WQ0043421_Hydrogeologic Review_20220720

Hydrogeological Investigation Report Review Form
WQ0043421
Shinnville Farms Development Partners, LLC
Shinn Village WWTF
Shinnville Road
Mooresville, NC 28115

Primary Permit Reviewer: Lauren Raup-Plummer
Date submitted for Review: April 20, 2022
Hydrogeological Investigation Report Reviewer: Leah Parente
Date of review completion: July 27, 2022

1. Are the following elements included in the hydrogeological investigation report?

a. Report signed and sealed by a PE, LG, or LSS yes

b. Cursory examination of nearby properties and wells within 500 feet yes*

c. Field observations yes

d. Maps (topographic, overview, and site detail) yes

e. Published reports yes

f. Sufficient number of bore holes with drilling/sampling logs in the area
of system operation yes

g. Sufficient number of wells with drilling/sampling logs in the area of
system operation yes**

h. Shallow aquifer tests with detailed supporting data and appropriate
analyses yes

i. Groundwater modeling results with supporting test data and reasonable
assumptions no

List any missing elements, including others not mentioned above:
*Cursory exam was done to 100’ not 500’
**It would have been good to have a second monitoring well in Study Area 2

WQ0043421
Shinn Village WWTF

Page 2

2. Was a field visit conducted by the Division of Water Resources? Yes

a. Was the physical information contained in the hydrogeological investigation report
verified by the field observations? Yes

3. Aquifer parameters were determined by slug tests.

4. Was a mounding analysis submitted? No

5. Was the methodology used for analysis adequate? Yes

6. Approximate depth to groundwater mound at steady state: 27-46’

7. Site conditions to be maintained as assumed in the analysis (e.g. drainage features):
The site is currently under construction, therefore conditions will be changing

8. Was a contaminate transport analysis submitted? No

Please provide commentary on the necessity of a contaminate transport analysis:
At this time, we are not asking for the submittal of a contaminate transport analysis

9. Effluent quality used in analysis demonstrating protection of 2L standards:
This permit will employ the 2U Statutes for a Reclaimed WW system. The Morrisville
Regional Office stated in its report that they feel the setbacks meet the 2U reclaimed
water standards.

10. Are there concerns with protection of 2L standards at the Compliance Boundary? N/A

11. Are monitoring wells needed at this facility? Yes

a. The number and locations of the monitoring wells should consider such factors as
the size of the application area, the locations of the Compliance and Review
Boundaries, and the existence of nearby water supply wells. Do the number and
locations of the monitoring wells proposed in the hydrogeological report concur with
the recommendations of the APS? No

Comments:
The proposed monitoring wells are located in the irrigation field (with the exception
of MW-4). All wells inside the irrigation field boundary should be permanently
closed. It is suggested that a monitoring well for field 2 be installed along the
south/southwestern border of that field.

WQ0043421
Shinn Village WWTF

Page 3

b. The recommended substances to be monitored are as follows:
According to the 15A NCAC 02U .0301 standard for reclaimed water effluent.

12. The hydrogeologic report should meet the following standards described in the Aquifer
Protection Section’s Hydrogeologic and Reporting Policy and Groundwater Modeling
Policy of May 31, 2007. Does the hydrogeologic report:

a. Focus on the waste application area? Yes

b. Include borings advanced to a depth of 20 feet or more? Yes

c. Include enough borings in appropriate locations to create a reasonable
hydrogeologic conceptualization of the waste application area? Yes*

d. Include a sufficient number of slug tests or pumping tests that were
properly performed and analyzed for basic hydrogeologic parameters? Yes

e. Utilize appropriate calculations or computer software to assess the
potential for mounding beneath the application area and/or
contaminant transport beyond the Compliance Boundary? Yes

f. Use recognized assessment methods that are consistent with standard
scientific practices and interpretations? Yes

g. Have analyses and/or conclusions which include “safety factors” such as
conservative assumptions to compensate for gaps in the field data or
questionable test results? Yes

13. List in detail any additional information or items that are needed to evaluate the site:
*Borings were adequate for Study Area #1, would have liked to see additional ones in
Study Area #2

14. List in detail any special conditions related to groundwater monitoring or hydrogeological
issues that should be included in the permit.
It is recommended that the rock outcrop be removed at backfilled before operations
begin at the site.

15. Other areas of concern or importance: None

16. Recommendation on permit issuance based on hydrogeological investigation report:
Request additional information based on above comments