WQ0010583_Staff Report_20220725

XigIEC:V?
State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Staff Report
July 25, 2022
To: DWR Central Office — WQ, Non -Discharge Unit
Attn: Erick Saunder
Application No.: WQ0010583
Facility name: Davie PU RLAP
From: Caitlin Caudle
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Note: This form has been adapted from the non -discharge facility staff report to document the review of both non -discharge and NPDES permit applications and/or renewals. Please complete all sections as they are applicable.
I. GENERAL AND SITE VISIT INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? ® Yes or ❑ No
a. Date of site visit: 7/22/2025
b. Site visit conducted by: C. Caudle
c. Inspection report attached? ® Yes or ❑ No
d. Person contacted: Brent Collins and their contact information: (336) 399 - 3646
II. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
ORC: Roy Whitaker Certificate #: 13283 Backup ORC: Brent Collins Certificate #:27651
2. Are the design, maintenance and operation of the treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal
system? ® Yes or ❑ No
3. Are the site conditions (e.g., soils, topography, depth to water table, etc) maintained appropriately and adequately
assimilating the waste? ['Yes or ® No
If no, please explain: See inspection report concerning DV-8-13.
4. Has the site changed in any way that may affect the permit (e.g., drainage added, new wells inside the compliance
boundary, new development, etc.)? n Yes or ® No
5. Is the residuals management plan adequate? ® Yes or ❑ No
6. Are the existing application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) still acceptable? ® Yes or ❑ No
7. Is the existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? n Yes ❑ No ® N/A
8. Are there any setback conflicts for existing treatment, storage and disposal sites? ['Yes or ® No
9. Is the description of the facilities as written in the existing permit correct? ® Yes or ❑ No
10. Has a review of all self -monitoring data been conducted (e.g., AR, NDMR, NDAR, GW)? ® Yes or n No
Please summarize any findings resulting from this review: No issues with AR or compliance inspections.
11. Are there any permit changes needed in order to address ongoing BIMS violations? ❑ Yes or ® No
12. Check all that apply:
® No compliance issues n Current enforcement action(s) n Currently under JOC
❑ Notice(s) of violation ❑ Currently under SOC ❑ Currently under moratorium
13. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this permit?
nYes ®NonN/A
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 2

III. REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? ❑ Yes or ® No
2. List any items that you would like the NPDES Unit or Non -Discharge Unit Central Office to obtain through an
additional information request:
Item
Reason
Updated LASC for DV-08-
11
The field boundaries were updated and the application area was redrawn. The
acreage in the LASC needs to be updated.
3. Recommendation:
❑ Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office
® Hold, pending review of draft permit by regional office
❑ Issue upon receipt of needed additional information
❑ Issue
❑ Deny (Please state reasons: ) ,-DocuSigned by:
4. Signature of report preparers
DocuSignod by:
bait& cu.
�8B834968199D49D...
Signature of regional supervisor: Le, , 'C. SMdu-
Date: 7/2 5 /202 2 145B49E225C94EA...
IV. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
Please refer to the attached site visit summary.
The vegetation had not been mowed and all landscape features were visible. This site will be reviewed before the first
application.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 2

On July 22, 2022, Division of Water Resources staff Caitlin Caudle completed an on site soils review.
Brent Collins of EMA Resources was present.
Field DV-8-10
CLC3 (35.8563, -80.4879)
Saprolite was present 10-14"+. There was no evidence of the seasonal high water table within 12" of the
surface. Limiting slopes have been excluded from the application area. Wedowee is an appropriate soil
series for this field. The application method will be surface application.
Field DV-8-11
Limiting slopes have been excluded from the application area. Mr. Collins is going to provided an
updated application map for this field as there are some areas that have been cleared that are not
shown on the aerial map. The application method will be surface application. Rion is an appropriate soil
series.
Field DV-8-12
CLC1 (35.8618, -80.4878)
0-4
10YR 4/8
5-10
10YR 4/8, 7.5YR 5/8 concentrations starting
10-15
10YR 6/3, 10YR 5/8 concentrations increase with depth
15-19+
2.5Y 6/3, 10YR 5/8 mottles, clay content increased, clay films present
This soil is within the range of characteristics of Chewacla. The seasonal high water table at this location
was greater than 19".
CLC2 (35.8616, -80.4857)
0-6
10YR 4/8
6-12
10YR 5/4, 10YR 5/6 mottles
12-15+
10YR 6/1, 10YR 5/6 mottles continue
This soil is within the range of characteristics of Chewacla. The seasonal highwater table at this location
was at 12".
The recommended application method for this field is incorporation due to it being in the 100yr flood
plain of Dutchman Creek. The soils report provided described the seasonal high water table at 15". The
official soil description states that the seasonal high water table is up from November to April. At least a
foot of separation is needed between the seasonal high water table and the depth of incorporation.
Based on field evidence the seasonal high water table is 12 inches or greater below the surface. Field
conditions were also dry. The drainage ditch in the middle of the field was dry at the time of the site
visit. A seasonal restriction on this field may be appropriate. If this is not approved this field may need to
be removed as the whole field is in the 100yr flood plain unless a clear delineation of where the
seasonal high water table is >18" below the surface can be provided.

Field Total Acres Applicable Acres
10 31.45 22.98
11 6.46 6.03
12 26.06 16.26
Note: Field 12 is in the flood plain and must be incorporated
("gasggz 1E4 INEMFD GeoEye, CAG i pi G
VaVe, Agraiang (KM, ial I a
duo Q0)
OpenStreetMap
contributors
- — — Stream
Ditch
Drain
Buffer
Field Boundary
SCALE:
1 "=440'
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:
WQ0010583
07-25-22
BC
IMA
Resources, Inc.
Davie County
Land Application Program
NC-DV-008
Roger Spillman
FIGURE NO.
2
to\Davie County\Maps \DV008-10(2).mxd
s\ArcGIS\GIS D
C:\Users\letsg\Docu me

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: [phone] Website: www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/ Report No. FY22-SL034146
"" 4, Client: Roger Spillman Advisor: Brent Collins
, Heavy Metals PO Box 378 EMA Resources
Y, Cooleemee, NC 27014 755 Yadkinville
r:Y;j'$ 1 Soil Report Mehlich-3 Extraction Mocksville,
Sampled County : Davie
Links to Helpful Information
Inc
Rd
NC 27028
Client ID: 411288 Advisor ID: 405413
Sampled: Received: 05/17/2022 Completed: 05/20/2022 Farm: DV08
Agronomist's Comments:
This report contains both routine soil test information as well as heavy metals data in a section labeled as Heavy Metals under soil test lab results. Using Mehlich 3 as a
soil test extractant, background levels of these metals typically seen in NC soils when analyzed are as follows: arsenic (As)- 4.5 ppm, cadmium (Cd)- 0.1 ppm, chromium
(Cr)- 0.2 ppm, lead (Pb)- 4.2 ppm, nickel (Ni)- 0.8 ppm, & selenium (Se)- 0.2 ppm (FY2005-2007). Note elevated lead (Pb) in 10 and 11 samples. Although the above
metals here are not believed to pose a concern for plant growth, continue to monitor these and note where elevated above background levels. Note any lime and fertilizer
recommendations. Jagathi Kamalakanthan, Agronomist, 5/20/2022
Sample ID: 00010
Lime History:
Recommendations: Lime Nutrients (lb/acre)
More
Information
Note: 12 Note: $
Crop (tons/acre) N P2O5 K2O Mg S Mn Zn Cu B
1 - Fescue/OGrass/Tim, M 0.0 120-200 130 70 0 20 0 0 $ 0
2 - 0.0
Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm3; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm3; NO3-N in mg/dm3]: Soil Class: Mineral
HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-I K-I Ca% Mg% S-I Mn-I Mn-AI1 Mn-Al2 Zn-I Zn-AI Cu-I Na ESP SS -I NO3-N
0.27 1.14 5.8 79 1.2 6.0 6 32 61 15 22 167 117 75 75 21 0.0
Heavy Metals (parts per million): Arsenic, 0.1 Cadmium, 0.0 Nickel, 0.2 Chromium, 0.2 Lead, 7.9 Selenium, 0.0
Sample ID: 00011
Lime History:
Recommendations: Lime Nutrients (lb/acre)
More
Information
Note: 12 Note: $
Crop (tons/acre) N P2O5 K2O Mg S Mn Zn Cu B
1 - Fescue/OGrass/Tim, M 0.9 120-200 100 90 0 20 0 0 $ 0
2 - 0.0
Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm3; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm3; NO3-N in mg/dm3]: Soil Class: Mineral
HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-I K-I Ca% Mg% S-I Mn-I Mn-AI1 Mn-Al2 Zn-I Zn-AI Cu-I Na ESP SS -I NO3-N
0.27 1.23 4.0 60 1.6 5.2 17 24 41 16 20 267 177 74 74 20 0.0
Heavy Metals (parts per million): Arsenic, 0.1 Cadmium, 0.0 Nickel, 0.2 Chromium, 0.2 Lead, 8.1 Selenium, 0.1
North Carolina
Reprogramming of the laboratory -information -management system that makes this report possible is being funded
through a grant from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission.
Thank you for using agronomic services to manage nutrients and safeguard environmental quality.
- Steve Troxler. Commissioner of Agriculture
Tobacco Trust Fwui Co misslan

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: [phone] Website: www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/ Report No. FY22-SL034146
Roger Spillman Page 2 of 3
Agronomist's Comments:
This report contains both routine soil test information as well as heavy metals data in a section labeled as Heavy Metals under soil test lab results. Using Mehlich 3 as a
soil test extractant, background levels of these metals typically seen in NC soils when analyzed are as follows: arsenic (As)- 4.5 ppm, cadmium (Cd)- 0.1 ppm, chromium
(Cr)- 0.2 ppm, lead (Pb)- 4.2 ppm, nickel (Ni)- 0.8 ppm, & selenium (Se)- 0.2 ppm (FY2005-2007). Note elevated lead (Pb) in 10 and 11 samples. Although the above
metals here are not believed to pose a concern for plant growth, continue to monitor these and note where elevated above background levels. Note any lime and fertilizer
recommendations. Jagathi Kamalakanthan, Agronomist, 5/20/2022
Sample ID: 00012
Lime History:
Recommendations: Lime Nutrients (lb/acre)
More
Information
Note: 3
Crop (tons/acre) N P2O5 K2O Mg S Mn Zn Cu B
1 -Small Grain (SG) 1.3 80-100 80 70 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 - 0.0
Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm3; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm3; NO3-N in mg/dm3]: Soil Class: Mineral
HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-I K-I Ca% Mg% S-I Mn-I Mn-AI1 Mn-Al2 Zn-I Zn-AI Cu-I Na ESP SS -I NO3-N
0.32 1.08 4.9 59 2.0 5.0 23 32 42 14 50 836 512 49 49 53 0.0
Heavy Metals (parts per million): Arsenic, 0.1 Cadmium, 0.0 Nickel, 0.3 Chromium, 0.2 Lead, 4.5 Selenium, 0.1