840001_Enforcement (Other)_20240731

Docusign Envelope ID: F6714319-FOAO-4E8A-9AC4-FB4639E27BCC
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSMENT FACTORS
Violator: Josh Amick Case Number: PC-2024-0020
County: Stanly Permit Number: AWI840001
FMIKy OPIR1U 104,218 V.Tej 1191 1XI
1) The degree and extent of harm to the natural resources of the State, to the public health, or to
private property resulting from the violation:
Animal waste has the potential to deplete dissolved oxygen in the affected water body to a point
which is harmful to aquatic life. Wastewater also contains nutrients which have the potential to
spawn algal growth to the point which is harmful to aquatic life. Over application of animal waste
abvove agronomic levels has the potentional to limit productive use of land for future farming
activities. For example, the agronomist report indicates that crops grown in several of the fields
will need to be monitored for toxicity and the fields will not be available for animal waste
application in the future. Over application of animal waste also has the potential to allow runnoff
of waste into surfacewaters or leaching of metals and nutrients into groundwater.
2) The duration and gravity of the violation:
Over application (up to 8 inches of sludge/waste material in broad areas), ponding/run-off of
waste and three distinct separate discharges of waste/sludge material to three different
tributaries that are waters of the state were visually observed in January 2024. A soil assessment
was conducted by an agronomist in June 2024. The results of the soil assessment indicate over
application of waste/sludge material to fields and cropland. All fields showed elevated to
excessive nutrient levels (P, K, Mn, Cu and Zn) such that the agronomist did not advise
application of any animal waste for future crop.
A comparison of 2020 soil test data to 2024 soil data taken by the agronomist indicates
significantly higher nutrient values of Phosphorous, Manganese, Zinc, and Copper including
data well above the permit limits of Zinc for animal waste application. This data shows the
impact of overapplication.
3) The effect on ground water quality, surface water quality or air quality:
Waste/sludge material was applied at greater than agronomic rates which resulted in over
application on the fields/cropland and caused ponding/run-off. Discharge of waste/sludge
material to waters of the state was documented in multiple locations. Based on review of the soils
analyses and the agronomist report, soils at the site have been highly impacted (nutrient/ metals)
from the over application of waste/sludge material on fields and cropland. The overapplication
has the potential to impact ground and surface waters.
4) The cost of rectifying the damage:
The cost would include the expenses to recover the over applied waste from the soils and waste
discharged to waters of the state and returning the fields to pre -violation condition. The full cost
of these actions is unquantifiable.
5) The amount of money saved by noncompliance:
The permittee saved money by applying waste at above agronomic rates to many fields. The
permittee also over applied to fields rather than having to lease or buy additional land to apply

Docusign Envelope ID: F6714319-FOAO-4E8A-9AC4-FB4639E27BCC
waste within appropriate agronomic rates or landfill the material if additional land was not
available.
6) Whether the violation was committed willfully or intentionally;
Based on the evidence, the cause of the violations appears to be intentional. Waste was
purposefully applied. Regulations and permit conditions require planning and documentation
that waste is not applied in excess of agronomic rates. Nonetheless, evidence indicates waste was
applied in excess of agronomic rates. There is no indication this was performed accidentally.
Permit compliance, proper management of wastes and documentation through the closure
process would have prevented many of the violations.
7) The prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply with programs over which
the Environmental Management Commission has regulatory authority; and
The violator had no previous record of violations.
8) Cost to the State for the enforcement procedures:
$2,486.91
7/31/2024
Date
Doc''u..Siwwgne''d by:124'E....rl
D7CE45A225.
Michael Pjetraj, P.E.