WQ0043421_Hydrogeologic Review_20240306

State of North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Non-Discharge Branch

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

Primary Permit Reviewer: Zachary Mega
Date submitted for Review: January 5, 2024
Hydrogeological Investigation Report Reviewer: Leah Parente
Date of review completion: March 6, 2024

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 no 1

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 2

WQ0043421
Shinn Village WWTF
Page 2 of 4

List any missing elements, including others not mentioned above:

1 Examination of nearby properties for wells was done within 100 feet of the
proposed irrigation area.

2 Neither a mounding analysis nor a contaminate transport analysis were
deemed necessary for this site.

2. Was a field visit conducted? No

b. Why was a field visit not conducted?
Modification to reduce the wetted field area due to additional setback restrictions
did not require a second site visit.

Is a field visit recommended? Not at this time.

3. Aquifer parameters were determined by slug tests.

4. Was a mounding analysis submitted? No
a. Please provide commentary on necessity of a mounding analysis:
Observed depth to groundwater was observed to be 29 feet below ground surface
or greater. Since the depth to groundwater was greater than 6 feet, a mounding
analysis is not necessary.

5. Was the methodology used for analysis adequate? Yes

6. Approximate depth to groundwater mound at steady state: 29 feet or greater

7. Site conditions to be maintained as assumed in the analysis (e.g. drainage features): yes

8. Was a contaminate transport analysis submitted? No

Please provide commentary on the necessity of a contaminate transport analysis:
A contaminate transport analysis is not needed at this time. Monitoring Wells MW-
2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-7, and MW-10 were sampled and analyzed for Nitrate-
Nitrogen and Ammonia. All values for both constituents were below the 2L
standard.

WQ0043421
Shinn Village WWTF
Page 3 of 4

9. Effluent quality used in analysis demonstrating protection of 2L standards:

Nitrate-Nitrogen (2L standard = 10 mg/L)
MW-2 3.2 mg/L
MW-3 2.0 mg/L
MW-4 0.63 mg/L
MW-7 2.7 mg/L
MW-10 0.99 mg/L

Ammonia (2L standard = 1.5 mg/L)
MW-2 <0.10 mg/L
MW-3 <0.10 mg/L
MW-4 <0.10 mg/L
MW-7 <0.10 mg/L
MW-10 0.24 mg/L

10. Are there concerns with protection of 2L standards at the Compliance Boundary? No

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? Yes

b. The recommended substances to be monitored are as follows:
Standard constituents 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

WQ0043421
Shinn Village WWTF
Page 4 of 4

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:
None

14. List in detail any special conditions related to groundwater monitoring or hydrogeological
issues that should be included in the permit: A small rock outcrop was noted in the
northeastern corner of the eastern proposed irrigation area. It is recommended
that this rock outcrop is either removed and backfilled or that additional fill soils
are added above the outcrop. Please note that this is addressed on page 11 of the
hydro report.

15. Other areas of concern or importance: none

16. Recommendation on permit issuance based on hydrogeological investigation report:
Issue