # 0$_150
f'I'd B6L09366I6 Xd= 100010acl WIJEE=OI 8002 9z ^0W

R
1 1' o NR SIDENTML WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources- Division of Water Quality
WELL CONTRACTOR CERTFIFICATIOT hi 2527
1. WELL CONTRACTOR:
David E. Meyer
Well Contractor (Individual) Name
Protocol Sampling Service, Inc.
Well Contractor Company Name,
STREET ADDRESS PO Box 31133
Raleigh NC 27622.
City or Town State Zip Code
9( 19 t- 210-6547
Area code- Phone number
2. WELL INFORMATION:
SITE WELL ID #(Happlicable) CW-8
WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT#(ifapplicable)
OTHER ASSOCIATED PERMIT #(if applicable)
3. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box) Monitoring13 Municipal/Public❑
Industrial/Commercial[i Agriculturalll Recoveryl] Infection❑
Irrigation] Otherp (listuse)
DATE DRILLED October 31, 2008
TIME COMPLETED 1000 AMI3 PMl7
4. WELL LOCATION:
CITY: Turkey COUNTY Sampson
Rowan Road
(Street Name, Numbers, Community, Subdivision, Lot No., Parcel, Zip Code)
TOPOGRAPHIC / LAND SETTING:
❑ Slope ❑ Valley I7 Flat 0 Ridge p Other
(check appropriate box)
May 6e in degrees,
LATITUDE 34.970253 minutes, seconds or
LONGITUDE
78. 244948 in a decimal format
LatitudeAongitade source: MOPS ❑ Topographic map
(location of well must be shown on a USGS topo map and
attached to this form If not using GPS) -
b. FACILITY- Is the name 01 the buslnese where the well is Iceated.
FACILITY ID #(if applicable)
NAME OF FACILITY Allen Canning
STREET ADDRESS 5900 Turkey Highway
Turkey - NC 28393
City or Town State Zip Code
CONTACT PERSON Mr. Tommy Langston
MAILING ADDRESS 5900 Turkey Highway
Turkey NC 28393
City or Town State Zip Code
(910 _596-0028
Area code - Phone number
6. WELL DETAILS:
a. TOTAL DEPTH: 15.0
b. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? YES0 NOM
c. WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing: 6.55 FT,
(Use "+" if Above Top of Casing)
d. TOP OF CASING IS 3.0 FT. Above Land Surface"
`Top of casing terminated
attar below land surface may require
a variance In accordance with 15A NCAC 2C ,0118.
e. YIELD (gpm): 1
METHOD'OF TEST pUn1p
f. DISINFECTION: Type na Amount na
g. WATER ZONES (depth): ,
From 6.0 To 12.0
From To
From To
From To
From To_
From To
7. CASING: Depth
Diameter Thlcknessly tght Material
From +3.0 To -2.0
Ft, 2" Sch40 Pvc
From To
Ft.
From To
Ft.
8, GROUT: Depth
Material Method
From 0.0 To -0.5
Ft. Portland pour
From -0.5 To -1.5
Ft. Bentonite pour
From To
Ft.
S. SCREEN: Depth
Diameter Slot Size Material
From -2.0 Tc -12.0
Ft. 2" In. 0.010 in. PVC
From To
Ft. in. in.
From To
Ft, In. in.
10. SAND/GRAVEL PACK:
Depth
Size Material
From -1.5 To -12.0
Ft. #3 quartz sand
From To
Ft.
From To
Ft,
11.DRILLING LOG
From
To
Formation Description
0.0
3.0'
Brown silty sand (SM)
3.0
5.0'
_Dark brown clayey sand (SC)
5.0
10.0'
_Black clayey sand (SC)
10.0
12.0'
Black sandy clay (ML)
12. REMARKS:
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ISA NCAC= WELL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, AND THAT ACOPY OF THIS
-ft7"6ZN PRo ED TO THE WELL OWNER.
V Z;6 0= 1117/2008
SIGNATURE OF CERTIFIED WELL CONTRACTOR DATE
David E. Meyer
PRINTED NAME OF PERSON CONSTRUCTING THE WELL
Submit the original to the Division of Water Quality within 30 days. Attn: Information Mgt., Form GW-tb
1617 Mail Service Center- Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone Mo. [phone] ext b68. Rev.12/07
13 `d 86L0926S T 6 XFJd -1030-LoNd WU0E c 0 T 13002 92 AOW

NONRESIDENTM WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources- Division of Water Quality
WELL CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION # 2527
1. WELL CONTRACTOR:
David E. Meyer
Well Contractor (Individual) Name
Protocol Sampling Service, Inc.
Well Contractor Company Name
STREETADDRESS PO Box 31133
Raleigh NC 27622
City or Town State Zip Code
(919-210-6547
Area code- Phone number
2. WELL INFORMATION:
SITE WELL ID#('Ifapplicable) CW-3
WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT#(fapplicable)
OTHER ASSOCIATED PERMIT#(Jf applicable)
3. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box) Monitoring @ Municipab'Public0
IndustriallCommercial❑ AgriculluralD Recovery[] Injecilon❑
Irrigatiora OtherO (Ilst use)
DATE DRILLED October 31, 2008
TIME COMPLETED 1100 AMEI PM❑
4. WELL LOCATION:
CITY: Turkey COUNTY Sampson
Rowan Road
(Street Name, Numbers, Community, Subdivision, Lot No., Parcel, Zip Code)
TOPOGRAPHIC /LAND SETTING:
❑ Slope ❑ Valley ❑ Flat d Ridge 1 Other
(check appropriate box) May be in degrees,
LATITUDE 34.968097 minutes, seconds or
LONGITUDE 78.243003 in a decimal format
Latitude/longitude source: M GPS ❑ Topographic map
(locafion of well must be shown on a USGS topo map and
attached to this form if not using GPS)
6. FACILITY- Is the name & the business where the wel Is located.
FACILITY ID #(if applicable)
NAME OF FACILITY Allen Canning
STREET ADDRESS 5900 Turkey Highway
Turkey NC 28393
City or Town State Zip Code
CONTACT PERSON Mr. Tommy Langston
MAILING ADORES s 5900 Turkey Highway
Turkey NC 28393
City or Town State Zip Code
(910 )- 596-0028
Area code - Phone number
S. WELL DETAILS:
a. TOTAL DEPTH: 18.0
b. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? YES[] NOM
c. WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing: 8.65 FT.
(Use ';" if Above Top of Casing)
d. TOP OF CASING IS 3.0 FT. Above Land Surface'
*Top of casing terminated atlor below land surface may require
a variance in accordance with 15A NCAC 2C .0118.
e. YIELD (gpm): 3-5 METHOD OF TEST pum(I
f. DISINFECTION: Type na Amount na
g. WATER ZONES (depth):
From 7.0 To 15.0 Fromm To -
From -To- From To
From To From To
7. CASING: Depth Diameter Thickness/Weight Material
From +3.0 To -5.0 Ft. 2" Sch40 pvc
From To FL
From To FL
8. GROUT: Depth Material Method '
From 0•0 To -3.0 Ft, Portland pour
From -3.0 To -4.0 Ft. Bentonite pour f
From To Ft.
9. SCREEN: Depth Diameter Slot Size Material
From -5.0 To -15.0 Ft. 2" In. 0.010 in_ v�-
From To Ft. in. in.
From To Ft. In. in.
10. SANDIGRAVEL PACK:
Depth Size Material
From -4.0 To -15.0 Ft. #3 quartz sand
From To Ft.
From To Ft.
I I.DRILLING LOG
From To Formation Description
0.0 3.0' Black silty sand (SM)
3.0 10.0' Black clayey sand fSC)
10.0 15.0' Black sandy clay (CL)
12. REMARKS:
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH I
15A NCAC 2C, WELL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, AND THAT A COPY OF THIS
S ED TO THE WELL O`h'NER.
_��ef,EN P O ID11/7/2008 j
SIGNATURE OF CERTIFIED WELL CONTRACTOR DATE
David E. Meyer
PRINTED NAME OF PERSON CONSTRUCTING THE WELL
Submit the original to the Division of Water Quality within 30 days. Attn: Information Mgt., Form GW-1b
1617 Mail Service Center- Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone No. [phone] ext 563. Rev.12/07
E'd BEL09ZEGIS Xdd 10001ONd WH82:01 8002 92 AOW

MONITOR WELL -SCHEMATIC
EXPANSION PLUG.
* BOREHOLE O.D. Y2 GEOLOGIST
* MATERIAL O.D. Z STATIC WATER LEVEL �65�
MATERIAL TYPE �G e DATE MEASURED'_
* SCREEN SLOT SIZE �%• DICJ
LOCK
* Dimensions in
Ineh'es PROTECTIVE OUTER COVER
- - FIMSH GRADE
N•ATNE san
DEPTH TO . TOP° OF
BENTONITE
BENTONITE
DEPTH TO TOP OF s
SAND r0
DEPTH. TO TOP OF
_'
-
SCREEN S.0
SAND PACK
- —.-
NOTES:
NOT TO SCALE
ALL, DEPTHS: REFERENCED
_-
DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF
�S.o
FROM FINISH GRADE. IN FEET
SCREEN
15, o
TOTAL DEPTH
MONITOR WELL -
AUtrE��io�
a
I0 /3i O8
PRQTdCQL
SAMQ_TNG SERVTCF_
(MC,
DATE DRILLED
a
P.a. Bax 31133'
Raleigh•
MEY SAMPSON COU}�f?(� I1Ci
DRILLING METHOD - H SA
NC 27422
I
PROD. # 06— 50
OT'd 86LO926616
XU=l
10001ONd WUEE:01 8002 92 AoW

MONITOR WELL SCHEMATIC =
EXPANSION PLUG.
1fl
* BOREHOLE 01) /2
GEOLOGIST
* MATERIAL O.D. Z -
STATIC WATER LEVEL
MATERIAL TYPE
DATE MEASURED I I S IO $
* SCREEN SLOT SIZE Din
* Dimensions in
LOCK
Inches
PROTECTIVE CUTER. COVER '
FINISH GRADE
2 � 2' YoNGRErE —
.
NATIVE SOIL
j
GROUT
DEPTH TO. -TOP OF 1
05
BENTONITE
BENTONITE ..
DEPTH TO . TO OF
SAND 1,5r
DEPTH TO TOP OF 2 r
SAND PACK
- — '
,o
SCREEN
Nt
NOTES:
- —
NOT, TO SCALE
J
ALL DEPTHS REFERENCED
-
DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF ,
FROM FINISH GRADE IN FEET
.SCREEN
12'pr
TOTAL DEPTH
MONITOR WELL l r`' Q •.. .PROTQOL
�•�,
sAMPLI� SERYIPE.
1NC.
DATE DRILLED J0� ..•
Pn Box 31133•
Rafelgh,
TuwCF-Y SAWJ04 C0V9TY uG''
DRILLING METHODHSA _ _
NC 27622
1
PROD. # 016
- TT.'d SEL092E616
Xdd
10001ONd WU26:OT 8002 92 AeW

: MONITOR WELL .-SCHEMATIC ,
EXPANSION PLUG. -
* BOREHOLE O.D. /Z GEOLOGIST
* MATERIAL O.D. 2 STATIC ,.WATER LEVEL •Z5
MATERIAL TYPE, DATE MEASURED _ fII51 D
* SCREEN SLOT SIZE.. 0• aka
LOCK
* Dimensions in
Inches, PROTECTIVE OUTER'COVER
r4MSH GRADE
NATIVE SOD.
GROUT
DEPTH TO,TOP OF
BENTONITE
BENTO NITE
DEPTH TO TOP OF
SAND
DEPTH TO TOP OF ti
SAND PACK SCREEN r'fl
NOTES:
NOT TO SCALE
ALL DEPTHS REFERENCED - DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF IS'al
FROM FINISH GRADE. IN FEET SCREEN
TOTAL DEPTH
MONITOR WELL
bl�� dP,j3(LLQ� �AMPLfNG SERVif`E.INC.
DATE DRILLED' 8 PD. Box 31133' L)Wx--,Y SAmPSoN C0vv UG
s Rolelgh . NC 27622 1
DRILLING METHOD NSA:. PROJ. # 013-50
6-d BEL0926616 Xdd 10001ONd WH2Ec01,BO02 9Z ADW

i
Y
MONITOR WELL SCHEMATIC
EXPANSION PLUG.
* BOREHOLE O.D. �/2 GEOLOGIST
* MATERIAL .O.D,. Z • STATIC WATER LEVEL 6'S97
MATERIAL TYPE o DATE, MEASURED filS o8 ,
* SCREEN SLOT SIZE
LOCK
* Dimensions in
•Inches PROTECTIVE OUTER -COVER
FINISH CRA
2� � 2' CoNGRETE — .
NATIVE SOIL
MONITOR WELL SCHEMATIC
EXPANSION PLUG.
* BOREHOLE O.D. �/2 GEOLOGIST
* MATERIAL .O.D,. Z • STATIC WATER LEVEL 6'S97
MATERIAL TYPE o DATE, MEASURED filS o8 ,
* SCREEN SLOT SIZE
LOCK
* Dimensions in
•Inches PROTECTIVE OUTER -COVER
FINISH CRA
2� � 2' CoNGRETE — .
NATIVE SOIL
GROUT
I
DEPTH TO -.TOP OF i
oS
BENTONITE
BENTONITE
DEPTH. TO TOP OF
__-
SAND
•
DEPTH TO TOP OF
SAND PACK
'-
- — - _
SCREEN Zoo
NOTES:
NOT TO SCALE
ALL DEPTHS. REFERENCED
-
DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF r
FROM FINISH GRADE IN FEET
J
SCREEN 1210
'
TOTAL DEPTH 11-0
MONITOR WELL
�0�31'Dg
-RnTsm�eLAMPLiNG
SERYtf',F•1NI'•
•-
DATE DRILLED
e
PA, Box 31133•
Ralelgh,
YUWY �AMPJON �Ovyf Q�i
DRILLING" METHOD H!SA
ANC 27622
/
PROD. # O$-SQj
6EL092E6 T 6
XUJ
10001ONd WdipE :0 T 800Z 92 AoN

MONITOR WELL SCHEMATIC
EXPANSION PLUG.
* BOREHOLE O.D. /Z
GEOLOGIST
* MATERIAL O.D. 2 STATIC .WATER LEVEL b5S�
MATERIAL TYPE JP G _ o DATE MEASURED I�ISIO$
* SCREEN SLOT SIZE AID
LOCK
* Dimensions in -
Inches PROTECTIVE O: UTER COVER
FINISH GRADE
2' K 2' t�NGRErE =
NATM son.
BENTONITE
SAND PACK
DEPTH TO.TOP OF
BENTONITE
DEPTH TO TOP OF
SAND -
DEPTH TO TOP .OF
SCREEN -
NOTES:
NOT TO SCALE
ALL DEPTHS REFERENCED - - DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF
SCREEN
FROM FINISH GRADE IN FEET - - TOTAL DEPTH 17-Q
MONITOR WELL - A�-L4L CA wiq&
In�31 Og PRb7000L SAMPLING SERVICE. INQ-
DATE DRILLED 1(J p,o, BoK 3I133' U
Rn4elgh, NC 27622 tY SS08 COU!{7Y1 Uc
� 1 -
DRILLING METHOD _ NSA _ PROJ. # 0$-15a =
ET'd 864092E6I6 Xdd 10901ONd Wd66:01 B002 92 ADW

MONITOR WELL SCHEMATIC
EXPANSION PLUG,
* BOREHOLE O.D. /2 GEOLOGIST
* MATERIAL O X Z' STATIC WATER LEVEL
MATERIAL TYPE . �_ o DATE MEASURED 111- 0S
* SCREEN SLOT SIZE DIV
LOCK
* Dimensions in
Inches PROTECTIVE OUTER COVER
r•"rrlsx ct�
2! Z'
NATIVE $OIL
GROUT
f
DEPTH TO . TOP OF
BENTONITE
BENTONITE
DEPTH TO TOP OF i
SAND
r DEPTH TO TOP OF 5.01
" SCREEN
SAND PACK -
NOTES: -
NOT TO SCALE
ALL DEPTHS -REFERENCED - - DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF I
SCREEN I�'O
FROM FINFSH GRADE IN FEET TOTAL DEPTH 15.0t
MONITOR WELL - AwLeN
DATE DRILLED I013i jab C�ri�u�tb
PslIOC�I. SANPLiNG.SERViGF. (N[.
[� REL Hax 31133' UWRY-AMPJ04 Coav 06
al° Ralelgh, NC 27b22 1
DRILLING METHOD �— PROJ. # 00-50
I
ZT'd 8EL09ZE6T6 Xdd 1000IONd WUZE:OT 8002 9Z no

Attachment D.—Pumping Test Data from SWE
Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc
30

r s r i r r t,
1
0.1
d
w
0
0.01
0.001 +
1
Time-Drawdown Curve for Observation Well OW-1
Pumping at Recovery Well RW-1
Matchpoint for Type Curve B
(t = 80 min, ho-h = 0.3 feet)
Matchpoint for Type Curve A
(t = b min, ho-h = 0.27 feet)
10
100
Time (minutes)
1,000 10,000
3
D
I
R]
A
I
ro
m
0
-�7
D
r
F
z
n
D
z
z
z
0

�3
D
-
I C
N
A
N
• m
OW-1, TYPE A -CURVE
W
Matchpoint for Type Curve A
(1/uA = 1.6, W(uA,F) = 0.38)
101,
10'2 t-
10-1
r = 0.6
r = 1.0
r = 2.0
r = 4.0
r = 6.0
r = a.ao1
r = 0.01
r = 0.06
r = 0.2
1
TYPE A CURVES FOR
UNCONFINED AQUIFER
100 10' 102 103 104
1/ua
D
r
r
m
z
z
z
z
9) .

3
D
-
I C
m
A
N
OW-1, TYPE B CURVE
lU'
100
El.
r = 1.0
r=2.o
10-'
r=4.0
r = 6.0
10-21
10*3
10-2
r = o.of
r = 0.2
10.1
1
UB
r = 0.001 Matchpoint for Type Curve B
-I (lAiB = 25, W(uBj) = 2)
�-
100
TYPE B CURVES FOR
UNCONFINED AQUIFER
10,
102
U3
D
r
r
m
Z
D
Z
Z
z

MAY-24-2007 13:19 ,ALLEN CANNING P.05
. c
L
Sample Calculations for Aquifer Parameters
RW-1 Analysis
Using the Type A Curve for early drawdown:
_ Q (A,
�- T 47r(ho - h) W u I
where
ho-ho =drawdown (feet)
Q = pumping rate felday)
W(u,,I) = well function from early drawdown matchpoint (dimensionless)
1 gal x 1 ft 3 X 1440 min
T - min 7.48ga1 day �0.3 $) = 215.61 f z
W 41r(O.027 feet) day
where
S = storativity of.the aquifer (dimensionless)
S - 4TuAt
r2
T tran sm iss iv ity ffi�lday)
u,4 = value from early drawdown matchpoint (dimesionless)
t = time (days)
•� r = radial distance from recovery well (feet)
2 `r
4 215.61 ft (0,6256minx 1 * 1day -
S = day) = 0.0035935
(25 ft)2
Using the Type B Curve for late drawdown:
T 4ir - h W (uB'r)
-- where
ho-ho =drawdown (feet)
Q = pumping rate (ft3/day)
W(uB,1� = well function from late drawdown matchpoint (dimensionless)

I
MAY-24-2007 13:19 ALLEN CANNING P.06 I
O.
i 3
gad ' ft min
_ 1 min x 7.48ga1 x 1440 day 2
1, (2) =102.13 �
41r(0.3 feet) day
where
Sy = specific yield of the aquifer (dimensionless)
S _ 4Tu B t
Y r2
T = transmissivity 02/day)
us = value from late drawdown matchpoint (dimesionless)
t = time (days)
r = radial distance from recovery well (feet)
4 102.13 to (0.04 80 minx 'day
day 1440 min
S = = 0.00145
y (25 fty
Average transmissivity using both calculated transmissivity values:
215.61 .f day
+ 102.13 day ft2
T= 2=158.87da
Y
where:
Kh = horizontal hydraulic conductivity (feet/day)
_T
=
Kh b
T = transmissivity (f?lday)
b = initial saturated thickness of the aquifer (feet)
z
158.87 fa �
Kh = Y =11.67 feet I day
13.61 feet
I
I'b2Kh
' '-- Kv = 2
P
_ where:
K,, = vertical hydraulic conductivity (feet/day)
F= shape of type curve (dimensionless)
b = initial saturated thickness of the aquifer (feet)
r = radial distance from recovery well (feet)
�
W K _ (0.06}(I 3.61 feet}2 (11.67 feet / day) ^ 0.2075 feet /day
(25 feet)'
i
I

MAY-24-2007 13:,19
Alleyi Canning
S&ME Project No. 1584-06-009
Flowrate: \x" gpM
Start Time: " 1,�1
End Time:
A-W
W-
-W
RLLEN CANNING
RW-I
OW-1
OW-2
P-17
Initial bepth'to
Water (TOC).
Total Depth
(TOC)
ZA 3
Distance from
TOC to Grade
Depth to Water (TOC)
Time
114 w
-5., go
70
_E_
7w
A
15'3o
-0 Li
3793
'10 S Ir,
Y()
Uc
6, I'q-
qZ
Z 75
612.
tcu,-F
z. 1)
62
311
13 4,L.
667
•
1,3 -.3
63ed
6, 3
A 6 9
q-3
6�
6, 1
6
19 3 6
�9-3
11-30.
#1 -0 LA
IpI
P.07
1of2

I I I' I I F ' I r I I I I i 1 I' I .... U.. I. f
10
1
0.1
0.01 4
1
Time-Drawdown Curve for Observation Well OW-3
Pumping at Recovery Well RW-2
Matchpoint for Type Curve B
(t = 600 min, ho-h = 1.6 feet)
Matchpoint for Type Curve A j
(t = 9 min, ho-h = 0.63 feet) 7 fj i
10
100 1,000
Time (minutes)
10,000
m
m
41

I
N
N
m
0
. . QW-3, TYPE A CURVE
W
3U'
100
b
v
1-0''
10'2
r = 0.001
r = 0.01
-
Matchpoint for Type Curve A 1-0.06
(1/uA = 3.2, W(uA,r) = 0.7)
r-0.2
r = 0.6
r=1:o
A,
r_20
TYPE A CURVES FOR
UNCONFINED AQUIFER
r = 4.0
r = 6.0

r._ . r r i r r r r� r r � r� r- r� r• r.. r-.. r.. r. r
3
D
A
I
N
OW-3, TYPE B CURVE
m
lU'
100
m
10-'
10-21
10-3
Matchpoint for Type Curve B
r = 0.6 (1/uB = 10, w(uB,n = 2.5)
-r = 2.0
TYPE B CURVES FOR
UNCONFINED AQUIFER
r=4.0
r=6.0
10'2 10.1 100 10'
1
ue
L
102

MAiY-24-2007 13:20 ALLEN CANNING
P.11
�. Sample Calculations for Aquifer Parameters
RW-2 Analysis
Using the Type A Curve for early drawdown:
1 '
T = Q w(u,q,r)
4x(ho — h) 1
where
ho-h =drawdown (feet)
�- Q = pumping rate (Oday)
lV(uA,n = well function from early drawdown matchpoint (dimensionless)
6 gal x 1 ft3 x 1440 min
min 7.48gal day ftz
4sr (0.63 feet) day
where
S = storativity of the aquifer (dimensionless)
4Tu At
S= 2
r
_ T = transmissivity f?/day)
u,4 = value from early drawdown matchpoint (dimesionless)
r = time (days)
�. r = radial distance from recovery well feet)
lday -
4 102.13 ft2da (0.31259 minx 1440 min
S = y = 0.0008865
(
30ft)Z
Using the Type B Curve for late drawdown:
T - Q W(uB r)
4sr(ho — h)
— where
ho-ho =drawdown (feet)
Q = pumping rate ffi?lday)
W(uQ, n = well fitnction from late drawdown matchpoint (dimensionless)
b gal x 1 ft 3 x 1440 min
T = min 7.48ga1 day (2.5) =143.62 ft z
41r(1.6 feet) day
where
Sy = specific yield of the aquifer (dimensionless)
-W

MAY-24-2007 13:20 ALLEN CANNING
S - 4TuBt
y 2
r
T = transmissivity (Jtzlday)
uD = value from late drawdown matchpoint (dimesionless)
t = time (days)
` r = radial distance from recovery well (feet)
2
`' 4 143.62 fa (0.1�600 minx 1440 min )
day
S - y = 0.0266
y (30 ft)2
Average transmissivity using both calculated, transmissivity values:
T-102.i3.day + 143.62 day f 122.88 ft,
2 day
where:
Kh = horizontal hydraulic conductivity (feel/day)
Kh T
=b
T = transmissivity (f?lday)
b = initial saturated thickness of the aquifer (feet)
2
122.88 f
Kt, = day = 9.24 feet / day
13.3 feet
_ r'b2Kh
Kv 2
r
where:
K, = vertical hydraulic conductivity (feet/day)
T= shape oftype curve (dimensionless)
b = initial saturated thickness of the aquifer (feet)
r = radial distance from recovery well (feet)
�0.06X13.3 feet)' (9.24 feet / day) _
- K -- 0.109 feet 1 day
V _ (30 feet)'

b..
MAY-24-2007 13:20 ALLEN CANNING
Allen Canning
S&ME Project No. 1584-06-009
Flowrate: �,t� gpm
Start Time: -A.1'
* 1W
End Time: W;Q
aa
P. 13
RW-2
OW-3
OW-4
RW-3 (deep)
Initial Depth to
Water (TOC)
Total Depth
(TOC)
Disfance from
TOC to Grade
Depth to Water (TOC)
Time
1b.
13 A-
T.. TY-
13,67
ft ,w
CIL
1440
4 KT'
/t V
1 3.6
6, 3V
sA.w
15XI
776
1.3. b?
15,13
783
to 4 Sr-
q
IS. 15 *T, n.
TY'
'7 -T-7
(cr49
iz"69
13, bg
5zv
i5. 15- w
mt t
1,)J:1
v
i Aq a
YJ 4)
A
4. 01-te'Z,4k 601� /11
.. 0
WV6 I of 2

NAY-24-2007 13:20 ALLEN CANNING
i
P.14
ft-
W_
Allen Canning
S&ME Project No.1584--0G-009
(;;G4'ct wuA i e rx A -) / Flowrate: gpm («u ux �Y zt.eu-�,:
Start Time: E a z h
End Time:
RW-2
OW-3
OW-4
RW-3 (deep)
Initial Depth to
Water TOC)
�;.IL
-l�{'
Y. 7s",
Total Depth
(TOC)
Distance from
TOC to Grade
Depth to Water TOC)
Time
56, 10..
14:613
c
0. la,
10
h.
[:• . CA
i2;t6
2
i i, act
l
is-..
,, . Y
bs,r
5
r. -,-'S
vs-
IVA
U ,v
(v.18
3
.1553
to •a9%
CIO
16
6.16
6,1�
�.I5
�Ck5
1A 113
!
t; Z 7
1
6 to
5:-15
3
t500
(-,-A
0
0 i
TOTAL P.14

7 ,
-e'
a
� E
Oa�e &ara.5
Attachment E.—Laboratory Reports for Compliance Monitoring Wells
for Samples Taken 11/17/08
I
Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 31

Microbac Laboratories, Inc.
Pagel of 5
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
STATE CERT ID.
2592 HOPE MILLS ROAD
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28306
NC #11
[phone] FAX [phone]
NC #37714
R. W. SANDERS, VICE PRESIDENT
USDA #3787
http://www.tnicrobac.com E-Mail:
[e-mail]
CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • CONSUMER PRODUCTS
WATER AIR WASTES • FOOD • PHARMACEUTICALS NUTRACEUTICALS
CERTIFICATE
OF ANALYSIS
Allens, Inc.
Date Reported:
11/30/2008
Ms. Kathryn Yeager
Date Received:
11/17/2008
Post Office Box 250
Order Number:
0811-00007
Siloam Springs, AR
72761
Invoice No.:
61829
Customer #:
A004
Sample Date:
11/17/2008
Permit No.
Sample Time:
0:00
Sampler: Miller
'
Subject: M/Well samples - 3/Yearly
I
SMP Test
Method
Result
Date
Time Tech
CHLORIDE
SM 4500 CI C
123 mg/L
11/24/2008
i
14:00 RAS
COD
SM 5220 D
50.3 mg/L
11/18/2008
11:30 RAS j
CONDUCTIVITY
SM 2510 B
75 umhos/cm
11/18/2008
14:15 RAS
NITROGEN, NITRATE
SM 4500 NO3 E
0.58 mg/L
11/19/2008
15:00 ENC
pH
SM 4500 H B
5.26 s.u.
11/17/2008
12:38 RDM
I
SOLIDS, TOTAL DISSOLVED
SM 2540 C
71.0 mg/L
11/18/2008
12:00 ENC
SULFATE
SM 15th 426 C
12.0 mg/L
11/24/2008
10:30 DCR
TEMPERATURE
FIELD
16.0 deg., C
11/17/2008
12:38 RDM
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
SM 5310D
2.7 mg/L
11/20/2008
9:00 ECI
WATER LEVEL
FIELD
5.2 feet
11/17/2008
12:38 RDM
CHLORIDE
SM 4500 CI C
9.25 mg/L
11/24/2008
14:00
RAS
COD
SM 5220 D
25.5 mg/L
11/18/2008
11:30
RAS
CONDUCTIVITY
SM 2510 B
158 umhos/cm
11/18/2008
14:15
RAS
I
NITROGEN, NITRATE
SM 4500 NO3 E
2.76 mg/L
11/19/2008
15:00
ENC
pH
SM*4500 H B
4.87 s.u.
11/17/2008
12:25
RDM
SOLIDS, TOTAL DISSOLVED
SM 2540 C
108 mg/L
11/18/2008
12:00
ENC
SULFATE
SM 15th 426 C
48.4 mg/L
11/24/2008
10:30
DCR
TEMPERATURE
FIELD
16.1 deg., C
11/17/2008
12:25
RDM
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
SM 5310D
3.9 mg/L
11/20/2008
9:00
ECI
WATER LEVEL
FIELD
4.1 feet
11/17/2008
12:25
RDM
LAB CODES: N/D =None Detected N/F =None Found <=Less than > =Greater than Est. =Estimated
The data and other Information contained on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and B rendered upon the MEMBER
condition that It Is not to be reproduced wholly or in part for advertising or other purposes without written approval from the laboratory. '
USDA-EPA-MOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Mi—bialogical Analyses and Research

4
Microbac Laboratories, Inc.
Page 2 of 5
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
STATE CERT ID.
2592 HOPE MILLS ROAD
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28306
NC #11
[phone] FAX [phone]
NC #37714
R. W. SANDERS, VICE PRESIDENT
USDA #3787
http://www.microbac.com E-Mail: [e-mail]
CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY FOOD SAFETY • CONSUMER PRODUCTS
WATER AIR WASTES • FOOD • PHARMACEUTICALS NUTRACEUTICALS
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Allens, Inc.
Date Reported:
11/30/2008
Ms. Kathryn Yeager
Date Received:
11/17/2008
Post Office Box 250
Order Number:
0811-00007
Siloam Springs, AR
72761 Invoice No.:
61829
Customer #:
A004
Sample Date:
11/17/2008
Permit No.
-Sample Time:
0:00
Sampler: Miller
Subject: M/Well samples - 3/Yearly
SNIP Test
Method Result Date
Time Tech
CHLORIDE
SM 4500 CIC
5.50 mg/L
11/24/2008
14:00
RAS
COD
SM 5220 D
63.1 mg/L
11/18/2008
11:30
RAS
CONDUCTIVITY
SM 2510 B
118 umhos/cm
11/18/2008
14:15
RAS
NITROGEN, NITRATE
SM 4500 NO3 E
3.00 mg/L
11/19/2008
15:00
ENC
pH
SM 4500 H B
4.37 s.u.
11/17/2008
12:13
RDM
SOLIDS, TOTAL DISSOLVED
SM 2540 C
56.6 mg/L
11/18/2008
12:00
ENC
SULFATE
SM 15th 426 C
31.8 mg/L
11/24/2008
10:30
DCR
TEMPERATURE
FIELD
15. deg., C
•11/17/2008
12:13
RDM
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
SM 5310D
2.6 mg/L
11/20/2008
9:00
ECI
WATER LEVEL
FIELD
7.1 feet
11/17/2008
12:13
RDM,
004 M%iIV #R.�4 _5
CHLORIDE
SM 4500 CIC
6.50 mg/L
11/24/2008
14:00
RAS
COD
SM 5220 D
18.6 mg/L
11/18/2008
11:30
RAS
CONDUCTIVITY
SM 2510 B
763 umhos/cm
11/18/2008
14:15
RAS
NITROGEN, NITRATE
SM 4500 NO3 E
1.22 mg/L
11/19/2008
15:00
ENC
pH
SM 4500 H B
4.92 Sm.
11/17/2008
11:55
RDM
SOLIDS, TOTAL DISSOLVED
SM 2540 C
55.6 mg/L
11/18/2008
12:00
ENC
SULFATE
SM 15th 426 C
15.4 mg/L
11/24/2008
10:30
DCR
TEMPERATURE
FIELD
15.8 deg., C
11/17/2008
11:55
RDM
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
SM 5310D
1.2 mg/L
11/20/2008
9:00
ECI
WATER LEVEL
FIELD
7.7feet
11/17/2008
11:55
RDM
LAB CODES: NID = None Detected NIF = None Found <= Less than > = Greater than Est, = Estimated
MEMBER
The data and other Information contained on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon the
condition that It Is not to be reproduced wholly or in part for advertising or other purposes without written approval from the laboratory.
USDA-EPA-MOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research

Microbac Laboratories, Inc.
Page 3 of 5
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
STATE CERT ID.
2592 HOPE MILLS ROAD
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28306
NC #11
[phone] FAX [phone]
NC #37714
R. W. SANDERS, VICE PRESIDENT
USDA #3787
http://www.microbac.com E-Mail: [e-mail]
CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • CONSUMER PRODUCTS
WATER
AIR WASTES • FOOD • PHARMACEUTICALS NUTRACEUTICALS
CERTIFICATE
OF ANALYSIS
I
Allens, Inc.
Date Reported:
11/30/2008 `
Ms. Kathryn Yeager
Date Received:
11/17/2008
Post Office Box 250
Order Number:
0811-00007
Siloam Springs, AR 72761
Invoice No.:
61829
Customer #:
A004
Sample Date:
11/17/2008
Permit No.
Sample Time:
0:00
Sampler: Miller
j
Subject: M/Well samples - 3/Yearly
•
I
SMP Test
Method
Result
Date
Time Tech
005
CHLORIDE
SM 4500 CI C
9.25 mg/L
11/24/2008
14:00 RAS
COD
SM 5220 D
19.6 mg/L
11/18/2008
11:30 RAS
CONDUCTIVITY
SM 2510 B
81 umhos/cm
11/18/2008
14:15 RAS
NITROGEN, NITRATE
SM 4500 NO3 E
<0.1 mg/L
11/19/2008
15:00 ENC
pH
SM 4500 H B
5.76 s.u.
11/17/2008
11:45 RDM
SOLIDS, TOTAL DISSOLVED
SM 2540 C
74.0 mg/L
11/18/2008
12:00 ENC
SULFATE
SM 15th 426 C
8.01 mg/L
11/24/2008
10:30 DCR
TEMPERATURE
FIELD
17.1 deg.,C
11/17/2008
11:45 RDM
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
SM 5310D
1.9 mg/L
11/20/2008
9:00 ECI
WATER LEVEL
FIELD
10.7 feet
11/17/2008
11:45 RDM
006 M/•W #116
CHLORIDE
SM 4500 CI C
45.0 mg/L
11/24/2008
14:00
RAS
COD
SM 5220 D
46.8 mg/L
11/18/2008
11:30
RAS
CONDUCTIVITY
SM 2510 B
288 umhos/cm
11/18/2008
14:15
RAS
I
NITROGEN, NITRATE
SM 4500 NO3 E
4.83 mg/L
11/19/2008
15:00
ENC
pH
SM 4500 H B
4.72 s.u.
11/17/2008
11:30
RDM
SOLIDS, TOTAL DISSOLVED
SM 2540 C
77.0 mg/L
11/18/2008
12:00
ENC
SULFATE
SM 15th 426 C
34.2 mg/L
11/24/2008
10:30
DCR
TEMPERATURE
FIELD
18.1 deg., C
11/17/2008
11:30
RDM
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
SM 5310D
6.1 mg/L
11/20/2008
9:00
ECI
WATER LEVEL
FIELD
6.7feet
11/17/2008
11:30
RDM
LAB CODES: N/D = None Detected
N/F = None Found <= Less than > = Greater than
Est. = Estimated
The data and other Information contained on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and N rendered upon the
condition that it is not to be reproduced wholly or In part for advertising or other purpose without written approval from the laboratory.
MEMBER
USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting
Chemical and MicrobiologIcal Analyses and Research
I

Microbac Laboratories, Inc.
Page 4 of 5
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
2592 HOPE MILLS ROAD
STATE CERT ID.
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28306
NC #11
[phone] FAX [phone]
NC #37714
R. W. SANDERS, VICE PRESIDENT
USDA #3787
http://www.microbac.com ' E-Mail: [e-mail]
CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • CONSUMER PRODUCTS
WATER AIR WASTES • FOOD • PHARMACEUTICALS NUTRACEUTICALS
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Allens, Inc.
Date Reported:
11/30/2008
Ms. Kathryn Yeager
Date Received:
11/17/2008
Post Office Box 250
Order Number:
0811-00007
Siloam Springs, AR
72761 Invoice No.:
- 61829
Customer #:
A004
Sample Date:
11/17/2008
Permit No.
Sample Time:
0:00
Sampler: Miller
Subject: M/Well samples - 3/Yearly
SMP Test Method Result Date Time Tech
CHLORIDE
SM 4500 CIC
21.2 mg/L
11/24/2008
14:00
RAS
COD
SM 5220 D
13.1 mg/L
11/18/2008
11:30
RAS
CONDUCTIVITY
SM 2510 B
110 umhos/cm
11/18/2008
14:15
RAS
NITROGEN, NITRATE
SM 4500 NO3 E
0.40 mg/L
11/19/2008
15:00
ENC
pH
SM 4500 H B
4.74 s.u.
11/17/2008
11:19
RDM
SOLIDS, TOTAL DISSOLVED
SM 2540 C
66.0 mg/L
11/18/2008
12:00
ENC
SULFATE
SM 15th 426 C
12.6 mg/L
11/24/2008
10:30
DCR
TEMPERATURE
FIELD
18.1 deg., C
11/17/2008
11:19
RDM
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
SM 5310D
4.9 mg/L
11/20/2008
9:00
ECI
WATER LEVEL
FIELD
4.9feet
11/17/2008
11:19
RDM
(008#R8
l 4-
CHLORIDE
SM 4500 CI C
26.5 mg/L
11/24/2008
14:00
RAS
" COD
SM 5220 D
<5.00 mg/L
11/18/2008
11:30
RAS
CONDUCTIVITY
SM 2510 B
381 umhos/cm
11/18/2008
14:15
RAS
NITROGEN, NITRATE
SM 4500 NO3 E
24.1 mg/L
11/19/2008
15:00
ENC
pH
SM 4500 H B
4.66 s.u.
11/17/2008
11:00
RDM
SOLIDS, TOTAL DISSOLVED
SM 2540 C
200 mg/L
11/18/2008
12:00
ENC
SULFATE
SM 15th 426 C
22.4 mg/L
11/24/2008
10:30
DCR
TEMPERATURE
FIELD
21.9 deg., C
11/17/2008
11:00
RDM
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
SM 5310D
0.7 mg/L
11/20/2008
9:00
ECI
WATER LEVEL
FIELD
4.9feet
11/17/2008
11:00
RDM
LAB CODES: N/D = None Detected N/F = None Found <= Less than > = Greater than Est. = Estimated
MEMBER
The data and other information contained on this, and other accorrpanyI g documents, represent only the sample(s) analysed and is rendered upon the
condition that It Is not to be reproduced wholly or in part for advertising or other purposes without written approval from the laboratory.
USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research

Page 5 of 5
Microbac Laboratories, Inc. "
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
2592 HOPE MILLS ROAD STATE CERT ID.
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28306 NC #1 l
[phone] FAX [phone] NC #37714
R. W. SANDERS, VICE PRESIDENT USDA #3787
http://www.microbac.com E-Mail: [e-mail]
CHEMISTRY MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • CONSUMER PRODUCTS
WATER • AIR WASTES • FOOD • PHARMACEUTICALS • NUTRACEUTICALS
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Allens, Inc.
Date Reported:
11/30/2008
Ms. Kathryn Yeager
Date Received:
11/17/2008
Post Office Box 250
Order Number:
0811-00007
Siloam Springs, AR 72761
Invoice No.:
61829
Customer #:
A004
Sample Date:
11/17/2008
Permit No.
Sample Time:
0:00
Sampler: Miller
Subject: M/Well samples - 3/Yearly
SMP Test Method Result Date Time Tech
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
MICROBAC LABORATORIES, INC.
Thank you for your business. We invite your feedback on our level ofservice to you. Please contact the Laboratory Director, Ron Sanders at 910-864-1920 , Robert Morgan,
COO, at rmargan�nicrobac. com or Trevor Boyce, CEO, at tboyce a&nicrobae.com with any comments or suggestions.
I
LAB CODES: N/D =None Detected N/F = None Found <= Less than > = Greater than Est. = Estimated
MEMBER
The data and other information contained on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon the
condition that It Is not to be reproduced wholly or In part for advertising or other purposes without written approval from the laboratory.
USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Microbiological Analyses and Research