WQ0003626_Site Maps_20080617

Memo
To: Joel Shields
From: Jim Barber
Date: 6/17/2008
Rev Campbell Soup Spray Irrigation meeting: Permit number WQ0003626
The following are items for discussion during the meeting here in Fayetteville.on 18:June 2008 with
Campbell Soup and DWQ. After reviewing the NDAR/NDMR's submitted for the past couple; a number
of, the items below reflect ,the differences between what Campbell Soup is 'reporting -verses permit
conditions and operations:
1. Permit language of 4 MGD. Canipbell Soup has historically looked at the wastewater flow rate as a
4 MGD 30 day average verses a strict interpretation of 4 MGD maximum limit; not to exceed. After
reviewing the submitted monthly reports back to September 2004 to the present; the 4 MGD,Iimit
was exceeded 5 to 6 times/month on average. When .looking at the 30:°'day average .of the
wastewater flow eates;'the 4 MGD limit was not exceeded. Not record exists in the files. for'NOV's
issued concerning flow rate;
2. After reviewing the same window of records, identified in. item #1, a issue that needs to be
addressed is the ezceedence- of. the daily ,held hydraulic capacity of 4.23 MGD. Based on the
application rates identified in th'epermit (156"/yr, 917yr and 51"/yr) and the field acreage .for each
field; in 2004 -six exceedences occurred, in 2005 .twelve exceedances occurred, in"2006 thirteen
exceedences occurred and in 2007 eight exceedences occurred. In other cases there were
application rates that approached' the 4.23 MGD hydraulic limit and rainfall occurred the day of the
application; but I didn't calculate to see if the hydraulic capacity of. the spray fields was exceeded
with rain and wastewater.applied;
3. In relation to the application .rate(s) in item #2, in reviewing the NDAR's for the same window of
time; Campbell Soup is reporting only one yearly.application ,rate of 156"/yr when there are three
different application. rates (as -identified in item #2 above);
4. The application acreage reported on the NDAR is reported ,as one 400.78 acre field, when. there
- are nine fields (7 pivot systems and 2 solid set felds,with multiple zones, each zone having a
distinct'acreage per the permit). When calculating,the total acreage listed in the current permit that
Campbell Soup is utilizing, the, -total acreage is only 384.64 jthe current permit has a incorrect
acreage, listed for "J" field per the engineers certification. "J" field should be listed with,. a total
acreage of 50.10 verses 54.00.. This will need to be corrected during permit renewal.

5. In reviewing a drawing in the permit file of the center pivots at the facility, there is a discrepancy
between the acreage listed in.the current permit for pivots A,C,D,E,F & G verses the calculated
acreage using the radius shown on the drawings. Again, during permit renewal a wetted -acreage
determination will need to be done to verify the exact acreage being applied :to;
6. Field "J" has two application ,rates depending on which zone is being applied to. Zones J-1 to J-7 &.
J-10 have a rate of 91'%yr and zones J-8, J-9 & J-11 have a application rate of 51Vyr. Campbell is
reporting all application rates at 37week (156'7year).
7. Facility modification request concerning the replacement of the existing DAF unit (217K gallon) and
the addition of a new. DAF .unit (217K) for an increase in total treatment capacity to 434,000
gallons??
These items are provided as a outline for the discussion -at our meeting on 18 June. If additional
information is needed, please contact°me at 910433-3340 or by email at jim.barberCaD-ncmail.net.
0 Page 2

II: . OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
1. The facilities shall be properly maintained and operated at all times.
2.. Upon classification of the wastewater treatment and irrigation facilities by the Water Pollution
Control•System Operators Certification .Commission (WPCSOCC), the Permittee shall designate.and
employ a certified operator to be in responsible charge (ORC) and. one or more certified operator(s) to
be back-up ORC(s) of the facilities in accordance with 15A NCAC 8G• .0201. The ORC shall visit
the facilities in accordance with 15A NCAC 8G .0204 or as specified in this permit and shall comply
with all other conditions specified in these rules.
3.' Inclement ,weather :shall::.not affect the spray', irrigation: '.of wastewater, unless the ground .is in a
condition that will cause. 'runoff 'onFields A, C, D, 'E, F, G, H, I 'and J. During such events, all
wastewater shall be diverted to Field B until the remaining fields aresuitable for irrigation. If an upset
condition occurs in Field B, resulting in an overflow or discharge of wastewater, the Perriuttee shall
contact the Division. The Permittee shall also conduct a study to determine how and why this upset
condition occurred, and shall take the necessary steps to ensure that future problems do not arise. The
study and its recommendations shall. be submitted to both the Regional and .Central Offices upon
completion...
SCitS
CIA k o.l !3
n/Akv LLA
it
A
K
0
L
L.
6
The application, instantaneous and PAN loading rates shall not exceed the following:
•
Field -Zone
Area
(acres)
Annual Loading Rate
(in/yr)
Instantaneous: Loading Rate
(as limited. by design) .
(in/hr)
. Calculated annual
PAN Loading Rate
(lbs/acre)
A .
.
83.35 .
156
. :
' . n/a
350
B
.
8.60
156
n/a
. 350
C
58.42
156
' : n/a •350
D
'35.34
156
•
n/a
'
' 350
E
54.59 .
156
n/a
350
F
39.49
156
n/a -
. . 350
G
. 33.35
156
n/a
. 350
H '
,
62.38 '
156
n/a
350
I
30.0
156
. . .
n/a .
350
J-1
.4.80
. 91
•
. 0.5 . •
, 220
:
a
J-2,
4.81
.91
0.5
•
220
J-3
'_
.4.44 .
.91
•.
0.5 ..
• . 220
.
: J-4
.
3.71
. : ' • . 91 .
•
0.5
220
J-5
•
' 6.26
91,
. •
0.5 ..
..
. 220
•
J-6
5.52
91 :.
..
. 0.5
220'
J-7 :
.
5.37
91
1
. .
0.5
.
220
J-8
4.78
51
0.5
•
220
J-9
.
• 5.75
. 51
• 0.5 ,.
' .220
J-10
.
4:88
: 91
- 0.5
220
J-11
3.64
. 51, '
0.5
220
. .
.
_
Total
--•
• --
--
-Ac�c�}r

f6
0
U�
.ca
0
Z
T'a
c •
O.
O O
c_
00
a)n
of
r
0
8
0
0
0
N
O
O
o
n-
0
004£S9E - OOE£S9E _ OOZ£SBE OO LESH£ ' OOOESB£ 006ZSSE OO9 8£ OOLZSHE
OOS£SB£ 004ES9C 00£ES8E 00 ZES9£ OOLE99E
000ES9£"
006ZS9£
ooeisee
OOLZSBE
• 0
0
o
0
e)
O
0
N
O
O
O
m
co !9
• d
if
O
CJ
0
U
e' .2
0 oc
o
m �.
cr�
roo
� N
ZU

Soil Map —Robeson County, North Carolina
Campbell Soup: Pivot "A"
Map Unit Legend
Robeson County North Carolina (NC155)
— _ ,._yea .�l y.., h w
t
Map, Unit Sytnlio
zz Map Unit`Name
s
r Acresitin'AOI'
Percent'of AOl
GoA
Goldsboro loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes
1.0
0.8%
Ly
Lynchburg sandy loam
5.6
4.3%
Pa
Pactolus loamy sand
0.8
0.6%
Pm
Plummer and Osier soils
8.6 -
.
6.7%
PoB
Pocalla loamy sand, 0 to 3
Percent slopes .
4.6
3.6%
-
Ru • •
Rutlege loamy sand -
0.9
'.
0.7%
WkB
Wakulla sand, 0 to 6 percent
slopes
107.0
83.3%
Totals for Area of Interest (A01) • ,
128.5
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey 2.0
National Cooperative Soil Survey
6/17/2008
Page 3 of 3

O'
CO
CO
Soil Map —Robeson County, North Carolina
(field C: campbell soup WQ0003626 )
6546; 00 6 '700 654800 6 '900 655000 _- 655100
654600 •
6541700
50 100
200 "
654800 ' 654900 - - 655000. .,6551.00
Meters
300
0 200 400
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
800
Feet
1,200
Web Soil Survey 2.0
- National Cooperative Soil Survey
O
CO
N
CO
m
O
- 5/20/2008
Page 1 of 3

Soil Map —Robeson County, North Carolina
field C: campbell soup WQ0003626
Map Unit Legend
•
' ' , . • Robeson County, North Carolina (NC155)
,
,,•
-
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name ,
Acres in A01-
•
Percent of AOl
Pa
Pactolus loamy sand
2.4
• 4.1%
PoB
„
Pocalla loamy sand, 0 to 3
'percent slopes
1.0
1.7%
Ra .
R6ins sandy loam
•
0.9
•
1.6%
WaB '
Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6
percent slopes
14.3
23.7%
D
Wakulla sand, 0 to 6 percent
slopes
41.5
68.9%
.-
Totals for Area of Interest (A01)
60.2 I
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources
onam Conservation Service
•• Web•Sciil Survey 2.0
National Cooperative Soil Survey
5/20/2008
Page 3 of 3

ti
Soil Map —Robeson County, North Carolina
(Campbell Soup: Pivot "D")
65'050 655140'655230 655320
20 655410 6551500
I I
655050 655140
655230
0
50.
100
200
1 1
655320 - 655410 655500
Meters
300
0
USDA Natural -Resources
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
200 400
800
' Web Soil Survey 2.0
Feet
1,200
6/17/2008
Page 1 of 3

Soil Map -Robeson County, North Carolina
Campbell Soup: Pivot "D"
Map Unit Legend
Robeson County, North Carolina (NC155)
Map\;Unit Symbol
'
;
Map Unit Name;
Acres in Aol
+
Percent of AOI
Pg
Pantego fine sandy loam
1.0
,.
2.1%
WaB
•
Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6
percent slopes
6.7
13.4%
WkB
Wakulla sand,.b to 6 percent
slopes
42.1
84.5%
Totals for Area of Interest (AOI)
49.81
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey 2.0
National Cooperative Soil Survey
6/17/2008
Page 3 of 3

Soil Map —Robeson County, North Carolina
(Campbell Soup "E")
655100 655200 655300'65 ; 00
655500
655600 - 655700 655800
A
0 ' 50 100
1 1 - 1
655300 655400 655500 655600 655700
Meters
200 300
0
US DA Natural Resources
MX -Conservation Service
250 500
1,000
Feet
1,500
Web. Soil Survey 2.0'
• National Cooperative Soil Survey
655800
6/17/2008
Page 1 of 3

Soil Map —Robeson County, North Carolina
Campbell Soup "E"
Map Unit Legend
Robeson County North Carolina (NC155)
c:, s -
.
Map Unit Symbol
x2 c
x Map Uhit Name ,
. Acres m AOl
Percent'of AOI
GoA
'Goldsboro loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes
.
- 0.4
.
0.5%
LaB
Lakeland sand, 0 to 6 percent
slopes'
15.5
19.3%,
Ly
Lynchburg sandy loam
4.0
5.0%
PoB,
Pocalla loamy sand, 0 to 3
percent slopes
12.3
15.4%
Ra
Rains sandy loam
7.6
9.5%
WaB
Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6
percent slopes
18.6
23.3%
WkB
Wakulla sand, 0 to 6 percent •
slopes
21.5
26.9%
Totals for Area of Interest (AOI)
80.0
• 100.0%
USDA Natural Resources
® Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey 2.0
National Cooperative Soil Survey
6/17/2008
Page 3 of 3

655680 651 70. -
655680 -
A
Soil Map —Robeson County, North Carolina
(Campbell Soup "F")
655860 65'950 _ 6560 40 6 '130 6 '220
0
50
100
200
1 1'
655950 656040
Meters '
300
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
200 400
800
Feet
1,200
Web Soil Survey 2.0
National Cooperative Soil Survey
6/17/2008
Page 1 of 3

Soil Map —Robeson County, North Carolina
Campbell Soup "F"
Map Unit Legend
Robeson County, North Carolina (NC155
a 46:4x.,.z...fi — c'4. ,„
} •
. .�,� ,
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres rn AO1
Percent of AO1
GoA
Goldsboro loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes
11.5
20.1%
JT
Johnston soils
1.6
2.8%
LaB
Lakeland sand, Q to 6 percent
slopes
9.0
15.7%
Ly
Lynchburg sandy loam
1.7
3.0%
PoB
Pocalla loamy sand, 0 to 3
percent slopes
1.9
3.3%
WaB
Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6
percent slopes
15.9
27.8%
WkB
.
Wakulla sand,.0 to 6 percent
slopes
15.6
27.3%
Totals for Area of Interest (AOI)
57.3
100.0%
USDA . Natural Resources
c Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey 2.0
National Cooperative Soil Survey
6/17/2008.
.Page 3 of 3

655440 655520
A
0
Soil Map —Robeson County, North Carolina
(Campbell Soup: Pivot "G" )
655600 ' 655680
1' I 1
.655520 - 655600 - -655680.
Meters
45
90
180
0 150 300
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
600
270
Feet
900
655760
Web Soil Survey 2.0 ,
National Cooperative Soil Survey
655760 655840,' ' 655920
• 1 1 1
655840 655920
6/1.7/2008
Page 1 of 3

Soil Map —Robeson County, North Carolina
Campbell Soup: Pivot "G"
Map Unit Legend
Robeson County,NorthCarolma (NC155) r' • f 1, A "
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name.,
Acres in AOI
a _ Percent of AOl
WaB
Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 ,•
percent slopes
12.7
27.1%
WkB
Wakulla sand, 0 to 6 percent
slopes
34.2
72.9%
Totals for Area of Interest (AOI) '
46.9
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources
611233 Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey 2.0 6/17/2008
National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

Soil Map —Robeson County, North Carolina
( field H: campbell soup W00003626)
655800 655900 656000 656100 656200 656300 656400
1 I 1 1 I 1 1
I 1
655900 656000
0 50 100
200
Meters
300
0
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
250 500
1,000
Feet
1,500
Web Soil Survey 2.0
National Cooperative Soil Survey
656300
5/20/2008
Page 1 of 3

Soil Map —Robeson. County, North Carolina
field H: campbell soup W00003626 •
Map Unit Legend
S. 3X S`iH C �. F C� 1 L •" ��yy i 4 L
C : y e li y er .. ti „ A: SPAY
c rt s ,-a ,` Robeson CountyNorth Carolina (NC155)
2i
S" Iy Ali
w
T"_ 3 S�' Y f X{
k . L °-�) 4
>f
£3.
'
•
` Map Unrt Symbol ' j
` :Map Unit Name .
a Acr`es•'m A01
5 ;'
K '
Percent of A01
Co
Coxville loam
2.0
3.1 %
Ly
Lynchburg sandy loam
• 1.9
,,-
2.9%
.Llc
McColl loam •
•
2.3
3.6%
NoA
Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes
•.
35.5
56.0%
WaB •
Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6
percent slopes •
13.9
21.9%
WkB
Wakulla sand, 0 to 6 percent
• slopes
7.9
12.4%
•
Totals for Area of Interest (AOI)
63.4
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey 2.0.
National Cooperative Soil Survey
'5/20/2008
Page3of3

e l° l abed
900Z/L l/9'
0Z'999
006•
lead
Aatuns Ilos anllWadoo3 IeuolleN
O'Z d(anmS Hos qaM
OLZ
sJa
066999 09E999 09Z999 00Z999 OZ1.999
1 1 1 1 1
• eowas uolleMasuoa
saoinosai IeJnleN vase
0ZG9 9 061,999 09E999 09Z999 00Z999 - OZ1.999
009
096 06 S6 0
00E 091,
(,d,, las pips :dnos llagdweo)
eullwe3 gI1oN 'AiunoO uosagoa—deal Hos

Soil Map —Robeson County, North Carolina
• Campbell Soup: Solid Set "I"
Map Unit Legend
ti # ' ' Robeson,County North Carolina (NC155)
�,... �, ... -a....,F .. .: .., . .,_.- .•......tea;.SKr
"
„e,.
Ma ;Unrt S mbol
• Ma unit;Name '
K'
Acres m'AOI
f
Percent ofFAOl
PoB
Pocalla loamy sand, 0 to 3
percent slopes
6.0
24.3%
WkB
Wakulla sand, 0 to 6 percent
slopes
18.8
75.7%
Totals for Area of -Interest (AOI)
24.9
. 100.0%
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey 2.0
National Cooperative Soil Survey
6/17/2008
Page 3 of 3

A
Soil Map —Robeson County, North Carolina
(Campbell Soup: Solid Set "J")
655300 65 1 00 6551500 6556001 6551700 6551800
655900 6561000 6561100 656100
1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1
655300 655400 655500 655600 655700 655800 655900 656000 656100 656200
0 50 100
200
Meters
300
Feet
0 350 700 1,400 2,100
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey 2.0
National Cooperative Soil Survey
6/17/2008
Page 1 of 3

Soil Map —Robeson County, North Carolina
Campbell Soup: Solid Set "J"
Map Unit Legend
`°. :, $i. 4- y S';vro,.,'A
-� Robeson County North �Carolma (NC155)
S dL 4 ^A
�a�
C 7 \ yy `kh.,�}'j
"k
S
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Names .
cres n'AOl
k e
Percent of A OI
,
Dn
Dunbar sandy loam
r
2.0
2.9%
GoA
Goldsboro loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes
4.9
7.1%
Ly
Lynchburg sandy loam
1.9
.2.8%
MaA
, , ..
Marlboro sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
7.8
11.3%
Mc
McColl loam
0.1
0.2%
NoA
Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes '
5.7
8.2%
PoB
Pocalla loamy sand, 0 to 3
percent slopes
.4.9
-
7.1%
WaB
Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6
percent slopes
5.1
-
7.3%
WkB
Wakulla sand, 0 to 6 percent
slopes
36.8
-
53.1 %
Totals for Area of Interest (AOI)
•
69.3
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources
Conservatibn.Service
Web Soil Survey 2.0
National Cooperative Soil Survey
6/17/2008
Page 3 of 3

Realistic Yield Expectations for North Carolina Soils
The following tables are the result of extensive data gathering and review process conductE
State University, the 'Natural Resource Conservation Service, the North Carolina Departmer
Agriculture and ConsurmerServices, and the North Carolina Division of Soil and Water
Conservation. In 1999, county -based representatives of each of the above -named organiza
were asked to collect yield data and make a reasoned judgement of the yields for various c
each of the 'soils occurring in their county. These data were collected from 87 responses,
representing 93 counties. The, data were ,then compared with available research data and
intensively reviewed by a panel of field agronomists, soil scientists and researchers familiar
the soils, crops and climatic conditions in each region. In reviewing the data, the following
assumptions were made:
1. Realistic Yield Expectations should be based on the average of the best 3 years in a•5
period which could be achieved with a high level of management (top 20% of grower
2. For soils that may be mapped in multiple regions or in slightly different landscapes (fi
example, flood plains or stream terraces), the Realistic Yields are based on the most
prevailing conditions for that soil rather than the most ideal site for agricultural prods.
3. For soils that are Somewhat Poorly, Poorly, 'or Very Poorly Drained, effective artificial
drainage MUST be in place to achieve the yields shown in the RYE tables. •
4. For tobacco production in the Piedmont physiographic, irrigation,was assumed to be
available, whereas no irrigation was assumed in the Coastal Plain physiographic regio
is in accordance with numerous surveys which show less than 15%-20% of tobacco ii
Coastal Plain is irrigated, while 70 to 80% of tobacco in. the Piedmont receives some i
Citation: North Carolina Nutrient Managernent.Workgroup. 2003. Realistic yields and nitrog
application factors for North Carolina crops. http://nutrients.soil.ncsu.edu/yields/ North Car •
State University, North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, North (
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Servic
Raleigh NC.
To access the database, select a county and at least one crop. Multiple crops may be select
holding the Ctrl key when selecting crops. A report will be generated showing a summary c
currently available datafor the county you selected. •
Select Your County
Select Your Soil
Correct for Slope
(Robeson
NoA: Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
NoB: Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes
NsC: Norfolk and Faceville soils, 6 to 10 percent slopes
Pa: Pactolus loamy sand
® Use Representative Slope Typical of the Soil Mapunit
0 Use my slope 0
Submit
Reset,
Realistic Yields for NoA: Norfolk loamy sand, I
2 percent slopes in Robeson County
Nitrogen
Yield Factor
Realistic
Nitrogen
Rate
Estimated
Phosphorus
Removal
Crop
(Ibs/acre) (Ibs P2O5/acre)

, Bedey(G�ain) 81 1.51 122 31
Bushels '
`
Corn (Grain) _ 115 1.14 131 51
Bushels
.Corn(Si|age)
0Tons 11.1 0 O
� Cntto.n�
875 0.089 78 ZS
Pbunds
, Sorghum. (Silage)
Oats (Grain)
1U3 1.17 ' 119 26
Buah6|s
�Peanuts
4000 O 0 22
Pounds
Rye (Grain)
60 -2.09 125 20
Bushels
�
Small Grain (Ei|age\ � 10Tons ' 11.4 114 54' �
55CVVT 1.78 ' 98 41
Bushels
Soybeans (Full Season) 42
Bushels
O
0 ]4 '
�
`Soybeans (Double Cropped - 35 3.91 137 28
Manured). Bushels
' Soybeans (Full Season
Manured) ,
42 ' 3.91 164 34
Bushels
'
Tobacco (Burley)
0Pnunds 0.06 O Q '
Tobacco (Flue Cured).
3300 D.O31 102 ' 17'
Pounds
7riti ' |eYGrain\
84 1.53 /f29 28
Bushels '
/
Tropical Corn (Silage) ' UTons 6.7 , '0 O
Wheat (Grain)
"
60 2.1 u, 125
Bushels /
JU-
�
B hi (Hay)
o agrass `my' 4.9Tons 46 225 56
Caucasion/O|dWorld B|uestern 5'2Tnns 46
(Hay)
239 53
.
DoUisgrass(Hay)
4.9Tony 46 ��235 64
� ^
Fescue (Hay) 3.5Tnns 46 161' ' 55.
'HybhdBern1udngrass' 7.7Tons 46 354 105
oyenseededwith Rescuegnsss
Mixed Cool Season Grass 2.5.Tons 46
(Hay)
115 36
Orchardgnass(Hov) 2-5Tons 46 11� 37
. Pearl Millet (Hoy)
5.5,Tons- 51` 281, 73 '
�

�.Timothy -Grass (Hay) 0 Tons, 46 0 0
Annual Rvegnoss (Pasture) 0. Tons O 0 O
Coucosinn/CUdVVodd B|uestern 5.2Tons 34 177 0
(Pasture)
Annual RveOverseed Hay — OTVns O O 0
April 7 Harvest (Hay)
Annual
Rye Qverseed, Gna'zed OTons
- April 7 Harvest (Hay)
U U O
ConnnnonBermudograss 4.9Tons 34 167 6
Dallisgrass (Pasture)
4.9Tons 34 167 G
Fescue' (Pasture) 3.5Tnns 34 .119. 6
Hybrid Benmudagrass 7.7Tons 46 354 11
overseededvvith Reacuegrass '
�
HybhdBermudagrass 6.5Tons 34 221 8
(Pasture)
Mixed Cool Season Grass Z.STnns 34 OS 4
Pearl Millet (Pasture) 5.5Tnns 38 209 7 '
Rescuegrass (Pasture)
3.5Tons 34 4
. I Small Grain.Cover(Hay) OTons O 0 O
Small Grain Overseed (Hay). 0 Tons 1 0 0 0
~ �
Sorghum Sudan (Pasture) 6.2 Tons 38 236 9
UTons 46 _ 0 ` O
0Tons 34 0 O
Timothy Grass'(Pasture) UTnns 34 U
Other Crop 0 0 O U
Other Pasture O 45.6 O O
/

Realistic Yield Expectations for North Carolina Soils
The following' tables are the result of extensive data gathering and review process conductE.
State University, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the North Carolina Departmer
Agriculture and ConsurmerServices, and the North Carolina Division of Soil and Water
Conservation. In 1999, county -based representatives of each of the 'above -named organiza
were asked to collect yield data and make a reasoned judgement of the yields for various c
each of the soils occurring in their county. These data were collected from 87 responses,
representing 93 counties. The data were then compared with available research data and
intensively reviewed by a panel of field agronomists, soil 'scientists and researchers familiar
the soils, crops and climatic conditions in each region. In reviewing the data, the following
assumptions were made:
1. Realistic Yield Expectations should be based on the average of the best 3 years in a 5
period which could be achieved with a high level of management (top 20% of grower:
2. For soils that may be mapped in multiple regions or in slightly different landscapes (fl
example, flood plains or stream terraces), the Realistic Yields are based on the. most -
prevailing conditions for that -soil rather than the most ideal site for agricultural prodr.
3. For soils that are Somewhat Poorly, Poorly, or Very Poorly Drained, effective artificial
drainage MUST be in place to achieve the yields shown in the RYE tables.
4. For tobacco production in the Piedmont physiographic, irrigation was assumed to be
available, whereas no irrigation was assumed in the Coastal Plain physiographic regio
is in accordance with numerous surveys'which- show less than 15%-20% of tobacco ii
Coastal Plain is irrigated, while 70 to 80% of tobacco in the Piedmont receives some i
Citation: North Carolina Nutrient Management Workgroup. 2003. Realistic yields and nitrog
application factors for North Carolina crops. http_//nutrients.soil.ncsu.edu/yields/ North Car
State University, North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, North C
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Servic
Raleigh' NC. •
To access the database, select a county and at least one crop. Multiple crops may be select
holding the Ctrl key when selecting crops. A report will be generated showing a summary c
currently available data for the county you selected.
Select Your County Robeson
Tr: Trebloc loam (Grantham)
Select Your Soil
Correct for Slope
WaB:-Was ?aft) loam sand; 0'to'6 percent slopes
WaC: Wagram loamy sand, 6 to 10 percent slopes
WkB: Wakulla sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Use Representative Slope Typical of the Soil Mapunit
0 Use my slope 0'
Submit
Reset
Realistic Yields for. WaB: Wagram loamy sand
to 6 percent slopes in Robeson County
Crop
Nitrogen
Yield Factor
Realistic
Nitrogen
Rate
(Ibs/acre)
Estimated
Phosphorus
Removal
(Ibs P2O5/acre)

Barley (Grain)
53
Bushels
1.58 84 20
Corn (Grain)
74
Bushels
1.22 90 32
Corn (Silage) 0 Tons 11.8 0 0 .
Cotton
637
Pounds
0.112 71 , 18
Sorghum (Silage) 0 Tons 8.3 0 0
Oats (Grain)
67
Bushels
1.27
85
17
Peanuts 2940
Pounds
0
0
16
Rye (Grain)
39 2.32
Bushels
91
13
Small Grain (Silage) 6.4 Tons. 12.2
78
34
Sorghum (Grain)
34 CWT 1.94
67
26
Soybeans (Double Cropped) 23
Bushels
0
0
18
Soybeans (Full Season)
27
Bushels
0
0
22
Soybeans (Double Cropped - 23
Manured) Bushels
3.98
90
18
Soybeans (Full Season 27
Manured) Bushels
3.98
109
22,
Tobacco (Burley) 0 Pounds 0.06
0
0
Tobacco (Flue Cured) 2548
Pounds
0.038
97
13
Triticale (Grain)
55
Bushels
1.6
88
18
Tropical Corn (Silage)
0 Tons 7.1
0
0
Wheat (Grain)
39
Bushels
2.3.2 91
20
Bahiagrass (Hay) 4 Tons
49
197
46
Caucasion/Old World Bluestem 4.3 Tons 49
(Hay)
211
51
Common Bermudagrass (Hay) 4 Tons
" 49
197
49
Dallisgrass (Hay) 4 Tons
49
197
53
Fescue (Hay) 1.5 Tons 49
72
23
Hybrid Bermudagrass (Hay) 5.4Tons ' 49
264
66
Hybrid Bermudagrass
overseeded with Rescuegrass
(Hay)
5.5 Tons 49
269
75
Mixed Cool Season Grass 1.1 Tons 49
(Hay)
53
15
Orchardgrass (Hay) 1.1 Tons 49
53
16
Pearl Millet (Hay) 4.9 Tons 54
265
65
Rescuegrass (Hay) , 2 Tons
49
96
22
SorghumSudan (Hay) 4.3 Tons 54 233 60

_Timothy Grass (Hay),- OTuns 49 O O
. .
Annual Ryegnaas(Hay) OTons O O ` O
Annual Rvegna ' (Pasture) .0 Tons
O
�O
Q.
Bahiognass (Pasture) 4'Tons 37
[aucasio ' d VVodd15iuestenn 4.3Tons _ 37
149
160
4
S�
, Annual {}verseedHay- Tons O
April Harvest(Ha«)i '
�
� O
Annual Rye C)verseed,Gra-zed O'Ton
- April'7. Harvest (Hay)
ComrnonBermud6grass 47�ons
37
' 149
� 5�
DaUisgrass (Pasture) 4Tuns ' ' 37 '.149
5'-'
Fescue (Pasture) 1.5 Tons 37
54
2
Hybrid Bennudngross 5-.5-Tons �^9
uversee'ed with Rescuegrass '
(Pasture)
269
� 8
.Hybrid d '
V agr��ss �.4Tons 37 ' 199
(Pasture)
' ` -' `
6'
Mixed CncdSeason Grass �1.1Tons' 37
' (Pasture)
�
40 -
Z
OrcbardgFassPasture\ 1.1Tons 37 ' 40
2, �
. �
Pearl Millet [Postunel'' 4.9Tons � 40'
(Pasture)',
�196 �'� � 6.
Rescuegnass(Pastune)'
2Tons ` 37 73
� 2
U
. 0
'Small Grain Overseed (Hay) OTons
�^ �b
0
O
�
.
Sorghurn.§udnn(Pasbupe) 4.3Tons 40
17Z '
6.
^ `
` Switchgrnss(Hay) OTons
49
.
�
U
O �.
Switchgrass (Pasture) 0 Tons
37
0
'
Timothy Grass (Pasture) QTons 37'
0
Other 'rnp. O
O
6
Other Pasture 0 48.9 . O O
`.

Realistic Yield Expectations for North Carolina Soils
The following tables are the result of extensive data gathering and review process conduct€
State University, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the North Carolina Departmer
Agriculture and ConsurmerServices, and the North Carolina Division of Soil and Water
Conservation. -In 1999, county -based representatives of each of the above -named organiza
were asked to collect yield data and make a reasoned judgement of the yields for various c
each of the soils occurring in their county. These data were collected from .87 responses,
representing 93 counties. The data were then compared with available research data and
:intensively reviewed by a panel of field agronomists, soil scientists and researchers familiar
the soils, crops and climatic conditions in each region. In reviewing the data, the following
assumptions were made:
• 1. Realistic Yield Expectations should be based on the average of the best 3. years in a 5
period which could be achieved with a high level of management (top 20% of grower:
2. For soils that may be mapped in multiple regions or in slightly different landscapes (fi
example, flood plains or stream terraces), the Realistic Yields are based on the most
prevailing conditions for that soil rather than the most ideal site for agricultural prodL
3. For soils that are Somewhat Poorly, Poorly, or Very Poorly Drained, effective artificial
drainage MUST be in place to achieve the yields shown in the RYE tables.
4. For tobacco production in the ,Piedmont physiographic, irrigation was assumed to be
available, whereas no irrigation was assumed in the Coastal Plain physiographic regio
is in accordance with numerous surveys which show less than 15%-20% of tobacco
Coastal Plain is irrigated, while 70 to 80% of tobacco in the Piedmont receives some; i
Citation: North Carolina Nutrient Management Workgroup. 2003. Realistic yields and nitrog
application factors for.'North Carolina crops. 'http://nutrients.soil.ncsu.edu/yields/ North Car
State University, North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, North C
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Servic
Raleigh NC.
To access the database, select a county and at least one crop.. Multiple crops may be select
holding the Ct"rl key when selecting crops. A report will be generated showing a summary
currently available data for the county you selected.
Select Your County IRobeson
Select Your Soil
Correct for Slope
Tr: Trebloc loam (Grantham)
WaB: Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
WaC: Wagram-loam sand, 6 to 10 percentslopes _
WkB: Wakulla sand, 0 to 6 sercent slopes
Use. Representative Slope Typical of the Soil Mapunit
0 Use my slope 0
Submit-1
Reset
Realistic Yields for WkB: Wakulla sand, 0 to 6
percent slopes in Robeson County
Crop
Realistic
Nitrogen
Nitrogen Rate
Yield, Factor (Ibs/acre)
Estimated
Phosphorus
Removal
(Ibs P2(Vacre)

Barley (Grain)
46
Bushels
1.6 74 18
Corn (Grain)
54 1.25 67 24
Bushels
Corn (Silage) 0 Tons 12 0 0
Cotton
539 0.12 65 16
,Pounds
Sorghum (Silage) 0 Tons 8.4 0 0
Oats (Grain)
59
Bushels
1.3 76 15
Peanuts
21560 . 0 12
Pounds'
Rye (Grain)
34 2.42 83 11
Bushels
Small Grain (Silage)
5.9 Tons 12.5 74 32
Sorghum (Grain)
25. CWT 2 49 18
Soybeans (Double Cropped) 18 0 0 14
Bushels
Soybeans (Full Season)
22
Bushels
0
0 17
Soybeans (Double Cropped - 18 4 " 71
. Manured) Bushels
14
Soybeans (Full Season - 22
Manured) Bushels
4 86 17
Tobacco (Burley)
0 Pounds 0.08 ' 0 0
Tobacco (Flue Cured)
1960 0.4 784 10
Pounds
Triticale (Grain)
48 1.48 71 16
Bushels
Tropical Corn (Silage)
0 Tons 7.2 . 0 0
Wheat (Grain)
34 2.42 „ 83 17
Bushels
Bahiagrass (Hay) 2.9 Tons 50 147' 34
Caucasion/Old World Bluestem 3.1 Tons 50
(Hay)
157 37
Common :Bermudagrass (Hay) 2.9 Tons 50
147 36
Dallisgrass (Hay) 2.9 Tons 50 147 39
Fescue (Hay)
0Tons 50 0 '0'
Hybrid Bermudagrass (Hay) • 3.9 Tons 50
196 ' 48
Hybrid Bermudagrass
overseeded with Rescuegrass
(Hay)
4.5 Tons 50
225 61
Mixed Cool Season Grass
(Hay)
0 Tons 50 0 0
Orchardgrass (Hay)
0 Tons 50 0 0
Pearl Millet (Hay) 3.5 Tons 55 194 47
Rescuegrass (Hay)
2 Tons 50 98 22
Sorghum Sudan (Hay) 3.1 Tons 55 172 44

Timothy Grass (Hay)
0 Tons 50. 0 0
Annual Ryegrass (Hay)
O Tons 0 0
Annual Ryegrass (Pasture) 0 Tons 0 0
Bahiagrass (Pasture)
2.9 Tons 38
11.2 3,
Caucasion/Old World Bluestem ,3.1 Tons 38
(Pasture)
119 4
Annual Rye Overseed Hay - 0 Tons
April 7 Harvest (Hay)
Annual Rye Overseed, Grazed 0 Tons
= April 7 Harvest (Hay)
0 0
Commo,n Bermudagrass
(Pasture)
2.9 Tons 38 112
4
Dallisgrass (Pasture) 2.9 Tons .38 112 4
Fescue (Pasture) O Tons 38 0 0
Hybrid Bermudagrass
overseeded with Rescuegrass
(Pasture)
4.5 Tons 50
225 6
Hybrid Bermudagrass
(Pasture)
3.9 Tons .38 149
Mixed Cool Season Grass. 0 Tons 38
(Pasture)
0
Orchardgrass (Pasture)
0 Tons 38
0 0
PeartMillet (Pasture) 3.5 Tons 41
145 5
Rescuegrass (Pasture)
2 Tons 38 74 2
Small Grain Cover (Hay) 0 Tons 0 0 0
Small Grain Overseed (Hay) .0 Tons 0 0 0
Sorghum Sudan (Pasture) 3.1 Tons . 41 129 4
Switchgrass (Hay)
0 Tons 50 0 . 0
Switchgrass (Pasture)
0 Tons 38 0 "0
Timothy Grass (Pasture) 0 Tons 38 0 0
Other Crop 0 0 0 . 0
Other Pasture 0 50 0 0

�f
2
ft
Ly
Campell Spray/Sludge Site's
& MW's
J 3 1
REsivith'

,/ . A
/cos - 7 2. 8 / c•
c483. ,a . s/
9. %Oac, ��
'"
G.
$ ;
Ate•
G) iii
801 C.=. `/% -202Ac 59,yZ - i/, ZZ
v
.5. 9 (09Ac• 3 S 3y - 9,343
eaic = ys. (P>3Ac: Sy,S?= s,vS
- jP
67&I - 32, 958,4c• 39.49 = lo, S3
/C
1
co ir. _ -27. 8/3Ac. 33.35" ' S•Sci
z).
,
30,E 30.0)=
_=
71-%.3I1
_ . El. /o 4c s/,_/U -
Q.313 ___ac,J....
4P)
)oT4L
AC I> E (rL
3
1 i(vor Ae: = Soy, yS _ 30y, 5-1/334..71
S
T s o " Se"- i
•
A C_ - - 30, OD _ 3 0. W
SLnT sobri
Set- ptc.. = sa. jo vs sy.o so, o
38-1/. q
�f F K►=SrDuAcf Ij n ice- `T+ F� Et1�_I,L•ES Pr F�uG=
01461.) COO
Gin .-7e per. .637),(4,/,0),/,,a)
--v y r�G� . 3.0 y-�wG / : ate.
1 TOTAL -
3 8--Y.-Cps -✓ Yoa,-78�
=P► U-6-T-5==(C-a13- wL►=ram- =A:-c(i--;
Us� - Ram.- A-PPI-icA-T/ou RA-TvS Fah
NoT= r:DEv-r-'-F y4-G. 11.3I)(0100s -Fi r�jAS-=F��t-ASP-�1�07%0� i -
2,00q0
(� aooy ao�6 at�7[2008
EXceebei,--Fi lA -_ _=Dr1,4v4�G_ vr►iT' a. 2-3,,G:D� -==

Sprayfield Control Improvement
An internal review of the Maxton Sprayfield Controls was held on February 19th. Participants:
Tom Braydich: . "
Director of Electrical and Maintenance Systems Engineering, WHQ
Tony Phillips:
Sr. Engineer, Electrical Control Systems Engineering, WHQ
Bob Zimmerman:
Environmental Project Manager, WHQ ,
Butch Brown:
Maintenance and Power Systems Manager, Maxton
Hope Walter:
Area Manager, Utilities and Environment, Maxton
Kelly Terwillinger:
Project Engineer, Maxton
John Talton:
Manager of Engineering, Maintenance and Reliability, Maxton
Requirements for the sprayfield controls are:
1. The system must reliably apply the water to agricultural fields
2. The system must control the water application to the fields
3. The system must record the amount of water applied to the fields.
System Reduirement #1: The system must reliably apply waste water to agricultural fields.
To accomplish this, the following is needed:
• automatic and reliable valves going to the pivots/sprayfields
• automatic capability to turn the pivot drives, on/off
• 'the system must operate within a reasonable range - i.e. 60 to 90 psi, to be defined
• the sprayfield pumps and all pumps throughout the system must operate within a normal duty cycle
-.the pumps must not cycle on and. off
• a common control system is.required to control the valves, pivots, and pumps.
There are several equipment issues that must be,resolved to,achieve the above:
• The actuators for:the control valves to the fields do not work requiring them to be manually
opened/closed.
• The wireless control system for the pivots is unreliable requiring pivots to be manually turned on/off.
• Failure in the valves and control system contributes to widely varying pressures as pumps kick
on/off. This has Jed to pipe failures.
• The pumps in the pit at the field rapidly cycle on/off which will lead to poor reliability.
Valves
• Consensus that the actuators on the supply valves for the center pivots. are the problems and not
the -.valves.
• Consensus that the valves should just open and close - not modulate.
• The compressor for the air actuators valves supplying I & J field is not working
• Follow-up: Identify options for replacing -the actuators. Purchase and -install based on
-_ —_--- ---demonstrated- industry performance. For I & J fields, repair the compressor and develop a manual
way for controlling valves until control system is repaired.
Control System
• Consensus was reached -to abandon the"wireless communication system because of the high rate
of failure of the'system:
• We will seek an industry standard control system vs the custom designed system.
• The manufacturer of the pivots, Valley, has a standard 'smart.pivot with GPS' control system that .
appears to meet our needs.
• Follow-up: Review Valley option. Purchase and install based off demonstrated performance. If
deemed un-reliable, develop and install custom engineered system that does not use wireless
communication.
Pressure Control
• Consensus was reached that if the valves and control system on the pivots were reliable, the
system could be designed to operate within a reasonable pressure range - i.e. 60 to 90 psi.
• Follow-up: Correct valve and control system issues above. Install a pressure transmitter at the
Pump House to monitor system pressure performance.

Sprayfield Pumps
• The pumps are widely cycling on and off multiple times over several minutes.
• Follow-up: Troubleshoot the clearwell and sprayfield pit pumps and return its operation back to
design intent
Lightening
• A problem that has plagued the new control system is lightening strikes. There was consensus that
we needed to investigate best practices for grounding the pivots and the buildings of the sprayfields
including the incoming power.
• Follow-up: Immediately grounding of the pump building and the compressor buildings can
proceed. Discuss grounding issues with Valley regarding the center pivots and proceed based on
their recommendation.
System Requirement #2: Ability to control the application of water to the fields
I. The time each field is operated daily must be recorded and be automatically limited
II. Water application must be controlled between on/off in variable, manually set, quadrants of each
field
III. Variable application in sections of a quadrant is desirable but deemed impractical by the group
•. Consensus was reached that the requirements to control the application of water to the fields could
be achieved if the reliability concerns were resolved.
System Requirement #3: Ability to measure the volume of water applied to each field each day
• . If system requirements #1 and #2 are achieved, one can manually calculate the volume of water.
• The flow meters work today but flows do not consistently add up. A working control system would
allow for instant, side by side comparisons of the data and quick resolution of any flow
discrepancies.
• Follow-up: after delivering system requirements #1 and #2, resolve flow discrepancy problem
Path Forward:
• John Talton, Bob Zimmerman, and Tom Braydich will talk with the appropriate leadership to ensure
that this effort is expedited.
• Tony Phillips will be the lead engineer to develop engineering solutions to the equipment issues.
• Bob Zimmerman will be the lead environmental manager for developing solutions.
• Jimmy Hunt will be the electrician that will be staffed to make repairs as identified by Tony
• As Tony and Jimmy dictate, others (Kelly T. and others) will be utilized to drive specific issues.
• Every 2 weeks, the group will meet to review progress.
- • John Talton and Bob Zimmerman will obtain the capital to make the above repairs on an expedited
process. Initial target is for A, C, D, and E to be repaired by August, 2009 and the remaining fields
by January 2010.
NpRwo(- L64,o ,.,/ H q. Y 0 v-1 / L /1>,4" �,

JF.r �Tnh 4 f�
t
f '
„
wpm, v
rd
Al
"
•
..
5� - � ,� + �'
xb t "fit` .
,�F 5,.�..
74
E
�
r
x.
Y
.jl_
r, i f' ik t btu
Y
Rom-•
,�c
fn
x
VW
py CIA
}1K
I
oil
_ Y
fi•'^
lr 4
3, ll
3

T�� .� : \
: . ~� ®
\y ��¥§� . y�� //y . � � &�\ . y .
.: � , .
^««� �� d��� d.. . « � , . .
� � \+\� �� \\ « 6 /t � / .
� � � � <�« �
~� f »` � � \
° �w° � \ »m� � 3 ,/<
:{w:� . « :
���� `��� ��%
�m« ���. © .? m\�
:�
a. � . yv» « < 2 « » . . .
� .� :� ?2°« � > ». � `� « � � � � rz�� � ? �
. , � ƒ�. . . . . . . ... .
,. \ f «� ��\
,, . , . . , .
.z�.. <�� . ^�<
2�d , � �\ K`\

Scale 1:20000

;}s
W.
m

.1:;'.
.,
`.4" � �
���-
. .

Comments
,History Inspections
Incidents ;Enforcements Violations
, Related Permits
Points Pnpr;To Irrigation Wells,_I"Fields Sites ,E Soil Analysis �..
�,
---
Details1 .,` Detalls2-°'_BUling Class.IDesig. r—Evenig �^.Reg. Activlties •�
-'Structures
Affilfatlons
RevievJers � .
Permit 00003626�- App:Version -
Status:
Well Name
Sao..
9Vell T e
`Stle Nunn
k-�
,a
j"
r Pita
L
.d115
R n3avc
'ot�fli:o��
r12Wellsfound
l <eack P`21> �irist, I. Close:
I LL�
(Ready, age 11.1
Site Name;
Serial No.
:Date Drtlted
Latitude , .
'' Lon nude
Status'
�� Fact
tAW11
Monitoring
001
'Spray Irrigati...
SIMS004240
34792405
79.295434
Active
tAaxton Pla
D,11N12
Monitoring
001
Spray Irrigati�..
SIIviSOD4241 _
34.79011-
79.30004
Active
Marton Pla
'b1W1
Monitoring
001
Spray Irrigati...
CONV001001
34.810295
79.310909
Active
Maxton Pla
MW2
Monitoring
001
'Spray Irrigati...
CONV001385
34.807168 -
79.317053
Active
Maxton Pla
MW3
Monitoring
001
Spray Irrigati...
CONV001741
34.80373
79.313265
Active
Marton Pla
MW4
Monitoring
001
Spray lrrigati...
CONV002103
�34.601982
79:309677
Active_
Ma;don Pla
MW5
Monitoring
001 '
Spray Irrigati...
CONVD02466
_
34.79899^
79.302862
Active
Maxton PPIa
'MW6
Monitoring
001
,Spray lrrigati,..
CONV002849
34.805557
79.297621 , .Active
Maxton Plat
MW7 '
Monitoring
001
Spray Irrigati...
CONV003209
34.803297
79.303788
Active
Manton Pla
�PAIRr8
.Monitoring
001
(Spray Irrigati...
CONV003564
0111411987
34.797234
79.296843
Active
Maxton Plat
MW9
Monitoring
001
Spray Irrigati...
CONV003944
01J14I1987
34.79652G
79.285639
Active_
Marton Plat
IMW1'0
.Monitoring
001
Spray Irrigeti...
CONV004333
-
_
34.799321
79,294811
Active
Maxton Pla
Y
F

Z
%rs -
J
� �,N., "'e„ p � � �.s.� � *..y � �) ; . �0. i!� f � , 7 try rr ,-...��� ''rare � i � �� tll �. %"1
Is 1 4u
74
it
711--- .7 -
�7
iridA p, !
w.
jy
Lq
to,
Ai
--A
e rt b
, x
ILNa 2
46-
00 �6 A-
111111
- ---------
t,lc
%
Lu-�71 K
41•
12M
lw
0 0.75 MI Map provided by MyTopo.com
0 4000 Ft

MyTopo Map Print
pr it
if
.71
81
It
14
Is
If W2
it
It
2-9
If ;211
Ix—
ti
el
.25
IF
if
it
st
1317
It
it
It
o o.s m/
A
o ���znnn ��Mop provided bv y�yTopo.conn

iiaitat maia Store ,w-' Teased
We
A %
Jl
-r � ,Y,• f is �3-�1��, � .,�'j'y�7•r�.-•,ry,. i" C�• ,.e;.

VI
n1d zy ove
S4
214
ei Jk -25
225
Vd-
7,x
It
— Elr—
to
4k-'-
Sit
O'k.0
Z--t— Ax
NN
- K
A4 f
212
2fl
Ot f
tl
It
lk

44
�

Internet Mapping Framework--,-
79=18 20 W 79-18-0 W 79-17.40 W 79-17=20 W <° r
4
_ t
\.�► s ,��, rnd c i
z
p
N ♦ D
00 .. O
Cn i Z
`Legend.'
Ohio: wet_scan
e. =
01
. �. Out of range
�y Interstate
Major, Roads .
Z- a-: N .Other Road. ..
Interstate -
co o State highway
CoZ - N. US highway
* r/ Roads'.
Cities
f _ USGS Qua& ndez 24K
v Lower48 Wetland Polygons
®Estuarine and Marinebeepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
- Eg Freshwater Fmergeht Wetland
®. FreshwatetForested/Shrob Wetland= '
Z 0 Lake ® water Pond -
V
A . '()tiler' .
o Riverine
Z
:Lower 48 Available: Wetland Data -
u Non -Digital.,
Digital'
xi No Data
Scan
NHD Streams
Counties,1001K
0 States 100K
p South America
p North America
79-18-20 W, 79-1&0 W,• 79-17-40 W 79-1740 W
_ 34° .47 55" 79° 17 54" W 15,000
Scale 1
r .. ,Map center: N, ,'
This map is a:user:generated.static output from an,lntemet mapping site and is for.general
reference only: Data layers that appear on this: map may or may not be accurate,, current, or '
otherwise reliable: THIS MAP IS. NOT TO BE FOR -NAVIGATION

•
- - ..: - '
, Internet
Co GO
0.
Ma. PpinJ Fra.m.ework
Y ` -s±!•"ti
- 79=19-20 W ' 79-19-0 W 79-18=40 W 79-1 B-20 W -
Z.:
Ohioti _wet_sca
• Y
� Out of range .
iW Interstate _
� U
Major Roads-
*
: N.OtherRoad: .. ,
Slate highway
-
US highway
- N
$2 ,..
:elRoads . - ' • -
o'
W
4 S. 'CIt18-

8
7
6
5
.4
3
2
1
0
PERMIT: W00003626
FACILITY: Campbell Soup Supply Company L.L.C. - Maxton Plant and Silgan Can Company WWTP
PARAMETER: 00620 - Nitrogen, Nitrate Total (as N) mg/I,
MW1
�o �'o �'o �'o �'o -�'o �'o �o �o �'o �'o �'o �'o �o �'o �o �o �o �o �'o �'o �o �'o �o �'o �'o
00 00 00 0> 0� 07 O� 02 O� 00 . 00 00 oQ 0y OS 0�. 0�1 00 00 00 O� 0� O� 00 00 00
O� 06, 7) O� 00 70 O� 06, 70 02 06, 70 06, 70 O� O6, 70 O� 06, 70 02 06, 70 O� 06, 70
c�0 29 2O "�0 c�j �9 0 2� 0 0 0 0 �j 0 "O c�j 0 00 c�j 0 00 20 0 00
GW59 Date
MW'

PERMIT: W00003626 .
FACILITY. Campbell Soup Supply Company L.L.C. - Maxton Plant and Silgan Can Company WWTP
PARAMETER: 00620 - Nitrogen, Nitrate Total (as N) mg/I
MW2
'PO ''o 100 1-'0 10 1.'o -o ''o 1'o 1'o 10 -'o 1'o ''o 1Po �0 110 ''o ''o ''o lb- �o 10 '3
00 00 00 Off. 0� O7 . O? O� 02 01, 01, 019 oV Off. Off. OS 06, 06, . 06, O� L O� 00 00 00
o� os �y o� os 'o 02 os 7o o� os ro os o2 os �o , o� os �o 02 os �o oos ' �o
28 29 2y 2� 29 u'o 2� c�9 `�O 2j ipq "'0 �i9 c�j �9 u'0. c�j c�9 �O 2j �9 i10 c�0 cP9 110
GW59 Date

8. AL
�-i-
6 -
' 4
-o ''o -o
-o°���'o°-o � 2-o°'o°� �?o °00 �o°� c�o °°� POOL, °°s °s°s, °s °°
gy000obO2°°oo°o°o7�O'OSs0� ffO�6u'2 061
87
0d�PLQVo �p >pq �'O 9 App28 �ig9O2o 9 .
GW59 Date

14
12
10
,8
6
4
2
0
PERMIT: WQ0003626
FACILITY: Campbell Soup Supply Company L.L.C. - Maxton Plant and Silgan Can Company WWTP
PARAMETER: 00620 - Nitrogen, Nitrate Total (as N) mg/I
MW6'
1-10 130 �0 ''o 110 ''o 1'o �0 1'0 1'o ''o 130 "0 'Po 1-'0 10 Po ''o 110 1-'0 ''o 'Po ''o 10 1-'0 1'0
00 00 00 07 o7 0, 02 02 02 00 00 00 0V 07 011, . 06, 06, 00 00 00 01 o> o� 00 0� 00
o�, 00 7� O� 06, 70 02 061 70 O� 06, 70 00 70 O? 06, 70 02 061 70 O� 061 70 O� 06, 10
GW59 Date
-411--

PERMIT: W00003626
FACILITY: Campbell Soup Supply Company L.L.C•. - Maxton Plant and Silgan Can Company W.WTP
PARAMETER::00620 = Nitrogen, Nitrate Total (as; N) mg%I
WW8
14
12
M\ 1.0
8 •
6'
4
-21
1--0 130 20 'PO 20 �0 20 .' c10 . 20 .. �0 20 : 20 20 P0 . Q0 . 20 20 ' 20 20 �0. 20 �O -0 -0 -0 �0
00 00 00 . ?, Off. O� O� 02 O� 00 00 00 OA OQ Off. 00 Off.: . 061 . 06, 06, O> . O, O. O� , 00 00
O O 7 D O -7 O O 7 O ` O 7 O 7 O O 7 O O 7 0 0 7 O O 7 r? Q 7, �? : G, O, r? Q O, �? 6; 0 6 . 0 �? G Q 2 G Q c? Q Q c? G, Q
c�0. 2i9 1PO �� �O L?O c�j. ,q u'O �j ,q "'O , �O 0 �j �O 00 P" cPO %0 c�j . 2y ". u'0 �'O ` ._cog L'0 .
GW59 Date

PERMIT: WQ0003626
FACILITY- Campbell`Soup Supply Company L.L.C. - Maxton Plant and Silgan Can Company WWTR
PARAMETER: 00620 - Nitrogen, Nitrate Total (as N) mg%I
MW9 •, `.
12
10
6.
2.
04 -
1-10 20 20 �0 2O 2O 20 �O 20 �0 �0 , 20 20 20 . 20 20 ...: �O . �0 'PO �0 ' 'PO . - c20 'a '3 .. �p �0
00' 00. OO �j Oj. Oj Off. 02 Oc? Ou? Ou? Ou; Ost ?Q OS OS OS OS OS OS O> 0, . O� - 08 0� 08
O O 7 O O 7 O O 7 O O 7 O 7 O O 7 O O 7 O O i O O' 7
�? G, 0 r? E, O, ?, 6 O, 6 O, �? E, O, c? 6 O, r? 6 . 0 . . (+ O
�j. c�9 "'O 2i9 "O . �j L'Q 0 ; �9 u'p c�� 2i9 '?0 �j '0 "O ce. c�9 u'O �O ; 2y �'p
. GW59 Date

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
PERMIT: WQ0003626
FACILITY: Campbell Soup Supply Company L.L.C. - Maxton Plant and Silgan Can Company WWTP
PARAMETER: 00620 - Nitrogen, Nitrate Total (as N) mg/I
MW12
-o 'o �o �o 1-10 �o "o 1-10
c�9 u'° u'° c�� 29 u'°
GW59 Date

Average Flow Volume of Spray Applied on Permitted Fields
Month
Average
]Flow
MGD
Month
Days
Over 4M
Acre -
In/Month
January
2.8
31
0
3,196.82
February
3.2
28
4
3,299.94
March
2.4
. _'31
0 `
2,740.13
April
2.1
30
0
2,320.27
May
1.71
31
0
1,940.93
June
2.1
30
0
2,320.27.
July
1.4
31
0
1,598.41
August
2.9
31
4
3,310.99
September
3.3
30
6
3,646.14
October
3.2
31
2
3,653.51
November
2.6
30
0
2,872.12
December
31
6
3,539.33
L.Jbbb / is ,Z. 60 M(,D
otal Ac-in Produced Annually 34,439.45
Maximum Ac-in Allowed on Fields 55,407.30
Percentage 62%
PAN Analysis of Avg. Vol
Month
PAN
'#/ac-in
PAN
lbs/month
January
1.29
4,128.09
February
2.08,
9,842.09
March
0.38
1,048.54-
April
1.72
3,99184`
May'
1.87
3,626.10
June
3.75
9,709.88
July
3.29
5,266:74
August
1.50
4,966.47
September
3.33
12,141.35
October
1.66
6,063.18
November
1.66
4,754.47.
December
2.27
8,020.91
Maxiumum PAN Allotal PAN #/yr 72,560.67 �P�'M10G
Allowed on Fields 145,397.00
#S wiw
Percentage 50%
Without Fields B & l3

ti °rS
a� P
$P 3
PCB
Maximum Volu of Spray Applied on Permitted Fields
Month
Average
Flow
MGD
Month
Days
'Over 4M
Acre -
. In/Month
January
4.121
31
0
4,705.03
February
4.121
28
4
4,249.71'
March
4.121
31_
-0
4,705:03
April
4.121
30
0
4,553.26
May
4.121
31
0
4,705.03
June
4.121
30
0
4,553.26
July
4.121-
31
0
4,705.03
August
4.121
31
4
4,705.03
September
4.121
30
6
4,553.26
October
4.121
31
2
4,705..03
November
4.121
30
.0
4,551. 6
December
:4..121
31
6
4,705.03
Total Ac-in Produced Annually 55,397.94
Maximum Ac-in Allowed on Fields. 55,407.30
Percentage 1000/0
PAN Analysis of Max Vol.
Month
PAN
#/ac-in
PAN
lbs/month
January
1.29
6,075.67
February
2.98
12,674.76
March
0.38 '
1,800.43
April
1.72
7,835.47
May
1.87
8,790.10
June,
3-35
17,092.11
July
A.29
15,503.02
August
1.50
7,057.53
September
3.33
15,161.97
October
L66
7,.808.24
November
1.66
-7,535.84
December
2.27
10,662.64
Total PAN #/yr ,117,997.78
Maxiumum PAN Allowed on Fields 145,307.00
Percentage 81 %.
Without Fields B & H

Pv
Maximum Volu e,of Spray Applied on Permitted Fields
Month
AVerage
Flow
MGD
Month
Days.'
Over 4M
Acre -
In/Month
January
4.83
- 31 . ,
0
5,514:51
February
4.83
28 -
4
4,98085
March
4.83
31
0
5,514.51
April
4.83, _
30
0 '
53336.62
May
4.83
31
0
5,514.51
June
4.83-
30
0
5,336.62
July
4.83
31
0
5,514.51
August
4.83
31
4
5,514.51
September
4.83
30
6
5,336.62
October
4.83
31
2
5,514.'51'
November
4.83
-30
0
5,336.62
December
4.83
31
6
5,514.51
Total,Ac-in Produced Annually 64,928.92
Maximum Ac-in Allowed on Fields 64,938.90
Percentage: 100%
PAN Analysis of Max Vol.
Month
PAN Wac
in
PAN
lbs/month
January
4.29-
7,120.96
February..
2.98.
14,855.40
March
0.38
2,110.19
April
1.72
%183.52
May.
1,87
10,3.02.40
June
3.75
20,032.73
July
3.29
18,170.25
August
1.50
8,271.75
-September
3.33
17,770.53
October'
1.66
9,151.61
November
1.66
8,832.35
December
- ' 2.27
12,497.10
Total. PAN #/yr 138,298.78
Maxiumum PAN Allowed on Fields 1699837.00
Using Field one of Field B
Percentage 81 %

� SL�F^ v'^1 �� ,� ° .,a ,�: •.e ��"�r. *v +� ,° Rd -.� �t5� � y��;L r; � x -; 'a'}���-ury c• 4�. t * Y- � ��..�r_.i
� -•��rt� � i x �'�,. "f Y i� ~Wa�t� .Jti - FY. c �",� y ' r,. r q - x� rt e.
t#$ -* f.t. �t.rrt..w .Rs} ...XA +` t m S '�• {+�:r*c x F,.. :.:..s +rt L -v''yi "� .w 4 /{ a a 1. t "I7- ,y, 8' i a �- 44 � I; c�'r.. 4 . 1 � I 3 F'.,'.a• «
t"•''L+Zlz'�•' '1v'![". at v� �' ,�,3 '�Z� ' r�' _�� :aTa •` � sla:+`"�ba N - Y• a �aE ���.
t . «.r i +��yvr r ,: •, � � " �"}.. fi Y r... t. ^?; 6 f :_ t :, a r,, �*. C e^,+"'•R! .a
v' l TtJ- i 1 T. � •k •4 � .., �„"a�Va• - . �+. Sv _ r S _ �. �'Y�$;'
r� ' '& �. . } i : ' .+.," i 'y4'.' M1 �;r� t 'v *`. r ;� F ' a' ws` c . -t• F 5 w �tt�, � 1.
-. R �jC.a� q`+1w�! jet •! yf � ..-r .. :yi, ..4�-. a r r .t.- w '` r
S +. � ti ) lfr x � r r 1 � a' • iy � •F,s^r�,pc,'��'y r"" ` � t " - rh _ rt. rf � y««
.i .y f i ,R�w.,',.' j,x ys� T '�Y'+*•�, R. b. +y i t`` {�,„ i.`.A
eq +ef`p.� w ' �7?1,}ixx�.LFi* � 4 a ~�',� r���"'a.'!`• } .{ � ,:k s i r � r. _�'" 1 � L • ' < , # "°4„ � t -1 ;,.
`:`'Xw+: fir' S4 4y, . -•'• •sLri. � - -b yr - •;+ ac "S ro. -•.• N
&^t`n �` �:•�� r .• 'h �.> +� � x=
�p ,cq:tF fy�' ��' 4 • F .! • a '1 J T 1r !+i "� � i • '' - R ,r
�e• „�x, . fu '?t�'ra •s "r ti + w ' *`'iPs
Y: k> , `y�., �t •�'e ¢. : r a 1 t '; s iY ,!� ... y • t�'�vrr c
.A» ♦£' ea. 3�•tt?1'& „r- J a�'a J' � . e ' � ,f, E ,�P .rk :. +• t M +r ' Y 'Z ,
47
aL-<,d �' 1x ::.S.1tt i`T.F r..y. a`• r""°+L w ar "# it *a,i�q } . - �'f y Tat La i a`••'. ,Sr .
�y ?sue✓`„� � .4� � at � a•. � �.,� ��5�. e� ; � Y s r« ' �' t ♦ �'• "� t , .4 � y a' t `� *�w� tt y , ,tiw ` � •.{ J � �:� �-t'�' .. �
` �� •^{:r_.v a �� �«�w. ` ,.�,�ry �« tS' •�. C � . � � ,,,r t ;��• '�• y. !• a,, _v yy w .f'` `' � ,�#
.}thy 'ti 4 y< rJ' '' - 4 :$ ;{ _ � 1} i 4 =1`= •1�.
cv4 _ �' '4r,w_`. ry.i 4 s ., t v • r c a ,� - ! ».� 4 a 1 a�.
•;t a '^4 xc
�!�S 't Y. v ,,� � L.s ♦ "s ~' 4. 'tt t a �c-w r Y.. y,.� S"r vt,. > .s. i. t.,r r - f ,4.
ry g�t ,%1tr r t a. r M.! 1 iw , `r F`a..� a' a•,„'{ . , v+ }f '" * «a.''y. t a r«J_;, ' {,�
- ,,�"�'6 +.- .; _�+. 4V. _ "� ::. i 4 -. ;' .MT-F.w.+jfp• 5ad'SS. ,wi 1 - - � � t�,u,
It
^,,. sr ,.'� x �'• �` 'E: 3 n e '�''? �+hrr..ie a�'w�+wt +r Ci
fa •. sf4r � � a a '?`+h, .r4 ."t I z t �. t i 4' +. "v..�- .. ''E" -� .- � , ate;
y�
;y`t� � a t �• ems. X {,. •''� "' .{ice X !�• � ay -�. ' �ts a _ f � � r f
�"'�,,...'"$ t°'4 � lO.~i� �y �x , • _ !� 1 } ' •�� F.:lt�4 w�e`"var+ �� { 4 ,,r
E it •�f � � _•+. � at, �•� {��' �;"+ 7 ;� ..�'i.g".r� � '4 „� r 'i'
a �rJ � � � v � �� 1 • a r~� S. - s .»,k �__ �s��,�; .,w•ti�,,. t - x v � .
p
TC^,r" '"•f'�1F. . _y.ye ,�C •fit" ' M. � } ,,,� wr � +t R ,x,.y� C4 .fig. _
-
r
4
".�-'° +. • ' d' _ -, a 1.gi� - : tw -_ may{ _ �l
^tn+ � �- y, � �., +�,ga3 -_ a -, - r. � 'a',. L.•f is
t.
a
y
•tJ
!t
r
r
r

M1µ:
i
-
i
-
v

Z.-
LY,
�a PoB
Cr ,,It 11
03
Field A
i, ,7�4�
A A—�—
T k
v f'�WMB
PoB.
A.
o
H
f
Field E
1► J!r � � f:, i� ..r 5"�'.• ..� ilk 1 � /�' ,i .,'�1
`Field
ield B VVaB
WaB
i\-4
Scale: 1" = 500' Campbell Soup Supply Company
Checked By: RTB Spray Irrigation System Figure
BRANCH Maxton, North Carolina 1
Drawn By: RTB RESIDUALS
Date: Sept -OS & SOILS,IJLLC Project No. 2008-76

��{.
Val
Field A
wr
. 6
F
ri, R
r - —
/h
WWB f
7,
-Scaler- P = s00' Campbell Soup Supply Company
Checked By: RTB Spray Irrigation System Figure
BRANCH Maxton, North Carolina 2
brawn By: RTB RESIDUALS
Date: Sept-08 & SOILS, LLC ProjecENo. 2008-76

Yl

- Field D i WaB a
4 .
/00��
Field G
�. WkB NoA
Field H
Field
p+ 4 f POB� Stay s '
< f _Fieid 1- J9 ' Y %� - fia � R 7 x \ \
� a +;.� �� � ... ('a, //— t. '.`ry � ;rz.. �y 9 � �� �:.�� y����� "'y�x.�•iViC ��� T"' � � �{a: �
.�s,,.4 \
�c`vd Dnr �`f` WaBFieT J1�0 iPJ11` �� �` x. ;'1R
AI
��•',tiINA
r^g'�,,' .dc411
�i0'Y
KAl
'? V, x �,": , •'' s� 2` j ` wires, f ; MC ,
y'
r � � 'a'. =a S Ry a M �'• �/ t" +� Ns, ''-xi >w �` y
irk" l 3 F
�' �;.�,� �c Ate, �• • 1 .'.� '�, k �*� a. j '��,^ e �� � r�yy*,. air' i '. `�
js '+ k ',�.� r �+r. •3 �["� '�s tom+%'. ,
B ' PoB MC
' �I, "s. �.yrq 3'�A 9� P-�B ♦ ;��.., h��n'F "F d', v r Z �." �.N�� _ `.,� r^."t
Ma
Scale: V = 500' Campbell Soup Supply Company
Checked By: RTB Spray Irrigation System Figure
BRANCH Maxton, North Carolina 4
Drawn By: RTB RESIDUALS
Date: Sept-08 & SOILS,aJtLiLC Project No. 2008-76
1i