310196_ENFORCEMENT_20171231

NUH I H UAHULINA
Department of Environmental Qual

N.C. DIVISION OF..WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Section
ComplaintlEmergency Report Form
v : ' WILMINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE
r f by ��(VLF2 -T r Date I� �, Time
Received 4w� y1
Emergency Complaint X jjCity (�, � � County
Report Received From_ ' C�nh S j1(A h f� K E l� f G�c o &C
Aaencv wG K��VL�r �C� �.1 Cun a (�i vP�irPJ? � rar ___ .._ it, T
Complainant
Address Phone No.
Check One: _FishWT/ Spr71 Bypass Animal NPDES N.D.
_Stormwater Wetland Other, Specify:
Nature of Referral Mr- gVVYl riViF/'� l kAIV41/1 rP! vltr(-11�10 AC,
Surface Waters Impacted ti A, Classification
Other Agencies
Investigation Detaft , WO o -�Vt 6YWL1 WtilL
L&a ,
W
•
.1 U<IIn
lAM � Lit r� t �l
I
MEMO=
� .� 1. �
rh.! ♦ ..
'� i ! i
;
11
i r
a,
►'� �-�n�Z-'n� M, �n -�ln� w�Y�n,�12o-�,-� �rlti I � n
a:irrv�unetLJaftYvr(T.SNL
EPA Region IV [phone] pesticides 733-3556 Emergency Management 733-3867 Wildlife Resources 733-7291
Solid and Hazardous Waste 733-2178 Marine Fisheries 726-7021 Water Supply 733.2321 Coast Guard MSO 343.4881 -
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845 a Telephone [phone] a Fax [phone]
3H IL)

Y
PLAN OF ACTION (POA) FOR LAGOON SLUDGE REDUCTION
Facility Number: Ecosystems 1 County: Duplin
Facility Name: Ecosystems 1
Certified Operator
Operator
"Attach a copy of Lagoon Sludge Survey Form and volume worksheets
Note: A certified Sludge Management Plan may be submitted in lieu of this POA.
Lagoon 1
Lagoon 2
Lagoon 3
Lagoon 4
Lagoon 5
Lagoon 6
1
a. Lagoon Name/ Identifier
3.86
b. Total Sludge Depth (ft)
c. Sludge Depth to be
.84
Removed for Compliance
ft
d. Sludge Volume to be
1,400,000
Removed (gallons)
e. Sludge PAN
10
(Ibs/1000 gal)
f. Liquid PAN
1.8
(Ibs/1000 gal)
i
g. PAN of Sludge (Ibs)
11,200
(d x e)/1000
Compliance Timeframes:
If the sludge level is equal to or higher than the stop pump level of the lagoon or if the sludge level
results in an elevated waste analysis, a sludge management plan that meets the requirements of SIB
Interagency Group Guidance Document 1.26 must be prepared by a technical specialist and submitted to
DWQ within 90 days. Work to reduce the sludge level must begin within another 180 days. Compliance
with NRCS Standard 359 must be achieved within two years of the original sludge survey.
If the sludge level is non -compliant but below the stop pump level of the lagoon, a POA must be filed
within 90 days and compliance with NRCS Standard 359 must be achieved within two years of the
original sludge survey indicating non-compliance. If future sludge surveys do not show improvement in
sludge levels, DWQ may require the owner to develop a sludge management plan that meets the
requirements of SB Interagency Group Guidance Document 1.26.
SPOA 3-22-2010 Page 1 of 2

NARRATIVE: Use this section to describe the method(s) that will be used to lower the sludge
depth. If microbe use is planned, specify the product to be used.
OPTIONS:
Solids Separation — Lagoon sludge will be separated and dewatered using dewatering bags.
These systems will be operated by a contractor offering this service. Solids will be distributed to
area farmers with records kept of material as picked up from the farm.
Land application — Additional land is available in the vicinity of the farm. Approximately 100
acres will be needed to apply the prescribed sludge amount to. If land application is used, land
will be identified and soil samples taken to write a sludge removal plan for the facility that. meets
NRCS requirements.
I hereby certify that I have reviewed the information listed above and included within the attached
Plan of Action, and to the best of my knowledge and ability, the information is accurate and
correct I further certify and acknowledge that compliance with regard to sludge accumulation
must be achieved within two years of the original sludge survey indicating non-compliance.
Sludge Survey Date: aid %AO
Facility Owner/Manager (,,print)
Facility rility Owner/Manager (signature)
Compliance Due Date:
Phone: Cl/ C7
Date: z 21 1 2 816
Return this form to:
Animal Feeding Operations Unit
NC Division of Water Quality
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
SPOA 3-22-2010
Page 2 of 2

1 n •. t
Murphy -Brown, LLC
Sludge Survey Form
Appendix 1. Lagoon Sludge Survey Form
A. Farm or Permit Number:
B. Lagoon I_D. Number:
C. Person taking measurements:
D. Date of Measurements:
E. Methods/Devices used for measurement of:
Ecosystems
Mike Stocker
1
Kraig Westerbeek
2/21/2016
a. Distance from the lagoon liquid surface to the top of the sludge layer: Disk
b. Distance from the lagoon liquid surface to the bottom of the lagoon: Grade Rod
c. Thickness of the sludge layer if making a direct measurement with "core sampler": NA
F. Lagoon Surface Area (using dimensions at inside top of bank): 4 acres
G. Estimate number of sampling points:
a. Less than 1.33 acres: Use 8 points
b. If more than 1.33 acres, 4 acres x 6 = 24 , with max. of 24.
H. Conduct sludge survey and record data on "Sludge Survey Data Sheet' (App. 2).
a. Start Pump Level: 19 inches
b. Stop Pump Level: 43 inches
c. Current Freeboard Level: 11 inches
I.
Distance from the max. liquid level to the the present liquid level:
-8 inches
J.
Distance from the max. liquid level to the min. liquid level:
24 inches
K.
Distance from the present liquid level to the min. liquid level:
2.67 feet
L.
Distance from the present liquid level to the lagoon bottom:
9.55 feet
M.
Distance from the present liquid level to the top of sludge:
5.69 feet
N.
Average thickness of sludge layer:
3.86 feet
O.
Thickness of existing Liquid Treatment Zone (M minus K):
3.02 feet
P. If Item N is greater than Item O, half treatment volumes must be determined.
If Item N is less than or equal to itemO, you do not have t determine volumes.,
Completed by: n,s \k){ lf(C dial
Print N me S" ature Date

Murphy -Brown, LLC
Sludge Survey Form
Appendix 2. Sludge Surevey Data Sheet
Facility Name: . Ecosystems
Lagoon I.D. Number:
Grid Point
Distance from liquid surface
Distance from liquid surface
Thickness of
Number
to top of sludge layer (ft.)
to lagoon bottom ft.
Sludge Layer ft.
1
6.9
9.8
. 2.9
2
7.1
9.8
2.7
3
6.2
9.8
3.6
4
6.5
9.7
32
5
6.5
9.6
3.1
6
6.5
9.7
3.2
7
6.5
9.7
3.2
8
6.1
9.8
3.7
9
6.5
9.8
3.3
10
6.8
9.8
3
11
6.9
9.7
2.8
12
5.5
9.7
4.2
13
6
9.6
3.6
14
5.8
9.5
3.7
15
4.5
9.5
5
16
5.5
9.5
4
17
5.8
9.4
3.6
18
3.7
9.2
5.5
19
4.5
9.1
4.6
20
1 5
9.1
4.1
21
4.8
9.3
4.5
22
5
9.3
4.3
23
4.5
9.2
4.7
24
3.4
9.5
6.1
Average 5.69 9.55 3.86
of points
At pump 3.5
intake
If pump intake level <2.5 a plan of action is required

�aH

NOrCAROLIN .AM
Department of Environmental Qual

-'State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
t `•,wand Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director '
Mr. Michael E. Stocker
723 Veach's Mill Rd.
Warsaw, North Carolina 28398
September 1, 1998
Subject: SHOW CAUSE MEETING
Operator in Charge
Eco Systems # 1
County
3l -19�
Dear Mr. Stocker:
During an inspection of your farm by regional Office Staff, deficiencies were noted that
require immediate attention. Evidence of misapplication of animal waste was noted on your
reports and this is a condition that must be corrected immediately.
North Carolina General Statute 90A-47.5 provides for the suspension or revocation of
an operator's certificate. The Water Pollution Control Systems Operators Certification
Commission, in accordance with he provisions of Chapter 150E of the General Statutes,
may suspend or revoke the certificate of any operator in charge who:
(1) Engages in fraud or deceit in obtaining certification.
(2) Fails to exercise reasonable care, judgement, or use of the operator's
knowledge and ability in the performance of the duties of an operator in
charge.
(3) is incompetent or otherwise unable to properly perform the duties of an
operator in charge
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
- . _ ..— ---:- An Equal.Opportunity-Affirmative Action Employer----'-

"Michael Stocker
September 1, 1998
In addition to revocation of a certificate, the Commission may levy a civil penalty, not
to exceed one thousand dollars (51000.00) per violation, for willful violation of the
requirements of Part 90A-47.5 (a)(1)(2) or (3).
You are hereby requested to attend a meeting to be held at the Wilmington Regional
Office on September 23, 1998 at 10:00 am. The purpose of this meeting is to give you the
opportunity to explain the problems with the reporting practices at the subject facility.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
either Pat Durrett, or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
as �M
Mr. Rick Shiver, P.G.
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
PD: P:\operenf\stocker.shw
cc: Bo McMinn, Training and Technical Assistance Supervisor
Beth Buffington, Soil Scientist Technical Assistance Unit
Brian Wrenn, Environmental Specialist, WiRO
WiRO -- Eco Systems #1 File
P.O. Box.29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 - - - -
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal. Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer _ -.— - ---- -

on the reverse
Is your HEISlHN AM01 completed re... (n
r X G ? OFED
9a a aaR
»r
Thank you for using Return Receipt Sery
�Z 153 1116 041
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for International Mail See reverse
Saffco�
ail
Sire Nu
P ce, LP Code
Poste
$
CeNaed Fee
Spada] Delivery Fee
liesldded Delivery Fee
RetuN
Whom DatelShowedto
VAu%n 8 Date Delivered
_
ROW RKW,'bxmgtD Whom
Date, B Mdram3A
TOTAL Posmge 6 Fees
$
p$
O
Posonedc or ')are OCT OB 199f1
U.
Wilmington, NC 2841,1
_ USPS

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Division of Water Quality
October 8, 1998
Certified Mail # Z 153 116 041
Return Receipt Receipt R�uested.
Mr. Richard Burrows
Burrows and Hall Attorneys at Law
PO Box 816
Wallace, NC 28466
��
� L
NCDENR
NORTH C R UNA DEPARTMENT or
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Subject: Response to your letter dated September 11, 1998
Ecosystem Farm #1
Facility Number: 31-196
Duplin County
Dear Mr. Burrows:
Thank you for your letter dated September 11, 1998 in which you expressed concerns
about the Show Cause Meeting letter issued to Mr. Mike Stocker on September 1, 1998. Please
find enclosed copies of the Sixth Guidance Memo for Implementing the Environmental
Management Commission's Regulations for Animal Waste Management (15A NCAC 2H .0217)
and the Sixth Guidance Memo (Revision Two). I've highlighted the pertinent areas.
As to the individual operating the waste application equipment, Mr. Stocker is the
designated certified operator in charge for the Ecosystem Farm #1. He is responsible for the
supervision of the application practices, regardless of the fact that Mr. George Garvin was the
actual operator of the equipment.
Based the records provided by Mr. Stocker at the time of inspection, he repeatedly applied
waste to areas of spray field #3 that had reached the limit of the PAN loading rate recommended
by his Waste Utilization Plan (WUP). Although there were other areas of field #3 that had not
reached their nitrogen limit, Mr. Stocker continued to apply waste to pull #18. This exhibits poor
waste management practices that could result in groundwater contamination.
127 North Cardinal Dr., Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

Mr. Richard Burrows
October 5, 1998
Page 2
Because Mr. Stocker's permitted WUP limits him to 50 lbs/ac of nitrogen on a small grain
overseed, he cannot take advantage of the recent increases for small grain overseeds until his WUP
is amended. If Mr. Stocker amends his WUP to reflect the increases in the PAN for a small grain
overseed, he must notify the Wilmington Regional Office of the changes.
To address the small grain overapplication deductions fro,u the Bermuda crop_ my
recommendation to deduct any overapplication on the small grain from the following bermuda crop
was not based on a per field basis. The `98 nitrogen balances for bermuda should be adjusted
only in those pulls where overapplication occurred.
If you would like to view the Ecosystem Farm #1 file in the Wilmington Regional Office,
please make an appointment with Brenda Shumbarger 24 hours in advance. Mrs. Shumbarger as
well as David Holsinger or Brian Wrenn can be reached at 910-395-3900 if you have any
questions concerning this matter..
Sincerely,
Brian L. Wrenn
Environmental Specialist
attachments
cc: Harold Jones, County Soil and Water Conservation
Sandra Weitzel, NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Dr. Garth Boyd, Murphy Family Farms
`RFi} mngton=Files
Operations
S:1 WQS I BR IANW I DEF981 D UPL IM 31-196. LET

State of'North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secre!ary
A. Preston .Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 18, 1997
A&
E3�rs%,J F=1
MEMORANDUM:
TO: All Technical Specialists designated by the Soil and Water Conservation
Commission to Implement Animal Waste Regulations (liA NCAC 2H .0217)
FROM: Preston Howard, Director, Division of Water Qualiry
Dewey Botts, Director, Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Mary Kollstedt, State Conservationist, USDA- Natural Resources
Conservation Service n i
Jon Ort, Director, N.C. Cooperative Extension
James A. Graham, Commissioner, N.C. Department of
SL-BJECT: SIXTH Guidance MEMO
Implementing the Environmental lvlanagemeht Commission's
Regulations for Animal Waste Management (15A NCAC 2H
In an effort to continue to address questions from technical specialists and provide uniform interpretations
to technical specialists regarding the requirements of the animal waste management rules, the 1996 session
of the General Assembly formalized the creation of an interagency committee. This committee, the SB
1217 Interagency Group, is made up of two (2) representatives of each of our agencies.
The members of this committee were instrumental in the development of our previous Guidance
Documents dated June 20, 1995, May 3, 1996, August 9, 1996, January 2, 1997 and May 21, .1997.
Therefore the committee has adopted these documents as the foundation for their future guidance
documents. NCDA became a member of this Group on June 21, 1996 and has been instrumental in
guidance developed after that date.
Please find attached the SIXTH Guidance MEMO as adopted by the group. We support this guidance
document and each of our agencies will continue to work with the committee in the development of future
guidance documents. While much of the guidance provide was contained in previous memos, the new
guidance is noted by bold type and underlines.
In cases where there may be contradictions with past guidance issued by any of the
respective agencies, this Guidance will take precedence.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Sixth SB 1217 Interagency Group Guidance Document
August 1, 1997
In an effort to continue to address questions from technical specialist and provide uniform
interpretations to technical specialist regarding the requirements of the animal waste
management rules, the 1996 session of the General Assembly formalized the creation of an
interagency committee. This committee, the SB 1217 Interagency Group, consists of two
(2) representatives from each of the following agencies: the Division of Soil and Water
Conservation the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), the Department of
Agriculture (NCDA); and Cooperative Extension Service (NCCES).
Assembly also requested that the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), United
States Depamnent of Agriculture provided two (2) representatives to the group and they
have complied.
The foundation for this Guidance Document is the previous Guidance Documents
developed by the agencies represented on this committee dated June 20. 1995, May 3,
1996. august 9, 1996, January 2, 1997 and May 21, 1997. The committee has adopted
these documents as the foundation for this and future guidance documents. Also for
consistency, the committee has decided to develop guidance documents using the same
format as was used in the previous guidance documents. While much of the guidance
provided was contained in previous memos, the new guidance is noted by bold
tvue and underlines.
Due to the size of the document and number of topics being addressed in
this Guidance Document, it has been completely reformatted. The 37
Issues contained in the Fourth and Fifth Guidance Document have been
grouped into more appropriate categories of topics and placed into eleven
(11) Chapters. It is hoped that this reorganization will maize it easier to
find answers to questions common to many technical specialist.
This guidance is intended to address the common issues involved in implementing the
animal waste management rules. Additional guidance will be provided as necessary to
continue to clarify the issues contained in this memorandum as well as new issues that may
arise. The nature of the rules will continue to require judgment on the part of the technical
specialist.
i August 1, 1997

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water QualVbE C E I V E D SEP
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM:
hngust 25,
AMY,W 1.0 awA
5 1996 +�--
NCDENR
• 4C RT" GROLJNA Dj3-xRr#,eNr OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NAITURAL RESOURCES
.1998=
TO: All Technical Specialists designated by the Soil and Water Conservation Commission
to Implement Animal Waste Regulations (15A NCAC 2H .0217
FROM: Preston Howard, Director, Division of Water Quality
Dewey Botts, Director, Division of Soil and Water Conservatio'
Mary Kollstedt, State Conservationist, USDA -Natural Resources rvangn
Service ffff
Jon Ort, Director, N.C. C tive Extension S
Thomas W. Direct , Di6�• o and Natural Resources,
NCDA&CS
SUBJECT: SIXTH Guidance MEMO (Revision Two)
Implementing the Environmental Management Commission's
Regulations for Animal Waste Management (15A NCAC 2H .0217)
In an effort to continue to address questions from technical specialists and provide uniform
interpretations to technical specialists regarding the requirements of the ammal waste management
rules, the 1996 session of the General Assembly formalized the creation of an interagency committee.
This committee, the SB 1217 Interagency Group, is made up of two (2) representatives of each of
our agencies.
Please find attached new and revised pages for the SIXTH Guidance MEMO as adopted by the
Group. These nn ered and dated pages must be inserted into the SIXTH Guidance MEMO as
Revision Two. All other pages in the SIXTH Guidance MEMO (with Revision One) are unchanged
and must be retained. If your current copy of the SIXTH Guidance MEMO was printed double
sided, there may be uM1110dified pages on the front or back of these new pages, the pages not
modified must still be retained in order to have the most current guidance. The new items
contained m this Revision are anew Issue 1.11 C; new Issue 1.15; new Issues 2.19 through 22 - new
Issues 6.3 and 6.4; and new Issue 8.1 B and C. .
We support the revisions to the SIXTH Guidance document and each of our agencies win continue
to work with the committee in the development of future guidance. While much of the guidance
provided on the modified pages was contained in previous memos, the new guidance is noted by bold
type and underlines and deletions are noted by sa-2Eetbr-euglls.
In cases where there may be contradictions with past guidance issued by any of the respective
agencies, this Guidance will take precedence.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626.0535 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% reryrledll0% past -consumer paper

Sixth SB 1217 Interagency Group Guidance Document
July 1.1998
In an effort to continue to address questions from technical specialist and provide uniform
interpretations to technical specialist regarding the requirements of the animal waste
management rules, the 1996 session of the General Assembly formalized the creation of
an interagency committee. This committee, the SB 1217 Interagency Group, consists of
,..... fH% G__ L l L_ t t _ �._ ._.
anv �c� a�pic;jcii,atrYcj "'Vaal each" of the following en- lilC LlY1J1VQ Or JOrl and
Water Conservation SW the Division of Watr � �: Quality (DWQ), the Department of
Agriculture (NCDA); and Cooperative Extension Service (NCCES). The General
Assembly also requested that the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
United States Department of Agriculture provided two (2) representatives to the group
and they have complied
The foundation for this Guidance Document is the previous Guidance Documents
developed by the agencies represented on this committee dated June 20, 1995, May 3,
1996, August 9, 1996, January 2, 1997, May 21, 1997. August 18, 1997, and the Sixth
Guidance Memo (Revision One) dated January 8, 1998. The committee has adopted
these documents as the foundation for this and future guidance documents. Also for
consistency, the committee has decided to develop guidance documents using the same
format as was used in the previous guidance documents. While much of the guidance
provided was contained in previous memos, the new euidance is noted by bold tune
and underlines.
This guidance is intended to address the common issues involved in implementing the
animal waste management rules. Additional guidance will be provided as necessary to
continue to clarify the issues contained in this memorandum as well as new issues that
may arise. The nature of the rules will continue to require judgment on the part of the.
technical specialist.
July 1, 1998

1.11. Overseedino Small Grain Harvested for Hay or Grazed in Coastal
Bermuda
A. Issue: What is the allowable nitrogen ram Ifor any small grain overseeded in
coastal?
Response: 50 pounds above the normal application rate for coastal. No reduction
in the 50 pounds is required if the small grain is grazed.
B. Issue: When must the small grain be harvested?
Response: In order to prevent damage to the coastal stand, the Certified Animal
Waste Management Plan must specify that the small grain must be harvested
before the heads begin to form.
C. Issue: What is alternative to 50 lb Nitrogen rate given in items A & B
above?
Response: Other alternatives are established Jun, NCSU memo dated July 13
1998 titled Cron Manarement Practices for Selected QM es Used in Waste
Management may be used in lieu of items A & B Strict adherence is
regcored to criteria given in memo including seeding and harvest dates.
1.1Z Parts of a Waste Utilization Plan
Issue: What items make up a waste utilization plan (WUP)?
Response: A waste utilization plan (WUP) is one part of a total animal waste
management plan. The WUP should be repotted in a format comparable to the
current NRCS format prior to certification (see Field Office Tech. Guide IV,
Standard 633 - Waste Utilization). The plan should include:
• all fields receiving waste are to be listed with tract number, field number and
useable acres for each field;
• maps of all fields to be used for waste application;
• amount of manure produced and used annually;
• waste application method;
• all crops to be grown by field;
• realistic yield expectations (R.Y.E.) of the crops to be grown when available
and/or applicable;
1-6 July 1, 1998

c
RECEIVED SEP 1 4 1998
BURROWS a HALL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
317 NORTH NORWOOD STREET
P.O. BOX 816
WALLACE. NC 28466
RICHARD L. BURROWS
FREDRIC C. HALL
September 11, 1998
Telefax: [phone]
Mr. Rick Shiver
North Carolina D.E.H.N.R.
127 North Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Re: NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE
To: Michael E. Stocker
ECO SYSTEM FARM # 1
Dear Mr. Shiver:
TELEPHONE [phone]G00
FACSIMILE [phone]
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN
RECEIPT NO: Z 063 193 573
Please be advised that we have been retained as counsel for ECO # 1, and have been
requested to respond on its behalf to your letter dated September 1, 1998, signed by Edward Beck
on your behalf, as well as Brian Wrenn's letter of September 8, 1998, since both reference the same
inspection and alleged deficiencies.
At the outset, please be advised that although Michael Stocker was the registered Operator
in Charge (OIC) for ECO # 1 at the time the events referred to in the above letters are alleged to have
occurred, George Garvin, a certified operator, conducted the waste spraying operations in question.
He is no longer employed by ECO # 1.
Since it was unclear from a reading of the September 1, 1998, letter if your department
contended that criminal conduct had occurred, I called and discussed the matter with Brian Wrenn
on September 7, 1998, which is the day before he issued his September 8, 1998 letter, above referred
to. I point out this time frame, because we specifically discussed areas included in his September
8, 1998, letter without him advising me that he intended to issue a Notice of Deficiency. As a matter
of record, I feel that his lack of candor is some evidence of his lack of intent to resolve the matter
by negotiation, and is not ethically consistent with being a good employee of this state. In addition,
and while it is not directly pertinent to the matters at hand, I advised Brian that the tone and content
of the September 1, 1998, letter, which I assumed was a form letter, is very misleading and equally
non -informative. It has and continues to be my practice that if I conclude that a perceived problem
warrants the effort of writing a letter directing action be taken, that, at a minimum, I should specify

Mr. Rick Shivar
Page Two
September 11, 1998
the objected to action that caused the letter to be written. The September 1, 1998 letter simply uses
a shotgun approach, and contains allegations that range from a threat of potential criminal action
down to minimal action.
In order to understand what action, if any, DWQ was seeking, I called and discussed the
matter with Brian Wrenn on September 7, 1998, the day before his letter of September 8, 1998, he
being the DWQ inspector that conducted the April 23, 1998, annual inspection. He informed me that
the intent of the September 1, 1998 letter centered around DWQ's contention that within a field
containing several routines/pulls, (hereafter "Pulls"), one or more pulls exceeded their allocated
amount of nitrogen by a substantial amount. Your records should show that upon investigating Mr.
Wrenn's original notations, ECO determined that there were discrepancies between the pull numbers
and the field numbers, as well as incorrect understated acreages within each of those pulls. Kraig
Westerbeek, acting on behalf of ECO, responded to your department and explained those differences,
a copy of his letter being hereto attached for your convenience: Upon determining the correct
acreage and recalculating the application rates, it reflected that the field in question was within its
permitted allocation. Mr. Westerbeek advises that according to the August 25, 1998, sixth guidance
document from Senate Bill 1217 Interagency Group, supported by a memorandum dated June 29,
1998, from the N.C.S.U. Forage Production Workgroup, he can certify up to 100 pounds per acre
of PAN on rye grass for hay, or 75 pounds PAN for grazing. Common sense would suggest that this
should be considered for the 1997-98 growing season. Using the lower PAN rate of 75 pounds, the
field in question could have had 551 more units of PAN applied to equal the crop utilization level.
Additionally, and assuming for the purpose of argument that Mr. Wrenn's analysis and conclusion
are correct, he has correctly indicated that an excess application occurring within one or more pulls
within a given field can be carried over to and deducted from the following crop. See his letter of
September 8, 1998.
In our telephone conversation on the 7th, Mr. Wrenn advised that while he accepted Mr.
Westerbeek's corrected acreage records, DWQ intended to pursue action against the OIC on the basis
that the OIC did not exercise good judgment in "spraying too much" on the pulls in question with
the information at hand at that time, in that such a practice violated good management practices. At
the same time and in the same conversation he acknowledged that, while pull no. 18 in field 3
appeared to have been over applied, the field, in its totality, was not over applied. Another way to
express DWQ's apparent position is that your agency contends that: (1) a violation occurred even
if the information available to the OIC at the time of spraying erroneously indicated that excess
spraying occurred, and it did not matter that no violation occurred, the conclusion being that the OIC
was either negligent or used poor judgment, thereby calling into question his or her qualifications;
and, (2) that DWQ has determined that a violation occurred if the spraying on one pull exceeded an
"average" of the total of all pulls within that field, despite the fact that no excess application occurred
on the field as a whole. My research reveals that DWQ's position is legally unsupportable in both
instances, both through an implicit or explicit reading of the rules and regulations.

Mr. Rick Shivar
Page Three
September 11, 1998
Your enforcement action appears to be premised upon the assumption that the existing
regulations authorize you to compartmentalize a spray field for spray purposes, and thereby regulate
each part as a separate and distinct permitted unit. All current waste management plans that I am
familiar with reflect the amount of PAN that can be applied per field and not per routine/pull. While
I understand that the per pull approach may be a policy that your division would like to have
adopted, it is not currently the law. To continue attempting enforcement in the manner currently
proposed is an improper subversion of the law. I find no authority that the legislature has delegated
its legislative power to DEHNR, but do find that DWQ's role is to properly implement and enforce.
Mr. Wrenn further advised me in our conversation that he had been directed by his superiors
to apply the per pull approach, and would continue doing so until directed otherwise. I would
respectfully suggest that now would be an appropriate time to advise him and other inspectors to
correctly apply the law and your department's rules, rather than some intra-office policy. Mr.
Wrenn's directive that ECO deduct the alleged excess nitrogen application to the small grain crop
by pull 18 on field 3 from the 1998 bermuda crop illustrates the inconsistency of your policy that
each pull should be viewed separately and not the field as a whole. Assuming for the purpose of
argument that ECO did spray an amount in excess of the average of other pulls within that field on
one or more pulls, his directive that that excess amount be deducted from the total allocation for the
1998 bermuda crop is a directive that the excess be deducted from the "field" allocation, not the pull
in question. That is clearly inconsistent with a pull approach, and consistent with the required
"field" approach. Your policy attempts to have it both ways.
Further responding to Mr. Wrenn's directive that ECO "improve" the bermuda crop in field
# 2, that directive has no real meaning to either ECO or myself as it says nothing. ECO will be
happy to respond to clear and objective directives or requests. In an attempt to respond to what is
perceived as the problem, at the time Mr. Wrenn inspected the fields the winter small grain crop was
in the process of being cut or was dying out, and because it was very early in the bermuda growing
season, it was not actively growing. Its appearance at that stage was not indicative of whether or not
a good stand existed. As the temperature rose, and rainfalls occurred, that and the other fields
demonstrated a very robust stand of approved grasses. As a matter of information, field no. 2 and
the other fields utilized by ECO, are not all vegetated by the same grasses, as set out in ECO's waste
management plan. Those grasses have different growing and visual characteristics from coastal
bermuda. I suspect the time of year and differences in appearance may have been misinterpreted by
Mr. Wrenn. The directive that the waterways in field no. 1 be regraded and revegetated appears to
have overlooked the fact that ECO was then, as it is now, in the process of working on erosion points
within those areas, a task that includes and involves more than regrading and revegetating. That
work was then and is now ongoing in that area as well as others not noted.
Inasmuch as the Notice of Deficiency does not appear to correspond in any discernable detail

Mr. Rick Shivar
Page Four
September 11, 1998
to inspection reports ECO has been previously provided with, please treat this letter as a formal
request that a full and complete copy of any files, documents, memorandums, notes, photographs,
recordings, videos, or other information pertinent to the Show Cause Meeting and Notice of
Deficiency be provided. We will then promptly respond in more detail if appropriate.
While it may be a somewhat cynical view, both my client and I find it interesting that the
Notice of Deficiency was issued the day after I advised Mr. Wrenn that ECO intended to dispute
DWQ's efforts to sanction ECO and/or its OIC in connection with the pull no. 18 episode. I will
reserve judgment as to whether or not the sequence was coincidental!
As noted above, a further response will be provided as soon as you have provided us a copy
of all of ECO's records. In the meantime, and if you have determined that one or more issues raised
by either of the above referred to letters from your division will be withdrawn, please advise in
writing, and we will narrow the matter to those that remain at issue.
If you have any questions or wish to clarify any matters, please advise.
RLB:raj
cc: Michael E. Stocker
Craig Westerbeek
James E. Stocker
Harold Jones, Duplin County Soil and Water Conservation
Sandra Weitzel, N.C. Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Dr. Garth Boyd, MFF
Enclosures

FROM : Stocker Residence
,
.;FROM : M.STOCKER
PHONE NO. : 9102960191
PHONE IU. : 9102977193
Aug. 04 1998 10:46PM P2
Auc. 04 1998 06:27PM P1
NCDENR
Wilmington Regional Office
Art. Brian Wrenn
127 N. Cardinal Drive
wdntington, NC 29405
Dear Mr. Wrenn,
W
!Lr/y l� R �S r
F A ht I L Y F A a FA 5
I am writing on behalf of EcoSystems I in response to your July 8, 1998 request
for further information. According to the records on the farm at the time of your
inspection, pulls 3-2, and 3-18 showed over application of nitrogen on the 1997-98 small
grain overseed. (Pull 3-2 represents pull 4-2 shown in your letter, is was renamed to
better reflect its location on the farm.)
After reviewing these records with NY Mike Stocker, farm manager, errors
became apparent in the calculation of the acres covered in the routines in question -
Revised calculations show 3.3 acres covered in routine 3-2, and 3.8 acres in routine 3-19.
The records available during your inspection showed .61 and 1.05 respectively. Mr.
Stocker used the revised acreage to produce an updated IRR2 form for these pulls and I
have included them for your records. You will see that this change reduced greatly the
PAN applied per acre, with only 48 pounds of actual over application on 3-18, and 23
pounds under application on 3-2. To clarify the records, the actual overseed used on the
fields in question was Oregon ryegrass instead of rye. Although MRCS' current technical
standards do not differentiate between the two, ryegrass will nortltally out yield rye grain
by 40-50% between the months of October and March.
I have also included for your records a copy of the c(uxcnt CAVAG for this facility along
with the rainfall and freeboard data provided by the grower. Included in this CAWMP is
a volume sheet for the lagoon at Ecosystems I. At this time we do not feel it is necessary
to revise the current VArFR for this facility. If you neod any further information, please
contact me at [phone] east. 4556, or Mike Stocker at [phone].
esterbeek, CID
Family Farms
Post 0rrice box 7s9, Rose Hill, North Carolina 28458, [phone], FAY (910f 289-8400

of North Carolina
bepartment of Environment,
and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor <
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
September 1, 1998
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED # Z 312 636 684
Mr. Michael E. Stocker
723 Veach's Mill Rd.
Warsaw, North Carolina 28398
Dear Mr. Stocker:
rI
L
Subject: SHOW CAUSE MEETING
Operator in Charge
Eco Systems # 1
Duplin County
During an inspection of your farm by regional Office Staff, deficiencies were noted that
require immediate attention. Evidence of misapplication of animal waste was noted on your
reports and this is a condition that must be corrected immediately.
North Carolina General Statute 90A-47.5 provides for the suspension or revocation of
an operator's certificate. The Water Pollution Control Systems Operators Certification
Commission, in accordance with he provisions of Chapter 150E of the General Statutes,
may suspend or revoke the certificate of any operator in charge who:
(1) Engages in fraud or deceit in obtaining certification.
(2) Fails to exercise reasonable care, judgement, or use of the operator's
knowledge and ability in the performance of the duties of an operator in
charge.
(3) is incompetent or otherwise unable to properly perform the duties of an
operator in charge
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative -Action -Employer -_

Michael Stocker
September 1, 1998
Page Two
In addition to revocation of a certificate, the Commission may levy a civil penalty, not
to exceed one thousand dollars ($1O00.O0) per violation, for willful violation of the
requirements of Part 90A-47.5 (a)(1)(2) or (3).
You are hereby requested to attend a meeting to be held at the Wilmington Regional
Office on September 23, 1998 at 10:00 am. The purpose of this meeting is to give you the
opportunity to explain the problems with the reporting practices at the subject facility.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
either Pat Durrett, or me at [phone].
Since/rely,
Mr. Rick Shiver, P.G.
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
PD: P:\operenf\stocker.shw
cc: Bo McMinn, Training and Technical Assistance Supervisor
Beth Buffington, Soil Scientist Technical Assistance Unit
Brian Wrenn, Environmental Specialist, WiRO
WiRO -- Eco Systems #1 File
P.O.Box 29535 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
_ An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - --- - --

yi
Is your RETURN ADDRESS completed on the reverse side?
Prank you for using Retum Receipt Service.
sasn ==
nt8Z 014 'Ua1OUILU M
aled to Vaanaod
N
9
W
s
'tlL/3
9'e a0
p�eyarpay
P; �-y
Pwmiap alea v =w
of su�oys Idlway wryey
-�
m
":i Amin pePulaau
N
aad /+amps Foods
aed paylya�
GOBIOd
ePwJ dIZ Va1als ,w
1 sN I IS
1
(BslBne/ 66SI IIaIN IUWRUW-4-1 M --I' wu �'
PORAold 8(ielano•O scuemsUI ON '
IieW pai;iija3 jo; ldIaaaa
eoyUGS IelsodSQ
9 0'C 9'['[ E 5 T Z

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Division of Water Quality
September 8, 1998
Certified Mail # Z 153 116 108
Return Receipt Requested
Mr. Michael E. Stocker
Ecosystem Farms
725 Veaches Mill Road
Warsaw, NC 28398
A
� ::
_ i
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
EwRONMENT AND NR RAL RESOURCES
Subject: NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY
Ecosystem I
Facility Number: 31-196
Duplin County
Dear Mr. Stocker:
On April 23, 1998, staff from the Wilmington Regional Office of the Division of Water
Quality inspected your animal operation and the lagoon(s) serving this operation. It was observed
that an excess of nitrogen was applied to spray field #3, spray pull #18 beyond the recommended
Plant Available Nitrogen (PAN) loading rate listed in the Waste Utilization Plan (WUP) for a
small grain overseed.
NRCS requirements specify that animal waste shall be applied at agronomic rates.
Nitrogen application should not exceed the PAN loading rates listed in the WUP for each field and
each crop. The excess nitrogen applied to the small grain should be subtracted from the nitrogen
balance of the 1998 bermuda crop. In addition, the grassed waterways in spray field #1 should
be regraded and revegetated. The bermuda crop in field #2 should be improved to meet the
projected Realistic Yield Expectations. We suggest that you contact your service company, local
NRCS or Soil and Water District office for any assistance they may be able to provide to correct
the situation.
The Division of Water Quality has concerns regarding the operation and management of
your facility. Assuming that you were updating your spray records properly, waste application
should have been discontinued once the nitrogen needs of the small grain overseed were met.
However, you continued to apply nitrogen in excess of the 50 lbs/ac loading rate recommended
by the WUP. Proper and due care should be taken when operating your waste system to comply
with state 2H .0200 rules, NRCS guidelines, and your certified Animal Waste Management Plan.
127 North Cardinal Dr., Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

Mr. Michael E. Stocker
September 8, 1998
Page 2.
To remain a deemed permitted facility, you must notify this office in writing within
fourteen (14) days of the receipt of this notice, what actions will be taken to comply with your waste
management plan. Failure to do so may result in the facility losing it's deemed permitted status,
requiring it to obtain an individual non discharge permit.
Please be aware it is a violation of North Carolina General Statutes to discharge wastewater
to the surface waters of the State without a permit. The Department of Environment and Natural
Resources has the authority to levy a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 per day per violation.
When the required corrective actions are complete, you must notify this office in writing
at the address below. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call David
Holsinger, Dean Hunkele or Brian Wrenn at 910-395-3900.
Sincerely,
Brian L. Wrenn
Environmental Specialist
cc: Harold Jones, Duplin County Soil and Water Conservation
Sandra Weitzel, NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Pat Durrett, NC Division of Water Quality
Dr. Garth Boyd, Murphy Family Farms
Operations Branch
Wilmington Files
S: I WQS I BRIAMV I DEF981 D UPLIM 31-196. DEF

is your RETURN ADDRESS completed on the reverse elde4
e �)�-Z 312 646 287 u/
US Postal Service
Receipt for�Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for International man Je reverse
MSent /
00
Q
,r
St 7
z.
//DlY
P zitme,&LP e
1 `
Postage
$ �..
Celled Fee
Special Delirery Fee
Restdcted Delivery Fee
m
Return Receipt Showing to
/
Whom &D d
R
_
eea
O
T P1 &
ab
Pt
o e
C)D C
G frC
lL
a
L

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Division of Water Quality
July 8, 1998
CERTIFIED MAIL Z 312 646 287
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Mike Stocker
Ecosystem Farms, Inc.
Ecosystem 1
725 Veaches Mill Road
Warsaw, NC 28398
NCDE��N�R
Norms CGRO M (�ORARPP M OF
ENV Nmew AND N,atlrw. ii 0 Rcm
Subject: Request for Information
Excessive Application of Nitrogen
Ecosystem I
Permit Number AWS310196
Duplin County
Dear Mr. Stocker:
On April 23, 1998, staff from the Wilmington Regional Office of the Division of Water
Quality visited your facility and determined that nitrogen had been applied to your small grain
overseed in excess of the limits established by your certified animal waste management plan.
Records indicate that 115 lbs/ac of nitrogen and 100 lbs/ac of nitrogen above the recommended 50
lbs/ac had been applied to the small grain overseed in spray field #3, pull #18 and in spray field
#4, pull #2, respectively.
This excessive application of nitrogen is in non-compliance with the waste management
plan. This non-compliance is subject to an appropriate enforcement action by the Division of
Water Quality. This action can consist of one or more of the following: a Notice of Deficiency
(NOD); a Notice of Violation (NOV); a civil or criminal enforcement action; an injunction; and/or
a requirement to apply for coverage under an individual non -discharge permit. The action chosen
Will be based on a complete evaluation of all factors that resulted in the excessive application of
nitrogen; the actions taken to correct the problem; and the actions being proposed to prevent the
problem from reoccurring.
To assist us in our review, please provide this office with an evaluation of the reasons for
the excessive application of nitrogen and a strategy to prevent future occurrences. This evaluation
and strategy must include but is not be limited to the following:
127 North Cardinal Dr., Wilmington, North Carolina 29405 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

Mr. Stocker
July 8, 1998
Page 2
A summary of actions taken to restore the needed freeboard in the lagoon(s)
A summary of any discharges or runoff from the facility
A summary of any repairs needed to the system
A summary of any needed modification to the CAWMP
An evaluation of water usage and management at the facility, (including but not limited to
water usage in the houses and storm water management/diversion)
A review of the adequacy of lagoon storage capacity to determine if more than the current
design standard is needed at the facility
Current sludge accumulation in the lagoon(s)
Waste levels in the lagoon(s) for the previous 12 months
Acres needed for waste application as specified in the CAWMP
Available acreage identified in the CAWMP
Spraying schedule as established in the CAWMP
Spraying records for the past twelve months
Cropping system specified in the CAWMP
Cropping system currently in use if different from the CAWMP
Rainfall records (if available)
Specific actions proposed by the owner/producer to prevent future freeboard deficiency(s)
This information must be received by this office no later than 30 days following receipt of
this letter. Once this information is received and evaluated by the DWQ staff, a determination will
be made as to the appropriate compliance/enforcement actions to be taken. Each case will be
evaluated on its own merit. The efforts by the owner/producer to notify DWQ of the problem,
efforts made to resolve the problem once identified and efforts proposed to prevent future problems
will be positive factors in this determination.

Mr. Stocker
July.8, 1998
Page 3.
Nothing in this letter should be taken as removing you from either the responsibility or
liability for this non-compliance or future case of non-compliance. If you have any questions
regarding letter, please do not hesitate to contact David Holsinger or Brian Wrenn of our
Wilmington Regional Office Staff at [phone].
Sincerely,
Brian L. Wrenn
Environmental Specialist
cc: Non -Discharge Compliance/Enforcement Unit
Central Files