PURVIS FAMILY FARMS PROPOSED FAIRWAY FARMS_CORRESPONDENCE_20171231

CORRESPONDENCE
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

Cofres fondc4l(el

" NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
A 7kA
RCDENR
V r==
April 7, 1998 f EV
CERTIFIED MAIL
1 I��
RETURNRECEIPT REQUESTED
JAMES6. HuNTJR.
GovERNOR
Mr. Melvin G. Purvis, President FAYi T f E:N1fi_ LE
Purvis Family Farms, LLC RE(-;
2504 Spies Road
Robbins, NC 27325
WAYNE MCDEVITT
Subject: Position on Permit Issuance
SECRETARY
Purvis Family Farms, LLC
Animal Waste Operations
Dear Mr. Purvis:
A. PRESTON HOWARD,
JR., PIE,
This letter is to clarify the Division of Water Quality's position on issuance of a
DIRECTOR
permit to Purvis Family Farms, LLC, that was stated in my letter to you dated July 24,
1997. An additional question regarding this issue has been raised and requires
clarification from me. The question raised is whether I would issue a permit to Purvis
Family Farms, LLC, for an existing animal waste management system that is purchased or
acquired by your company.
In my letter to you of July 24, 1997, (copy of letter attached) I informed you that
the compliance history of Purvis Family Farms, LLC had been evaluated. After
reviewing this evaluation, I determined that your company has failed to substantially
comply with the waste management practices required by state laws, rules, and regulations
for the protection of the environment. As I stated in the above -referenced letter, in light of
your company's poor compliance history, I would deny a permit for any animal'waste
management system to any new swine farm proposed by Purvis Family Farms, LLC. In
addition, the Division of Water Quality would also deny a permit to your company for
existing animal waste management systems purchased or acquired by Purvis Family
Farms, LLC.
- Please be advised that a permit issued for an animal waste treatment system is not
automatically transferable to a subsequent buyer of a swine facility. Also be aware that
construction and operation of any new wastewater collection, treatment and/or disposal
facilities by Purvis Family Farms, LLC without a valid permit will be considered a willful
violation of North Carolina General -Statutes and subject your companyio both civil and
criminal actions. Civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day per violation may be assessed
for failure to secure a permit required by North Carolina General Statute § 143-215.1.
Criminal action can include imprisonment for up to five (5) years or fines of up to
$100,000 per day of violation, or both, for a knowing and willful failure to obtain a permit.
If this explanation of my intention to deny a permit for Purvis Family Farms, LLC
is unacceptable, you have the right to request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request
within thirty (30) days following receipt of this Ietter. This request must be made in the
form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Drawer 27447,
Raleigh, NC 27611-7447. Unless such a request is made, this decision shall be final and
binding.
P.O. Box 29535, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27626-0535
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

Mr. Melvin G. Purvis, President
Purvis Family Farms, LLC
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding this position, please contact Mr. Kerr T. Stevens, Acting
Deputy Director of the Division of Water Quality at [phone] extension 203 or Ms. Coleen
Sullins, Acting Water Quality Section Chief at [phone] extension 500.
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office, Water Quality
Water Quality Section
Office of the Attorney General
Dave Pegram
Sincerely,
r
l
A. Preston Howard, Jr.,�L3

-State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
ERTIFIED h AIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Melvin G. Purvis, President
Purvis Family Farms, LLC
2504 Spies Road
Robbins, North Carolina 27325
Dear Mr. Purvis:
July 24, 1997
Subject: Position on Permit Issuance
Fairway Farm Site # 1
Animal Waste Operation
Moore County
This letter is in reference to our recent discussions and your specific request regarding the Division of
Water Quality's position on whether or not a permit could be obtained for the construction and operation of
an animal waste management system at the subject site.
In a letter dated March 13, 1997 (copy of letter attached), you were advised that if you were pursuing
commencement of animal operations at the subject site, an individual non -discharge permit would be
required as opposed to either the "deemed permitted" approach or coverage under the general permit
developed for swine operations. In that letter, I explicitly explained that the division would be carefully
considering your past compliance history pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1(b)(4)(b).
N.C.G.S. I43-215.1(b)(1) reads as follows:
(1) The Commission shall act on all permits so as to prevent, so far as reasonably possible,
considering relevant standards under State and federal laws, any significant increase in pollution of
the waters of the State from any new or enlarged sources. No permit shall be denied and no
condition shall be attached to the permit, except when the Commission finds such denial or such
conditions necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Article.
N.C.G.S. 143-215.1(b)(4)(b) reads as follows:
(4) The Commission shall have the power:
a. To grant a permit with such conditions attached as the Commission believes necessary to achieve
the purposes of this Article.
b. To require that an applicant satisfy the Department that the applicant, or any parent, subsidiary, or
other affiliate of the applicant or parent:
Is financially qualified to carry out the activity for which the permit is required under
subsection (a) of this section; and
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 100,16 post -consumer paper

Mr. Melvin G. Purvis, President
Purvis Family Farms, LLC
Page 2
2. Has substantially complied with the effluent standards and limitations and waste management
treatment practices applicable to any activity in which the applicant has previously engaged, and
has been in substantial compliance with other federal and state laws, regulations, and rules for
the protection of the environment.
In accordance with the request that was made during our meeting on April 2, 1997, I have reviewed
the compliance record associated with Purvis Family Farms, LLC's animal operations here in North
Carolina and have determined that your company has not substantially complied with waste management
practices as required by state laws, regulations, and rules for the protection of the environment. In view of
Purvis Family Farms, LLC's compliance history, I would deny issuance of a permit for any animal waste
management system for the subject site. This decision also applies to any new farm proposed by Purvis
Family Farms, LLC. I recognize that a formal application is not currently under review by the Division for
the Fairway Farm Site, however it is my desire to save both you and the state valuable expense associated
with the preparation and review of such an application.
Please be advised that the construction and operation of any wastewater collection, treatment and/or
disposal facilities for the Fairway Farms Site without a valid permit will be considered a willful violation
of North Carolina General Statutes and subject you to both civil .and criminal actions. Civil penalties of up
to $10,000 per day per violation may be assessed for failure to secure a permit required by North Carolina
General Statute 143-215.1. Criminal actions can include imprisonment for up to five (5) years or fines up
to $100,000 per day of violation or both for knowing and willful failure to obtain a permit.
If this explanation of my intentions to deny a permit for the Fairway Farms Site is unacceptable, you
have the right to request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following
receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Drawer
27447, Raleigh, NC 27611-7447. Unless such demands are made this decision shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Kerr T. Stevens, Regional
Supervisor of the Fayetteville Regional Office at (910) 486-I541 or Mr. Steve W. Tedder, Chief of the
Water Quality Section at [phone] extension 500.
Sinc rely,
A. Preston Howard, Jr., E.
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office
Water Quality Section
Office of the Attorney General

AFR. 1.1997 4:08PM ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT t.� NO.388 P.2i3
' State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources &.7-4
DlvWon of Water Quality4
James S. S. Jr„ Governor
Jonathan6. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director IDEF
March 13,1997 ED
CERTIFIED MAIL Km - ,I
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED i tAR '� 7 19971
Purvis Family Farms, LLC FAYErWL1.E
c/o Mr. Melvin G. Purvis, President Mo.0 E
2504 Spies Road 73 -
Robbins, North Carolina 2732S
Subject: Notice of Iudividual Permit Requirement �= "
Fairway Farm #1, Moore County, North Carolina j" R
Dear Mr. Purvis: CO
It is my understanding that Purvis Family Farms, LLC is currently attempting to attain
deemed permitted coverage under 15A NCAC 2H .0217 for its proposed animal waste
management system located at the Fairway Farm #1, in Moore County, North Carolina. The
Fairway Farm 41 is designed to Dandle the waste from 5200 swine. As you are aware, the
deemed permitted process allows farmers to construct their waste management systems at their
own risk and without State action until the fully completed Animal Waste Management Plan
Certification is reviewed by the Division of Water Quality and also by the appropriate soil and
water conservation district. This process is allowed for construction which takes place after
January 1, 1997, only if an operator has taken action to complete the four design requirements of
Section 11 of its Animal Waste Management Plan Certification before January 1, 1997, which
your corporation accomplished.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0217(b), I have determined that this facility should
not be covered by the deemed permitted process, due to the projected environmental impacts, and
that construction should not continue, if you wise to secure permit coverage from the Division
for the facility, you must first apply for and obtain an individual non -discharge permit Please be
advised that I intend to consider your past operating record at other animal waste operations as a
part of my review of your individual permit application pursuant to G.S. 143-215.1(b)(4)b. In
addition to Completing the application form, you must provido information concerning the
operating history at your other animal operations and at the animal operations owned by your
Parent or affiliated companies, if any, as follows; compliance record, violation notices received,
amount of civil penalties assessed and paid, cr=' 1aal enforcement actions, injunctions,
'judgments, and compliance or noncompliance wiTh judgments.
P.o. Box 29535.ArNi FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Corolla 27626-0535 �aC An EWol dpport 011y/Affim)cMva Actlon Employer W.
Telephone [phone]% recycles/100,. post-consurrer paper

AFR. 1.1997 4:09PM ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT
NO.388 P.3/3
Purvis Fauuly Farms, LLC
March. 13, 1997
Page 2
Purvis Family Farms, LLC is not authorized to construct the 5200 animal facility at the
Fairway Farm W1 site until an individual permit is issued. if you proceed with construction prior
to issuance of an individual permit, the Division of Water Quality will pursue appropriate
enforcement remedies, including injunctive relief, to assure compliance with the environmental
laws of this State.
Furthermore, while you have not notified the Division of Water Quality of the intent by
Purvis Family Farms, LLC to construct a facility to house over 5,200 swine, the Division is
aware of a notice sent to the adjacent landowners notifying them of an intent to house as many as
22,000 swine, This discrepancy should also be addressed. If you have any questions concerning
this matter, please contact Tommy Stevens, of our Fayetteville Regional Office at (910)
486-1541, or Dennis Ramsey, of our Raleigh central office at [phone], ext. 528.
:Sincerely,
A, Preston Howard, Jr,, PX.
cc: LKm T. Stevens
Moore County Soil and Water Conservation District
Moore County Health Department
Kevin Williams, N.C. Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Operations Branch

MIC I.V I, F. FASI.HY
.1, ri ( WNEY i W.NE IAI.
STArr
State of Nortiz Carol in -a
D lrlrmwm ICItlsli(V
I', O, Ii( )x G2!1
RAl.fl( �l i
7 (i( 1',-1 )i 2 1
December 15, 1997
P. Wayne Robbins, Fsquire
Robbins May & Rich LLP
10 Turnberry Wood
Post Office Box 5668
Pinehurst, North Carolina 28374
Re: Purvis Family farms, LLC v. NC DENR
OAH Contested Case 97 EHR 1064
Dear Wayne:
Reply to: DONALD W. LATON
Environmental Divi.cinn
[phone]
[phone] (Fax)
RECE9V��
DEC 17 1991
I"AYETTEiVI
IIEG.OFFIC
This letter confirms my telephone conversations with Patti of your office earlier today.
We are in agreement on a date, time and location for Preston Howard's deposition. The
deposition is scheduled for Wednesday, January 7, 1998 at 10:00 AM. The location is the
Attorney General's Environmental Division, Conference Room 301. Our street address is 114
W. Edenton Street, Raleigh, North Carolina -- the old Education Building adjacent to Capitol
Square..
Your office will arrange to have a court reporter present at this deposition.
Thank you for your attention in this regard.
Very truly yours,
Donald WOLaton
Assistant Attorney General
cc: Preston Howard
Tommy Stevens
Four?

,L.L.P.
pm
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Thomas R. West Partner RECEIVED
direct Dial; 919n83-2897 NOV i
p,f-1ORt4F GENERAL
Etivironm��ital4ivisiar�
November 7, 1997
Wayne Robbins, Esq.
Robbins May & Rich LLP
10 Turnberry Wood
P.O. Box 566E
Piinehurst, NC 28374
✓bon Laton
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
P.o. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
3600 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
MWUNg Addrat:
Post Office Box 10096
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605MM
919/783C"
Fax: [phone]
orkes:
Raleigh/Roclry Mount/Charlotte
RECEI
�
' rel%
IMV 1991
FAYETTE, • . .
REG. C;�r10E
Re: Purvis Family Farms, LLC v. NC DEHNR, 97 EHR 1064
Dear Don and Wayne:
I am writing to confirm that we will meet to mediate the
above -captioned case on November 25, 19°7 .at 9:30 a.m. We will
meet in Wayne's office at 10 Turnberry Wood, Pinehurst,, N.C.
Wayne has described the location of his office once over the
phone, but I would appreciate someone from his office telephoning
my secretary.and Don to give directions again. My secretary's name
is SusarL Kelley. Her direct phone line is 9.1.9/783-2922.
I look forward to working with you and your clients on
November 25.
Sin erely,
Thomas R. West
TRW/sdk

Nth
State of North Carolina
MICHAEL F. EASLEY Department of Justice
ATTORNEY GENERAL R 4. BOX 62n REPLY TO: Donald W. Luton
f�AL>rIGH Environm ntal Division
Tel. (919) 71&6600
2 7r02-062 () Ra:.[phone]
October 14, 1997
C U �V EZ R, 0,'
P. Wayne Robbins, Esq. "
ROBBINS MAY & RICH LLP O I 1 7 1997
10 Turnberry Wood FAYETI*-MUE
Post Office Box 5668
REG. 0 Fr` %. Ex
Pinehurst, North Carolina 28374
Re: Purvis Family Farms, LLC v. NC DEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Moore County, 97 EHR 1064
Dear Wayne:
In reviewing our file, we discovered that it does not contain a copy of Petitioner's Prehearing
Statement. We are unable to obtain a copy from the case file at Office of Administrative
Hearings, as their file does not contain Petitioner's Prehearing Statement.
If you have not already done so, please provide our office with a file -stamped copy of Petitioner's
Prehearing Statement at your earliest convenience.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Donald W-, Laton
Assistant Attorney General
jac\ep120231
cc: Water Quality Section
✓Fayetteville Regional Office
Enforcement File
The Hon. Meg Scott Phipps

L .0,00 SYN[a
State of North Carolina
MICHAEL E. EASLEY Department of Justice
A'170RNEY GENERAL P. 0. SOX 629
RALEIGH
27602,0629
October 14, 1997
Thomas R. West, Esq.
POYNER & SPRUILL, L.L.P.
3600 Glenwood Avenue
Post Office Box 10096
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605-0096
REPLY TO: Donxid W. LAIGn
Envirogmenlxl Diviilon
Tel. [phone]
Faa.(919) 73 "766
Re: Purvis Family Farms, LLC v. NC DEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Moore County, 97 EHR 1064
Dear Tom:
CI—F � " E.
OCT 1 7 1997
F 17 Tk.. ;'
In response to our telephone conversation today, enclosed please find copies of the following
documents:
Petition for a Contested Case Hearing.
Respondent's Prehearing Statement, with Document Constituting
Agency Action attached as Exhibit A.
Very truly yours,
Donald . Laton
Assistant Attorney General
jac1ep120216
cc: without enclosures to:
Water Quality Section
✓Fayetteville Regional Office
Enforcement File
P. Wayne Robbins, Esq., Robbins May & Rich, LLP
The Hon. Meg Scott Phipps
N4rizers

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MOORE
MR. MELVIN G. PURVIS, PRESIDENT )
PURVIS FAMILY FARMS, LLC }
}
Petitioner, )
)
)
V. )
}
)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF )
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL )
RESOURCES, DWQ
}
Respondent.)
m
IN THE OFFICE OF"
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING'9P
97 EHR 1064
- T'
I
tv
�
-GG
RECEIVED"
G C i o 21997
FAYMEVILLF_
REG. OFFICE
NOW COMES the Respondent in this contested case, and enters
this prehearing statement.
1. Issues, statutes, rules, legal precedents:
A. Issue: Whether the Division of Water Quality
within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DWQ)
correctly decided that Purvis Family Farm has not substantially
complied with waste management practices and therefore shall be
denied issuance of an individual nondischarge permit for any
animal waste management system at the Fairway Farm Site #1.
B. Statutes, Rules, Legal Precedents:
At this stage of the litigation, Respondent is unaware that
there is any applicable legal precedent.

�V1r Vi j `•
�� :►-1,,, a ,� S �J�

2
This contested case primarily involves: N.C. Gen. Stat.
143-212(6), N.C. Gen. Stat. 143-215.1(a)(6); and N.C. Gen. Stat.
143-215.1 (b) (1) and (b) (4) (b) .
2. Statement of facts and reasons supporting Respondent's
position:
This case arises subsequent to discussions between the
parties about the Petitioner's intended operation of a hog farm
in Moore County. The subject site is referred to as Fairway Farm
Site #1. This farm has been determined to be ineligible for
coverage under the general permit developed for swine operations.
DWQ has also declined to issue an individual nondischarge permit
A copy of a letter dated July 24, 1997 from A. Preston Howard,
Jr., P.E. to Melvin G. Purvis, President of Purvis Family Farms,
LLC, (labeled "Exhibit A") is attached hereto, incorporated
herein, and submitted herewith as the document constituting
action which prompted the contested case petition filing.
3. List of proposed witnesses:
1. Anyone with knowledge of this Petitioner's
operation of Fairway Farm Site #1 or other Purvis
Family Farms facilities.
2. Kerr T. Stevens, Regional Supervisor
(Fayetteville)
3. Edward R. Buchan, Environmental Engineer/Inspector
4. A. Preston Howard, Jr., DWQ Director

3
5. Anyone called as a witness for the Petitioner.
Respondent expressly reserves the right to amend this list of
proposed witnesses.
4. Respondent wishes to pursue discovery in accordance
with the schedule established by the Scheduling Order.
5. Respondent does not object to the hearing location of
High Point set forth in the Scheduling'Order.
6. The length of this hearing is expected to be one day.
r
7. All motions, pleadings and orders should be served on
Respondent by mail or delivery to undersigned counsel.
8. Respondent will be ready for the hearing in this case
by January 26, 1998 subject to the confirmation of availability
of witnesses.
This the 29th day of September, 1997.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
Attorney General
DO D W. LA ON
Assistant Attorney General
North Carolina Bar No. 13303
NC Department of Justice
114 West Edenton Street
P. 0. Box 629
Raleigh, NC.27602-0629
[phone]

4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned Assistant Attorney General certifies that he
has this day served a copy of the foregoing RESPONDENT'S
PREHEARING STATEMENT on the Petitioner's lawyer by depositing a
copy in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
P. Wayne Robbins, Esquire
Robbins May & Rich, LLP
10 Turnberry Wood
Post Office Box 5668
Pinehurst, North Carolina 28374
This the 29th day of September, 1997.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
Attorney General
Assistant Attorney General
NC Department of Justice
114 West Edenton Street
P. 0. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
[phone]
\19875

EXHIBIT
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan D. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
.Tiny 24, 1997
if��t�i�i� • f �•,_ r
Mr. Melvin G. Purvis, President
Purvis Family Farms. LLC
2504 Spies Road
Robbins, North Carolina 27325
Subject: Position on Permit Issuance
Fairway Farm Site 41
Animal Waste Operation
Moore County
Dear',Mr- Purvis;
This letter is in reference to our recent discussions and your specific request regarding the Division of
'Pater Quality's position on whether or not a permit could be obtained for the construction and operation of
an animal waste management system at the subject site.
In a letter dated March t3, 1997 (copy of letter attached), you were advised that if you were pursuing
commencement of animal operations at the subject site, .an iudividuaI non -discharge permit would be
required as opposed to either the "deemed permitted" approach or coverage under the general permit
developed for swine operations. In that letter, I explicitly explained that the division would be carefully
considering your past compliance history pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1(b)(4)(b).
N.C.G.S. I43-21S.1(b)(1) reads as follows:
(1) The Commission shall act on all permits so as to prevent, so -far as reasonably possible,
considering relevant standards under State and federal laws, any significant increase in pollution of
the waters of the State from any new or enlarged sources. No permit shall be denied and no
condition shall be attached to the permit, except when the Cornrrussion tlnds such denial or such
conditions necessary to effectuate the purposes of this ?article.
N.C.G.S. 143.215.1(b)(4)(b) reads as follows:
(4) The Commission shall have the power.
a. To grant a permit with such conditions attached os the Commission believes necessary to achieve
the purposes of this Article.
b, To require that an applicant satisfy the Department that the applicant, or any parent, subsidiary, or
other affiliate of the applicant or parent;
I. Is financially qualified to carry out the activity for which the permit is required under
subsecdon (a) of this section; and
L J
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0939 Telephone [phone] PAX (9t9) 733-0719
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/.I Mpost.consumer paper
A

Mr. Melvin G. Purvis, President
Purvis Family Farms, LLC
Page 2
2. Has substantially complied with the effluent Standards and limitations and waste mama ,neat
treatment practices applicable to any -activity in which the applicant has previously engaged, and
has been in substantial compliance with other federal and state laws, regulations, and rules for
the protection of the environment.
In accordance with the request that was made during our meeting on April 2, 1997, I have reviewed
the compliance record associated with Purvis Family Farms, LLC's animal operations here in North
Carolina and have determined that your company has not substantially complied with waste management
practices as required by state laws, regulations, and rules for the protection of the environment. In view of
Purvis Family Farms, LLC's compliance history,/ would deny issuance of a permit for any animal waste
management system for the subject site. This decision also applies to any new farm proposed by Purvis
Family Farms, LLC. I rccognizc that a formal application is not currently under review by the Division for
the Fairway Farm Site, however it is my desire to save bath you and the state valuable expense associated
with the preparation and review of such an application.
r
Please be advised that the construction and operation of any wastewater collection, treatment and/or
disposal facilities for the Fairway Farms Site without a valid permit will be considered a wilful violation
of North Carolina General Smrutes and subject you to both civil and criminal actions. Civil penalties of up
to $10,000 per day per violation may be assessed for failure to secure a permit required by North Carolina
General Statute 143-215.1. Criminal actions can include imprisonment for up to five (5) years or fines up
to $100,000 per day of violation or both for knowing and willful failure to obtain a permit.
If this explanation of my intentions to deny a permit for the Fairway Farms Site is unacceptable, you
have the right to request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following
receipt of this letter. This request roust be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter ISOB of
the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Drawer
27447, Raleigh, NC 27611-7447. Unless such demands are made this decision shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Kerr T. Stevens, Regional
Supervisor of the Fayetteville Regional Office at [phone] or Mr. Steve w. Tedder, Chief of the
Water Quality Section at [phone] extension 500.
Sinc rely,
A. Preston Howard, Jr., E.
W--:_..
cc: Favetteville Regional Office
Water Quality Section
Office of the Attorney General
TOTPL P.03

rn �
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF-0
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING T
COUNTY OF MOORE 97 EHR 1064 T' "
N Arno
MR. MELVIN G. PURVIS, PRESIDENT ) "'^
n
PURVIS FAMILY FARMS, LLC }
Petitioner, )
)
} RESPODMENr'SS
v . ) PREHEARING_,STATEMENT
)
}
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF )
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL )
RESOURCES, DWQ
)
Respondent.)
NOW COMES the Respondent in this contested case, and enters
this prehearing statement.
1. Issues, statutes, rules, legal precedents:
A. Issue: Whether the Division of Water Quality
within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DWQ)
correctly decided that Purvis Family Farm has not substantially
complied with waste management practices and therefore shall be
denied issuance of an individual nondischarge permit for any
animal waste management system at the Fairway Farm Site #1.
B. Statutes, Rules, Legal Precedents:
At this stage of the litigation, Respondent is unaware that
there is any applicable legal. precedent. RECE !! EE")
GC I 0 Z 1997
FAYETTEVILLE
REC. OFFICE

2
This contested case primarily involves: N.C. Gen. Stat.
143-212(6), N.C. Gen. Stat. 143-215.1(a)(6); and N.C. Gen. Stat.
143-215.1 (b) (1) and (b) (4) (b) .
2. Statement of facts and reasons supporting Respondent's
position:
This case arises subsequent to discussions between the
parties about the Petitioner's intended operation of a hog farm
in Moore County. The subject site is referred to as Fairway Farm
Site #1. This farm has been determined to be ineligible for
coverage under the general permit developed for swine operations.
DWQ has also declined to issue an individual nondischarge permit
A copy of a letter dated July 24, 1997 from A. Preston Howard,
Jr., P.E. to Melvin G. Purvis, President of Purvis Family Farms,
LLC, (labeled "Exhibit A") is attached hereto, incorporated
herein, and submitted herewith as the document constituting
action which prompted the contested case petition filing.
3. List of proposed witnesses:
1. Anyone with knowledge of this Petitioner's
operation of Fairway Farm Site #1 or other Purvis
Family Farms facilities.
2. Kerr T. Stevens, Regional Supervisor
(Fayetteville)
3. Edward R. Buchan, Environmental Engineer/Inspector
4. A. Preston Howard, Jr., DWQ Director

3
S. Anyone called as a witness for the Petitioner.
Respondent expressly reserves the right to amend this list of
proposed witnesses.
4. Respondent wishes to pursue discovery in accordance
with the schedule established by the Scheduling Order.
S. Respondent does not object to the hearing location of
High Point set forth in the Scheduling Order.
6. The length of this hearing is expected to be one day.
7. All motions, pleadings and orders should be served on
Respondent by mail or delivery to undersigned counsel.
8. Respondent will be ready for the hearing in this case
by January 26, 1998 subject to the confi-rmation of availability
of witnesses.
This the 29th day of September, 1997.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
Attorney General
1��J I A��4
DO D W. LA ON
Assistant Attorney General
North Carolina Bar No. 13303
NC Department of Justice
114 West Edenton Street
P. 0. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
[phone]

4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned Assistant Attorney General certifies that he
has this day served a copy of the foregoing RESPONDENT'S
PREHEARING STATEMENT on the Petitioner's lawyer by depositing a
copy in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
P. Wayne Robbins, Esquire
Robbins May & Rich, LLP
10 Turnberry Wood
Post Office Box 5668
Pinehurst, North Carolina 28374
This the 29th day of September, 1997.
MICHAEL F. 1��SLEY
Attorney General
Assistant Attorney General
NC Department of Justice
114 West Edenton Street
P. 0. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
[phone]
\19875

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James 8. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 24, 1997
Mr. Melvin G. Purvis, President
Purvis Family Farms. LLC
2504 Spies Road
Robbins, North Carolina 27325
D(HIBIT
A
4 • L)m
OL
L "m
Q E H N F
Subject: Position on Permit Issuance
Fairway Farm Site #1
Animal Waste Operation
Moore County
Dear Mr. Purvis,
This letter is in reference to our recent discussions and your specific request regarding the Division of
Water Quality's position on whether or not a permit could be obtained for the construction and operation of
an animal waste management system at the subject site.
In a letter dated March t3, 1997 (copy of letter attachcd), you were advised that if you were pursuing
commencement of animal operations at the subject site, an individual non -discharge permit would be
required as opposed to either the "deemed permitted" approach or coverage under the general permit
developed for swine operations. In that letter, i explicitly explained that the division would be carefully
considering your past compliance history pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1(b)(4)(b).
N.C.G.S. 143-21S.i(b)(1) reads as follows:
(1) The Commission shall act out all permits so as to prevent. so -far as reasonably possible,
considering relevant standards under State and federal laws, any significant ir:crease in pollution of
the waters of the State from any new or enlarged sources. No permit shall be denied and no
condition shall be attached to the permit, except when the Commission finds such denial or such
conditions necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Article.
N.C.G.S. 143-215.1(b)(4)(b) reads as follows-
(4) The Commission shall have the power:
a. To grant a permit with such conditions attached as the Commission believes necessary to achieve
the purposes of this Article.
b. To require that an applicant satisfy the Department that the applicant, or any parent, subsidiary, or
other affillatc of the applicant or parcat:
1. Is financially qualified to carry out the activity for which the permit is required under
subsection (a) of this section; and
LJ
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity AfirRlative Action Employer '50% recycled/. i 0%.post-Consumer paper

mr. Melvin G. Purvis, President
Purvis Family Farms, LLC
Page 2
2. Has substantially complied with the effluent standards and limitations and waste managcment
treatmem practices applicable to any activity in which the applicant has previously engaged, and
has been in substantial compliance with other federal and state Iaws, regulations. and rules for
the protection of the envfironment.
In accordance with the request that was made during our meeting on April 2, 1997, I have reviewed
the compliance record associated with Purvis Family Farms, LLC's animal operations here in North
Carolina and have determined that your company has not substantially complied with waste management
practices as required by state laws, regulations, and rules for the protection of the environment. In view of
Purvis Family Farms, LLC's compliance history, I would deny issuance of a permit for any animal waste
management system for the subject site. This decision also applies to any new farm proposed by Purvis
Family Far=, LLC. I recognize that a formal application is not currently under review by the Division far
the Fairway Farm Site, however it is my desire to save bath you and the state valuable expense associated
with the preparation and review of such an application.
Please be advised that the construction and operation of any wastewater collection, treatment and/or
disposal facilities for the Fairway Farms Sitc without a valid permit will be considered a willful violation
of North Carolina General Statutes and subject you to both civil and criminal actions. Civil penalties of up
to $10,000 per day per violation may be assessed for failure to secure a permit required by North Carolina
General Statute 143-215.1. Criminal actions can include imprisonment for up to five (5) years or fines up
to $100,000 per day of violation or both for knowing and willful failure to obtain a permit.
If this explanation of my intentions to deny a permit for the Fairway Farms Site is unacceptable, you
have the right to request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following
receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition. conforming to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Drawer
27447, Raleigh, NC 27511-7447. Unless such demands are made this decision shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Kerr T. Stevens, Regional
Supervisor of the Fayetteville Regional Office at [phone] or I4fr. Steve W. Tedder, Chief of the
Water Quality Section at [phone] extension 500.
Sine rely,
A. Preston Howard, Jr., E.
W- ..
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office
Water Quality Scctioa
Office of the Attorney Generai
TOTAL P.03

JUL-25-1997 09:15 FROM DEM WATER QUALITY SECTION TO
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James S. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P,E., Director
.
1. I r
_a .
Mr. Melvin G. Purvis, President
Purvis Family Farms, LLC
2504 Spies Road
Robbins, North Carolina 27325
Dear Mr. Purvis:
FRO P.01/04
ALTO!WA
C)EHNPt
July 24, 1997 R C_ �p ED
in 2 5 1997
PAY ETTEViLLE
REG. OFFICE
Subject: Position on Permit Issuance
Fairway Farm Site #1
Animal Waste Operation
Moore County
This letter is in reference to our recent discussions and your specific request regarding the Division of
Water Quality's position on whether or not a permit could be obtained for the construction and operation of
an animal waste management system at the subject site.
In a letter dated March 13, 1997 (copy of letter attached), you were advised that if you were pursuing
commencement of animal operations at the subject site, an individual non -discharge permit would be
required as opposed to either the "deemed permitted" approach or coverage under the general permit
developed for swine operations. In that letter, I explicitly cxplained that the division would be carefully
considering your past compliance history pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 143-215. 1 (b)(4)(b).
N.C.G.S. 143-215. 1 (b)(1) reads as follows:
(1) The Commission shall act on all permits so as to prevent, so far as reasonably possible,
considering relevant standards under State and federal laws, any significant increase in pollution of
the waters of the State from any new or enlarged sources. No permit shall be denied and no
condition shall be attached to the permit, except when the Commission finds such denial or such
conditions necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Article.
N.C.G.S. 143-215.1(b)(4)(b) reads as follows:
(4) The Commission shall have the power;
a. To grant a permit with such conditions attached as the Commission believes necessary to achieve
the purposes of this Article.
b. To require that an applicant satisfy the Department that the applicant, or any parent, subsidiary, or
other affiliate of the: applicant or parent:
1. Is financially qualified to carry out the activity for which the permit is required under
subsection (a) of this section; and
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carorina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled)10% post -consumer paper

r�'

JUL-25-1997 09:16 FROM DEM WATER QUALITY SECTION TO FRO P.02/04
Mr. Melvin G. Purvis, President
Purvis Family Farms, LLC
Page 2
2. Has substantially complied with the effluent standards and limitations and waste management
treatment practices applicable to any activity in which the applicant has previously engaged, and
has been in substantial compliance with other federal and state laws, regulations, and rules for
the protection of the environment.
In accordance with the request that was made during our meeting on April 2, 1997, I have reviewed
the compliance record associated with Purvis Family Farms, LLC's animal operations here in North
Carolina and have determined that your company has not substantially complied with waste management
practices as required by state laws, regulations, and rules for the protection of the environment. In view of
Purvis Family Farms, LLC's compliance history, I would deny issuance of a permit for any animal waste
management system for the subject site. This decision also applies to any new farm proposed by Purvis
Family Farms, LLC. I recognize that a formal application is not currently under review by the Division for
the Fairway Farm Site, however it is my desire to save both you and the state valuable expense associated
with the preparation and review of such an application.
Please be advised that the construction and operation of any wastewater collection, treatment and/or
disposal facilities for the Fairway Farms Site without a valid permit will be considered a willful violation
of North Carolina General Statutes and subject you to both civil and criminal actions. Civil penalties of up
to $10,000 per day per violation may be assessed for failure to secure a permit required by North Carolina
General Statute 143-215.1. Criminal actions can include imprisonment for up to five (5) years or fines up
to $100,000 per day of violation or both for knowing and willful failure to obtain a permit.
If this explanation of my intentions to deny a permit for the Fairway Farms Site is unacceptable, you
have the right to request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following
receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Drawer
27447, Raleigh, NC 27611-7447. Unless such demands are made this decision shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Kerr T. Stevens, Regional
Supervisor of the Fayetteville Regional Office at [phone] or Mr. Steve W. Tedder, Chief of the
Water Quality Section at [phone] extension 500.
Sinc rely,
A. Preston Howard, Jr., E.
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office
Water Quality Section
Office of the Attorney General

JUL-25-1997 09:16 FROM DEM WATER QUALITY SECTION TO
• t;�K. 1.1�r �•rror,.�,.,,..,.� FRO P.03iO4
State of North Carolina
Department of EnvironmerYt,
Heats and Natural Resources 1
©iAlon of Water AuaNy
James B. Hunt. Jr., GovernorGreta
Jonafitran B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., olrector
March 13,1997 0�
CERTWIED MAIL RED
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTM MAR 17 19911
Purvis 'Family FwMs, LLC Al ST
c/o Mr. Melvin 0. Purvis, President PEG.�
2504 Spies Road
Robbins, North Carolina 27325
Subject. Notice of Individual Permit Requitement �
Fairway Farm #1, Moore County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Purvis: m
It is my uaderstaading that Purvis Family Fgms, LLC is currently attempting to awda
deemed permitted covamge =der 15A NCAC 2H .0217 for its proposed animal waste
management system located at the FaLmey Farm #1, in Moore County, North CaroIUNL The
Faimy Fann 41 is designed to handle the waste from. 5200 swine. As you We aware, the
deemed permitted process allows farmers to construct their waste management systems at their
own risk and without Mate ecdon until the fully completed Animal Waste Management Plan
Certification is reviewed by the Division of Water Quality and also by The approydeae soil mud
water couservatkm district. This process is allowed for con=wrion which takes place afar
ranua y 1,1997, only if an operator has taken action to complete the four design rcquiremeab of
Section II of its Animal Waste Management Pion Certification before Jammy 1, 1997, which
your corporation accomplished.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0217(b), I have determined bral this facility should
not be covered by the deemed permitted process, due to the projected envitom=tal impacts, cad
that construction should not continue. If you wish to sectne permit co%ragc from the Division
for the facility, you must fist apply for and obtain an individual non -discharge permit Please be
advised the I intend to caasider yota past operating record at other animal waste operations as a
part of my review of your individual permit applicadon pummi to G.S. 143-215.1(h)(4)b, Ia
addition to completing the application form, you must provide information eoace ring the
operating history at your outer animal operations and at the animal opermions owned by your
pa= or aflll wA compaWes, if any, as follows; compliance record, violation notices received,
amount of civil pon des assessed anti paid, rzvr�' Q1 enforcement actions, inj=ctions,
judgme % and compliance or noncompliance with judgm 9 3 t'
P.O. Box 29638. � FAX [phone]
Rdelgri, North Carorina 2762&0538 NfkocAn 6qW Oppo"Iy/Aftraa" Aer lon Flnrlaym
76ephon6 919-733-701 o ycleo/ 1o% pcnt-=nsume� paper

JUL-25-1997 09:17 FROM DEM WATER QUALITY SECTION TO
` FRO P . 04iO4
" FirR. 1. iJJ1 1•V�r i �.�i w.
Purvis Family Farms, LLC
March 13, 1997
Page 2
Purvis Family Farms, LLC is not authorized to consrruot the 5200 animal faulty at the
Fairwy Farm 01 site until an indivkUW permit is issued" If you proceed with constmetion prior
to issuance of as individual pamit, the Division of Water Quality will pumit a=opriale
enforcenum remedies, inch-dimS Ojunetive relief, to assure compliance with the cavko=eaW
laws of this State.
Furthermore, while you have not notified the Division of Water Quality of the latent by
Purvis Family Farms, LLC to cone uet a facflity to house over 5.200 swine, the Division is
aware of a notice seat to the adjacent landawners nodtdng them of an intent to house as many as
22,000 swine. This discrepancy should also be ad&esscd. If you have any questions cancing
this manes, please eontwt Tommy Stevens, of our Fayetteville Regional Office at (910}
496-1541, or Dennis Ramsey, of our Raleigh cevft-4 office at [phone], ext, 529.
;S1'rely,
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: err T. Stevens
Moore County Soil and Water Conservation District
Moore County Health Department
Kevin Williams, N.C. Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Operations Branch
TOTAL P.04

Y 1i IN.^.Y NE
APR 0 2 19974
Fa= ; F rfE-kfiLLE
STEPHENM
RODNEY C. MASON
RICHARD G. ROOSE
ANDREW K. MCVEY
MOSER SCHMIDLY MASON & ROOSE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CENTURA BANK - SUITE 400
115 SOUTH FAYETTEVILLE STREET
ASHEBORO. NORTH CAROLINA 27203
April 1, 1997
Mr. Tommy Stevens
Section Chief
Department of Water Quality
Fayetteville Regional Office
Ste 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville NC 28301
TELEPHONE
[phone]
FACSIMILE
[phone]
D. WESCOTT MOSER - RETIRED
Re: N.O. Purvis, Inc. proposed intensive livestock operation
in Moore County, North Carolina;
Address Change
Dear Mr. Stevens:
This letter is to inform you of our firm's recent address
change. Please forward any future correspondence to the following
address:
MOSER SCHMIDLY MASON & ROOSE
Centura Bank 4th Floor
115 S Fayetteville St Ste 400
Asheboro NC 27203
Please call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
MN: SC I SON & ROOSE'
Stephen S. Schmidly
CC: Marsh Smith

i
"State of North Carolina
'bepartment of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE.; Director
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Purvis Family Farms, LLC
c/o Mr. Melvin G. Purvis, President
2504 Spies Road
Robbins, North Carolina 27325
XF�
1DF_=HNFZ
March 13, 1997 VE
'D
�4 n 2.1997
......
Subject: Notice of Individual Permit Requirement
Fairway Farm #1, Moore County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Purvis:
It is my understanding that Purvis Family Farms, LLC is currently attempting to attain
deemed permitted coverage under 15A NCAC 2H .0217 for its proposed animal waste
management system located at the Fairway Farm 91, in Moore County, North Carolina. The
Fairway Farm #1 is designed to handle the waste from 5200 swine. As you are aware, the
deemed permitted process allows farmers to construct their waste management systems at their
own risk and without State action until the fully completed Animal Waste Management Plan
Certification is reviewed by the Division of Water Quality and also by the appropriate soil and
water conservation district. This process is allowed for construction which takes place after
January 1, 1997, only if an operator has taken action to complete the four design requirements of
Section 11 of its Animal Waste Management Plan Certification before January 1, 1997, which
your corporation accomplished.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0217(b), I have determined that this facility should
not be covered by the deemed permitted process, due to the projected environmental impacts, and
that construction should not continue. If you wish to secure permit coverage from the Division
for the facility, you must first apply for and obtain an individual non -discharge permit. Please be
advised that I intend to consider your past operating record at other animal waste operations as a
part of my review of your individual permit application pursuant to G.S. 143-215.1(b)(4)b. In
addition to completing the application form, you must provide information concerning the
operating history at your other animal operations and at the animal operations owned by your
parent or affiliated companies, if any, as follows: compliance record, violation notices received,
amount of civil penalties assessed and paid, criminal enforcement actions, injunctions,
judgments, and compliance or noncompliance with judgments.
P.O. Box 29535, %, 4 FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 � f An Equal Opportunity/Affirmattve Action Employer
NTelephone 919-733-7015 - 50% recycles/10°/a post -consumer paper

.rl 1
2urvis Family Farms, LLC
March 13, 1997
Page 2
Purvis Family Farms, LLC is not authorized to construct the 5200 animal facility at the
Fairway Farm 91 site until an individual permit is issued. If you proceed with construction prior
to issuance of an individual permit, the Division of Water Quality will pursue appropriate
enforcement remedies, including injunctive relief, to assure compliance with the environmental
laws of this State.
Furthermore, while you have not notified the Division of Water Quality of the intent by
Purvis Family Farms, LLC to construct a facility to house over 5,200 swine, the Division is
aware of a notice sent to the adjacent landowners notifying them of an intent to house as many as
22,000 swine. This discrepancy should also be addressed. If you have any questions concerning
this matter, please contact Tommy Stevens, of our Fayetteville Regional Office at (910)
486-1541, or Dennis Ramsey, of our Raleigh central office at [phone], ext. 528.
Sincerely,
A. Freston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: Kerr T. Stevens
Moore County Soil and Water Conservation District
Moore County Health Department
Kevin Williams, N.C. Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Operations Branch

JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR.
ROBERT V, SUGGS
HOLSHOUSER AND SUGGS, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 MARKET SQUARE
PINPHt RST, NORTH CAROLINA 128374
TELEPHONE: [phone]
TELECOPIER: 19101 295.2630
February 17, 1997
Dennis Ramsey
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
RE: N. G. Pervis Farms, Inc.
Fairway Farm, Northern Moore
County near Carbonton
Dear Mr. Ramsey:
MAILING ADDRESS:
P. O. BOX 1227
PINEHURST, NC 28370
,1
+ ECENED
o 1997
QUALITY SEC�fO�.f
©PFAMIONS BRANCH
We represent Moore County. The County Commissioners are
interested in obtaining a status report on the proposed ILO that
Purvis Farms has underway in Northern Moore County. The
Commissioners are interested in the current status, as well as the
projected time frame for the final permit for the ILO to begin
operations. Please advise accordingly.
Thanks and best wishes.
Sincerely yours,
Robert V. Suggs
RVS/11
c: Tommy Stevens
Regional Supervisor
Division of Water Quality
REG�Rq
;emu
QPR 0 () '"
F

State.of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 31, 1997
Robert V. Suggs
Holshouser and Suggs, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
100 Market Square
Pinehurst, NC 28374
RE: Purvis Family Farms, LLC
Fairway Farm #1
Moore County
Dear Mr. Suggs:
LT.WMAI
IT
A&4
I DEHNR.
'ENE MRS,
A�� n 2 1997
Firr'a�
This letter is in response to your letter to me dated February 17, 1997. In your letter you
requested the statue of the permitting process for the subject facility.
The current status is that on March 13, 1997 the Director of the Division of Water Quality
advised Mr. Melvin G. Purvis of Purvis Family Farms, LLC that this facility should not be
covered by the deemed permitted process and that construction of the facility should not
continue. Mr. Purvis was further advised that if he wished to secure permit coverage from
the Division for the facility that he must first apply for and obtain an individual non -
discharge permit. A copy of this letter is attached.
If you have any future questions concerning this proposed facility, please feel free to
contact me at 733-5803, ext. 528.
DRR:css
cc: Tommy Stevens
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Sincerely,
Dennis R. Ramsey
Assistant Chief for Operations
Water Quality Section
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 13, 1997
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Purvis Family Farms, LLC
c/o Mr. Melvin G. Purvis, President
2504 Spies Road
Robbins, North Carolina 27325
mow
EDIEHNF;Z
01=0EIVED
MR 17 19911
Subject: Notice of Individual Permit Requirement
Fairway Farm #1, Moore County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Purvis:
EIERG C
It is my understanding that Purvis Family Farms, LLC is currently attempting to attain
deemed permitted coverage under 15A NCAC 2H .0217 for its proposed animal waste
management system located at the Fairway Farm #1, in Moore County, North Carolina. The
Fairway Farm #1 is designed to handle the waste from 5200 swine. As you are aware, the
deemed permitted process allows farmers to construct their waste management systems at their
own risk and without State action until the fully completed Animal Waste Management Plan
Certification is reviewed by the Division of Water Quality and also by the appropriate soil and
water conservation district. This process is allowed for construction which takes place after
January 1, 1997, only if an operator has taken action to complete the four design requirements of
Section II of its Animal Waste Management Plan Certification before January 1, 1997, which
your corporation accomplished.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0217(b), I have determined that this facility should
not be covered by the deemed permitted process, due to the projected environmental impacts, and
that construction should not continue. If you wish to secure permit coverage from the Division
for the facility, you must first apply for and obtain an individual non -discharge permit. Please be
advised that I intend to consider your past operating record at other animal waste operations as a
part of my review of your individual permit application pursuant to G.S. 143-215.1(b)(4)b. In
addition to .completing the application form, you must provide information concerning the
operating history at your other animal operations and at the animal operations owned by your
parent or affiliated companies, if any, as follows: compliance record, violation notices received,
amount of civil penalties assessed and paid, criminal enforcement actions, injunctions,
judgments, and compliance or noncompliance with judgments.
P.O. Box 29535, �� FAX [phone]
Ralelgh, North Carolina 27626-0535 An Equal Opportunity/Afflrmative Acton Employer
Telephone [phone]% recycles/10% post -consumer paper

IS..4

Purvis Family Farms, LLC.
March 13, 1997
Page 2
Purvis Family Farms, LLC is not authorized to construct the 5200 animal facility at the
Fairway Farm #1 site until an individual permit is issued. If you proceed with construction prior
to issuance of an individual permit, the Division of Water Quality will pursue appropriate
enforcement remedies, including injunctive relief, to assure compliance with the environmental
laws of this State.
Furthermore, while you have not notified the Division of Water Quality of the intent by
Purvis Family Farms, LLC to construct a facility to house over 5,200 swine, the Division is
aware of a notice sent to the adjacent landowners notifying them of an intent to house as many as
22,000 swine. This discrepancy should also be addressed. If you have any questions concerning
this matter, please contact Tommy Stevens, of our Fayetteville Regional Office at (910)
486-1541, or Dennis Ramsey, of our Raleigh central office at [phone], ext. 528.
:Sincerely,
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: err T. Stevens
Moore County Soil and Water Conservation District
Moore County Health Department
Kevin Williams, N.C. Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Operations Branch

'L+...
,.

W
DECEIVE®
MOSER SCHMIDLY MASON & ROOSE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 997 MAR 2 1 1
CENTURA BANK —SUITE 400 MAR l7 I
115 SOUTH FAYETTEVILLE STREIT �/ �- ,ri
ASHEBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27203 FAY E I EYILI.
STEPHEN S. SCNMIDLY [�E`1 ,Tg��p�E
RODNEY C. MASON 1l l;6 e- 000
RICHARD G. RoosE FACSIMILE
March 19, 1997 [phone]
ANDREw K. MCVEY
D. WEsCOTT MOSER — RETIRED
Mr. Preston Howard
Director, Division of Water Quality
PO Box 29535
Raleigh NC 27626-0535
Re: Proposed Fairway Farms Animal Waste Management Plan
Dear Mr. Howard:
I have just received a copy of Wayne Robbins' March 17, 1997
letter to you related to the DWQ determination to require N.G.
Purvis Farms, Inc. to obtain an individual non -discharge permit for
the construction and operation of the proposed Fairway Farm #1.
While I regret having to involve your office in a "battle of
correspondence", certain matters contained in Mr. Robbins' letter
require comment.
Initially, as to Mr. Robbins` contention that having to obtain
an individual non -discharge permit somehow caught N.G. Purvis
Farms, Inc., unaware, please recall that our letter to Tommy
Stevens dated January 27, 1997, specifically requested that an
individual permit be required in this situation. Mr. Robbins was
well aware of our request (as a recipient of my letter) and if N.
G. Purvis Farms, Inc. began any construction on this site prior to
receiving the formal DWQ response to our request, then it is, at
best, disingenuous to attempt to blame their quandary, on either
your office or the "hysteric" members of the Deep River Coalition.
Purvis made its own decisions concerning construction with full
knowledge of my clients' position, and it must now live with those
decisions.
Finally, Mr. Robbins' assertion that Purvis' prior
environmental problem in Montgomery County at the Riverside Farms
site was only an "honest oversight" is so ridiculous as to defy
belief. Purvis was enjoined by the Court for willfully and falsely
certifying that an animal waste management plan existed for the
Riverside site, and after the State brought legal action against
Purvis for operating an unpermitted operation, for illegally
dumping sludge from a hog lagoon near a creek bed. If that
constitutes an "honest oversight", then one can only recoil in
contemplation of the "honest oversights" that may occur in the
construction and operation of the Fairview Farms site.

MOSER, SCHMIM-Y, MASON & ROOSE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P. Howard
Page 2
March 19, 1997
The Deep River coalition is comprised of people from all walks
of life who have a deep and undying concern for the water and air
quality in the Deep River watershed. To engage in personal attacks
upon the character and credibility of those honest citizens, as
done in Mr. Robbins' March 17, 1997 letter, simply goes to show
that Purvis will go to any length to attempt to mislead and confuse
the real issues in this matter. Mr. Robbins' comments cause me to
recall an old lawyer adage I learned in law school: If the facts
are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue
the facts; and if both the facts and the law.are against you,?ust
argue.
Please call if our office can be of any further assistance or
if you need any additional information related to this matter.
Very truly yours,
MO ER, S DL , MASON & ROOSE
Stephen S. Schmi ly
SSS\mhr
CC: Wayne Robbins
Marsh Smith
Tommy Stevens

HoISHOUSER A -ND SuoGS, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 MARKET SQUARE
JAMES E. HOLSHOUS£R, JR. PINBHURST. NORTH CAROLINA 26074
ROBERT V. SUGGS
RE
CEIVE[)
TELEPHONE: [phone]
I ECEIVE[) TELECOPIER: 10101 295-2630
FEB 19 19911
FAYETTEVILLE
AEG. OFFICE
February 17, 1997
Dennis Ramsey
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
RE: N. G. Pervis Farms, Inc.
Fairway Farm, Northern Moore
County near Carbonton
Dear Mr. Ramsey:
MAILING ADDRESS:
P. 0. BOX 1227
PINEHURST, NC 28970
We represent Moore County. The County Commissioners are
interested in obtaining a status report on the proposed ILO that
Purvis Farms has underway in Northern Moore County. The
Commissioners are interested in the current status, as well as the
projected time frame for the final permit for the ILO to begin
operations. Please advise accordingly.
Thanks and best wishes.
Sincerely yours,
Robert V. Suggs
RVS/11
c: Tommy Stevens
Regional Supervisor
Division of Water Quality

MAR 18 '97 08:15AM
1/his/��/ �j�• �+
ROBBINS MAY & RICH LLP
Attorneys at Law
ECEV� 10 'lissulkrey Wow-1A Wayne ]ALobill
John M. May Post Office Box 5668
Dean A, Rich NAR 18 19971 Finehurst, North Carolina 28374
Phone.: [phone]
FAYETTEVILLE Fax: [phone]
REG. OFFICE
FAX COVER SHEET
(:Tirol Muse Whitt
Mark D. Vaughn
Robert M. Frir..,wn
TO: THIS IS A REFAX of LETTER
Mr. Preston Howard
AT: NC Department of Environment, Health 6
Natural Resources - Division of Water
Quality
RECEIVER'S FAX NO: 919/733-299G
FROM; P. Wayne Robbins
TRANSMITTER'S FAX NO: [phone]
NUMBER OF PAGES:
(including this cover sheet) 4
DATE: March 17, 1997
OPERATOR: Marshall Smith
MAILED BY U.S. MAIL: No
COMMENTS:
WARNING
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY PRIVI-
LEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READ OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE
INTENDED RECIPIENT,' YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DIS5EMYNATION,
DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF
YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IIMMEDI-
•ATELY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE
ADDRESS VIA THE U.S POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU.
-^V"'7rnnTr. . nT jiu-iTv O iwia CIdTSIanN

�.
• I
i
+E�'y ! �;
t

MAR 1B '97 08:15AM
• Pur0e.doc
P.2/4
ROBBINS MAY & RICH LLP
At tvrncys at Ltkw
P. Wayne Robbins 10 'Hirnberry Wuud
John M. May Pun Orrice Kux 5668
Dean A. Rkh Pinehurst, North (,"aralina 28374
Phone; [phone]
Fax: [phone]
March 17, 1997
VIA FAXSIMILE: 919-733-2496
Mr. Preston Howard
Division of water Quality
512 N. Salisbury St., Archdale Bldg.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Carol Muse White
Mark D. Vaughn
Robert M. I- riesen
RE: Notice of Individual Permit Requirement, Fairway Farm #1, Moore
County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Howard:
This firm represents Purvis Family Farms, LLC and is responding on its
behalf to your march 13, 1997 correspondence.
Based on the facts set forth herein, your decision that Purvie' current
construction project at Fairway Farms should not be covered by the deemed
permitted process is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to prior
findings of your Division regarding the site.
Current construction at Fairway Farms has been under way since late
January, 1997 - nearly two (2) months. Permitting for the facility began
in 1996 with submission of required data to your Division. Substantial
amounts of money have been expended by Purvis for engineering work and
site preparation. Your Division has been aware of the construction for
the entire time it has been ongoing. Prior to your March 13 letter, a
representative of your Division, Ed Bucking, inspected the construction
site, and to Purvis' knowledge, found the site in compliance with all
requests. Until your March 13 letter, there had been no indication by
your Division that the facility was not deemed permitted.
Your delay in reaching your current determination will cause delays to
the project resulting in substantial monetary damages to Purvis. In
order to avoid some of these significant damages, you should provide this
office by 5:00 p.m. today a complete list of the "projected environmental
impacts" of the Fairway Farm development and your contention as to your
legal basis providing you authority to take such action.
You should be aware that Fairway Farms is located in a remote area of
Moore and Chatham counties.. It is some eight (9) to ten (10) miles from
Carthage and more than, a mile from Deep River. The Farm consists of 850
acres which should be substantially more land than would ever be required
to accommodate the ultimate intended development of four (4) separate
facilities. Engineering data submitted to your Division confirms the
ZO' d £t0' ON SO:9T 461 ZT 2dw 98ZVZ69016: QI HHDId S J4bI4 SNITaG8

MAR 16 '97 08:16AM P.9i4
Page 2
Farm site is well suited for the intended use with little, if any,
possibility of environmental impact.
Since the facts and engineering data do not support your conclusions, one
can only aasume your decision was based on half truths, innuendos, false
statements and general hysteria being promoted by individuals and groups
opposed to any type of agricultural operation in the area. Statements
such as the one by Marsh Smith, attorney for the Deep River Coalition,
Inc. that 'it's difficult to imagine a hog ILO having a significantly
worse history over a long period of time as Purvis" are simply not true.
The Purvis family has operated hog facilities in and around Moore County
for more than twenty (20) years. The only instance it has been cited for
any violations of state or local laws or regulations regarding its hog
facilities concerns the operation of a converted poultry facility in
Montgomery County know as Riverside Farm. Purvis' failure to file the
required Waste Management Plan after a notification to do so occurred
because the Riverside Farm was taken out of operation after being
notified of the requirement to file the Plan, and Purvis intended to
permanently close the Farm. Only after a hysteric citizen group similar
to the Deep River Coalition caused delays in the opening of a contract
grower's farm was Purvis required to reopen Riverside on an emergency
basis. Purvis failed to realize the Plan was still required and the
violation occurred. Certainly Purvis should have filed the Plan before
Riverside was reopened; however, the failure was an honest oversight not
the intentional and willful disregard of the law portrayed by opponents
of the current hog operation.
The persistent Eailure by the Deep River Coalition to present the facts
regarding the environmental conditions at and around Fairway Fares and
the strong likelihood that any environmental issue will ba blamed on
Purvis has made it necessary for Purvis to undertake its own investiga-
tion of the area. There appear to be at least two environmental viola-
tions in the immediate area, one of which involves a Mr. Creech, an
active participant in the Deep River Coalition. A housing development
owned by Mr. Creech which includes a large lake has a defective overflow
valve causing all lake runoff to come out an overflow pipe at the top of
the dam. This creates an extremely dangerous situation considering the
impending spring rains. Additionally, near the intersection of Highway
42 and Carbington Road downstream from Purvis Farms, there is a pond
which is almost into Deep River enclosed in a pasture wherein there are
numerous head of cattle. The cattle havo been observed in the pond,
obviously defecating and urinating in the pond which therein goes
immediately into Deep River. If the Deep River Coalition is so con-
cerned, they should certainly take action in regard to that situation as
well as your agency. Again, we expect to hear regarding this by 5:00
p.m. on Wednesday. Each of these situations should be investigated by
your Division immediately and a response to the undersigned'should be
forth coming no later than 5:00 p.m., March 19, 1997.
Purvis intends to take all, steps necessary to allow it to construct the
facilities at Fairway Farm. Until your letter, Purvis was under the
clear understanding it was in -full compliance and was deemed permitted.
£0' d £I0' ON 90: 91 Z61LI 2uw 9KVZ690T6: QI HHOIZI 11MN SNISS02i

MAR 18 '97 08:16AM
P.4/4
Page 3
Your arbitrary and capricious determination, occurring after a signifi-
cant amount of time has elapsed during which your Division had full
knowledge of the construction, is in violation of the laws your Division
is charged.with enforcing and is unfair and inequitable. Your immediate
response is expected,
Very truly yours,
ROBBINS MAY & RICH LLP
P. Wayne Rob ins
PWR:mys
CC,. Mr. Steve Schmidly
Mr. Marsh Smith
Melvin Purvis, Purvis Family Farms, LLC
b0' d £I0' old 90= 9Y 46. zi lbw 98ZPZ690I6: QI HHDI� S AdW SNI8H02d

�i�fo
FE8 10 1997, CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH, L.L.P.
FAYETTEVILLE ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
REG. OFFICE 225 NORTH BENNETT STREET
SOUTHERN PINES, NORTH CAROLINA 28387
BRUCE T. CUNNINGHAM, IR. MAILING .ADDRESS
RICHARD E. DEDMOND P. O. BOX 1468
ANN C. PETERSEN (910j 695 0800 SOUTHERN PINES, NC 28388
MARSH SMITH February 6, 1997 FAX NO. (910) 695�0903
VIA FAX AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Tommy Stevens, Section Chief
Division of Water Quality
Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714, Wachovia Bldg.
Fayetteville, NC 28301
Re: N.G. Purvis Farms, Inc. proposed intensive livestock
operation in northeast Moore County, North Carolina
Dear Tommy:
Thank you for taking time to speak to Stephen Schmidly and myself
today concerning the Intensive Livestock Operation (ILO) proposed
by N.G. Purvis Farms, Inc. (Purvis Farms) in northeast Moore
County.
As I mentioned during our phone conversation, I want to emphasize
that Mr. Schmidly's and my clients -- The Deep River Coalition,
Inc., Mr. & Mrs. Creech, Mr. & Mrs. Tysinger, Mr. & Mrs. Costa,
and Ms. Goff -- request that the Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
do the following things based on Mr. Schmidly's letter to you of
January 27, 1997:
1. Declare the site evaluations for the Fairway (a.k.a.
"Fairview") Farm site in northeastern Moore County deficient
and inadequate to "grandfather" the proposed ILO;
2. Declare the certification of 12/30/96 deficient because of
the various irregularities already pointed out to you and,
therefore, inadequate to "grandfather" the proposed ILO;
3. Require an individual permit rather than either deeming the
ILO permitted or issuing a Certificate of Conformity with
the general permit; and
4. Request that Purvis Farms either cease work or refrain from
commencing construction, as the case may be, pending DWQ's
decision.
Since you indicated that DWQ had made no decision regarding any
of these requested actions and since construction seems either
imminent or under way, certainly DWQ should request Purvis to
conduct no further construction until DWQ reaches a decision.
Given Purvis Farms' poor prior record and the recent
irregularities -- including the questionable circumstance of the

'.a
. c� � _
.. . , r ,
_,t ? i

Tommy Stevens
February 6, 1997
Page 2
Animal Waste Management Plan's existence prior to January 1, 1997
-- even minimal prudence would seem to require such a brief
construction hiatus.
Please respond in writing, via facsimile, to this most acute
request prior to 12:00 noon on Friday, February 7, 1997, so that
some final agency action will exist with respect to our clients'
most pressing need.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Marsh Smith
cc:
Kathryn Cooper, Esq.
P. Wayne Robbins, Esq.
Stephen S. Schmidly, Esq.

� f n

MAR-04-1997 16:31 FROM
f
TO EHNR FAYETTEVIL
P at
P.02
04UCE T. CUNNINCHAK 1R
vrHAnA F. B mcm
ANN [. F MIRN
ARAM SMITH
CUNNINCHAM. DEDMQND, PmptsEN & SMrrm
ATroimm AND Covtauoas Af LAw
325 NOM B[KNt?T SMUT
59WIMtRK PINTS, NQATM GROLIKA ABJ17
nCOMILE =i"5=683cm
DATE; 4 Rar, ch 1997
MAILING Al?o)1095
P. a, BOX 1468
SOUTHMN POW-5. NC 1810
►U NO. (910) 695-M)
To
= PreuLon Howard FAX #: [phone]
cr.; Kathy_Coaper,_Esq. 6 Steve Schmidly, sq
919-733-�0791 & 9f0-626-8007
rox: Marsh Smith
9UBJ.cT: DWQ.'s authority to require an individual permit of Purvis
RERRUS: Kr- Howard:
The Deep River Coalition now has direct information that N.G. Purvis
Farms, Inc. has begun construetivii of the first hog parlor on the
Fairway Farms -Tract in northeast Moore County.
PAGES: , includfnq this cover Sage. If you do not
FemCe ve all pagesi call i=wd38tdly to [phone],
Transmissian is being made from [phone].
"The pages Qoaprising this f■asimils transmission 6011ULa
aeafideatial information from the far office of CwaingbMs
Dsdmond, petereen and smith. This information is intended
sold tot see by the tadividual satity named as the recipient
herool. _r yam ate not the intended recipient, be ware tbat
any disalosare, oopyinq, diatsibatiaa, or use of the oolatsat■
of tabs transaission is proaibitede xg you have received this
trawmission is error, visa" potsfy us by telephone
immediately so we cap arsaage to retrieve this traassission at
no cost to you,"

MAR-04-1997 16:32 FROM
TO EHNR FAYETTEUIL
P 82
P.03
CUNNINGHAM, [)EDMOND, PFrFR$EN & SMITH, LLP.
ATTORWY1 ANn GAUNSKOU AT LAW
225 NORTH borrow STRFrr
S0U1hERN PIWES, NOVI I CAR01INA 2N$0f
Nittkk I.:UNNR4U KK IK• _
Mll•NANJ L UtUMUM IY4uf MvS4Mlllll
ANN lti. PVkMN
AA&MIT,MIn1 �frRrCh 3 1997
VIA FAX & Fi'iRST CLASS MAIL
Preston Howard
Division of Ulster Quality
aiz N. Salisbury at., Archdale bldg.
Ralsl4h, NC 27604
IMAJUNr. AIMM
S(Wn W.JtN P2KES, W: 11111611
FAX NO. (910) 69SM3
Re: N.G. Purvis Farms. Inc. Proposed Facility in Northeast Moore
county
Dear Xr. . Howard:
As you Rnow, Steve 5chmidly and I represent the Deep River
Coalition, Inc. and several affected landowners in their collective
efforts to protect the water and air quality " the Deep River
corridor from threats posed by N.G. Purvis Farm, Ine.fs (Purvis)
proposed zz,eoo head hog ILO in northeast Moore County. Thank you
again for talking to me by telephone durinq the week of February
l7th. Last meek on Wednesday, February 26th, I left a note in your
office with some of my thoughts on issues raised by you in our
earlier phone conversation, and I'd like to follow up on that note.
In our phone conversation you first mentioned that DW9 had concerns
that it no longer possessed regulatory authority under 15A NCAC
2H.0237 for any other authority, for that ratter), to require a hog
ZLO operator to obtain an individual non -discharge permit. You
voiced concern that S.B. 1217 may have superseded DWQ regulatory
authority to do so.
Holding aside, for the moment, =Q'8 authority to re ire an
individual permit for any qiven hog ILO operator, I think it's
quite clear that for Purvis, at least, Dwg has the authority to
require an individual permit. Here's whys in the consent judgment
entered on February 11, 1997, which Purvis consented to, Purvis
admits that the preliminary injunction has a finding of fact that
M Q had, authority to require an individual permit under 15A NCAC
ZU-0217i next, Purvis also consented to the preliminary injunction
in Which the court found DWQ's authority to require an individual
permit as a linding of Pact: finally, given theme two Conaaht
orders with such findings of fact, I believe Purvis has judicially
admitted that DWQ has the authority to require an individual
permit, and such a judicial admission will likely bind .Purvis in
future actions with =Q.
Now, with respect to any ILO operator, I believe DWQ has the
authority to require an individual permit, in spite of S.B. 1217,
for the following reasons: 1) iSA NCAC 2H.0217 most certainly
applies to the old peraiittinq regise wherein a hog ILO operator was
"deemed permitted" upon submission of an animal waste management
Plan certification to the appropriate authorities; 2) anyone

MAR-04-1997 16:32 FROM TO EHNR FAYETTPUIL P.04
+ 1 i
.i.1I� _ ..-.. .. P 83
Freston Howard
March 3, 1997
Paqe a
availing themselves to the old permitting regime necessarily avails
themselves to DWQ's acknowledged ability to require are individual
permit under the old permitting regime; and 3) N.C.G.S 143-
215.1(b)(4)b.2. gives the porter to require an applicant's ahowinq
that "the applicant, or any parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate
of the applicant or parent has substantially complied with the
effluent atandaerds or limitation and waste management treatment
practices applicable to any activity in which the applicant has
previously angagad..."
Since N.C.6.S 143-315.1(b)(4)b.2. gives t2Ye Environmental
Xanagement commission ("Commission") the porter to not grant a
permit unless an applicant can show that it has a good history,
certainly the Commission, and the divisions through which it acts,
can avail themselves to a "lesser included power" -- requiring an
individual permit. Purvis certainly qualifies as an applicant that
has not substantially complied with effluent standards and
limitations and waste management treatment practices. Therefore,
Purvis can be denied a permit under statutory authority unmodified
by S.S. 1217.
It's difficult to imagine a hog ILO operator having a significantly
worse history over as long a period of time as Purvis. If =q 4009
not use its discretionary power with Purvis, it seems quite
possible that, if it attempts to use it on some other hog ILO
operator, ouch action would be held arbitrary and capricious given
DWQ's inaction with Purvis.
given the prospect of 22,800 hogs cared for by an ILO operator such
as Purvis and the threats that such a sorry situation pose to
Sanford, Lee county, Goldston-Gulf, and their waiter source -- the
Deep xiver -- it strikes me an unthinkable that DWO would not avail
itself to the substantial statutory, regulatory and other authority
which it has. r urge your expedited action on our previous roguest
that MM require an individual permit of Purvis for the proposed
tog ZLO in northeast Moore county.
Sincerely,
2CUNIWeDOND,
h
KS jka
PETERSEN is SMITH, L.L.P.
cc: Senator Ellis Kinnaird
Senator Howard Lee
Representative Richard T. Morgan
Representative Bobby Ray Hall
Steven schmidly, Esq.
Paige Burna, Secretary, Deep River Coalition
xathy cooper, Esq.
P . Wayne Robbins, 5sq ,
TOTAL P.04

MOSER, SCHMIDLY, MASON&RooB ECE2V LED
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
230 EAST SALISBURY STREET JAN 2 9 1997
ASHEBORO. NORTH CAROLINA 27203
STEPHEN S. SCHMIDLY FA ET EVUL —9 E PHONE00
RODNEY C. MASON REG. ©FFiCE
RICHARD G. ROOSE FACSIMILE
[phone]
ANOREW K. McVEY January 27, 1997
D. WESCOTT MOSER ^ RETIRED
Mr. Tommy Stevens
Section Chief
Department of Water Quality
Fayetteville Regional Office
Ste 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville NC 28301
Re: N.G. Purvis, Inc. proposed intensive livestock operation
in Moore County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Stevens:
I am faxing to you the written comments related to the .
referenced large-scale hog operation referenced above. The
original, including all exhibits, will follow by overnight
delivery.
My clients advised last night that N.G. Purvis Farms, Inc.
began construction on this gigantic facility yesterday, without
obtaining a DWQ permit. I wanted you to have my client's written
comments immediately, so your office can immediately take action to
stop this illegal construction.
Please call if you have any questions or if your office did
not receive any of the pages of the enclosure.
Thank you for your prompt response in this matter.
Very truly yours,
MOS R, sc
D I
& ROOSE
Stephen S. Schmidly
SSS\mhr

MOSER, SCHMIDLY, MASON & ROOSE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
230 EAST SALISBURY STREET
ASHEBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27203
STEPHEN S. SCHMIDI,Y
RODNEY C. MASON
RICHARD G. ROOSE
ANDREW K. McVEY January 27, 1997
Mr. Tommy Stevens
Section Chief
Department of Water Quality
Fayetteville Regional Office
Ste 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville NC 28301
TELEPHONE
[phone]
FACSIMILE
[phone]
D. WESCOTT MOSER — RETIRED
Re: N.G. Purvis, Inc. proposed intensive livestock operation
in Moore County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Stevens:
Please be advised that Mr. Marsh Smith, an attorney with
Cunningham, Dedmond, Petersen, & Smith, in Southern Pines, North
Carolina, and I represent the Deep River Coalition, Inc. and four
(4) adjacent landowners to a proposed intensive livestock operation
for swine to be constructed by N.G. Purvis Farms, Inc. (hereafter
"Purvis Farms"). This project is located on a single tract of
property in southern Chatham County and northern Moore County near
the Carbonton community. We are advised that construction on the
first lagoon was begun on this site on Monday, January 27, 1997.
The Deep River Coalition, Inc. is a non-profit corporation,
and its purpose, among other things, is to preserve, protect, and
enhance the water, air, and land quality of the Deep River
watershed in Moore County and its neighboring counties. The four
adjacent property owners that we represent are C.R. and Shirley
Creech, Anthony Costa, Tony and Linda Tysinger, and Alma D. Goff.
I am writing to you related to our clients' concerns about
this proposed large scale swine operation by Purvis Farms. This
project has been referred to in various submittals to DWQ and the
Moore County NRCS by the operator as the "Fairview Farms" site.
This site contains approximately eight hundred (800) acres, is
located in the Deep River watershed, and drains into the Deep
River.

MOSER, SCHMIDLY, MASON a ROOSE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
T. Stevens
Page 2
January 28, 1997
By letter dated January 17, 1997, Purvis Farms notified some
of the adjacent landowners of the proposed construction of this
swine facility (See Exhibit 1-The Written Notice of Intention for
this facility). The Written Notice of Intention described the type
of swine farm and the design capacity of the animal waste
management system for this project as follows:
4 separate farrow to weaning farms with 5,200 sows on
each farm with each farm having a lagoon capacity of
approximately 28,867,265 gallons; plus a small house for
200 boars with a lagoon capacity of approximately
2,886,726 gallons; and an isolation house for 1,800 gilts
with a lagoon capacity of 11,546,906 gallons.
It appears that for permitting purposes, Purvis Farms is
asking DWQ to treat this single large scale swine operation located
on a single tract of property, as six (6) separate farms, as if
they were located on six (6) separate tracts of land. Further, it
seems that Purvis Farms is attempting this ploy to circumvent the
current statutes and regulations applicable to these types of
large-scale animal operations. As discussed hereinafter, the
purported siting evaluations on the Fairway Farms site only
considered a swine population of 10,400, not the 22,800 swine
population described in the Written Notice of Intention.
For the reasons set forth herein, we submit that DWQ should
order Purvis Farms to obtain an individual non -discharge permit for
the construction and operation of this facility, and not allow
Purvis Farms to be permitted under the general permit regulations.
We are of the opinion that should DWQ not require an individual
non -discharge permit on this project, our clients would be
"aggrieved persons" entitled to file a contested case

MOSER, SCHMIDLY, MASON & ROOSE
T. Stevens ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Page 3
January 28, 1997
petition with the Office Administrative Hearings pursuant to the
authority of Empire Power Co. v. N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources, 337 N.C. 569 (1994). Further, we request
that DWQ immediately order Purvis Farms to cease and desist any
construction on this site until permitted as required by law.
In preparing comments on this proposed facility., we are
limited to reviewing only the information which Purvis Farms has
actually filed with various governmental agencies. Once we have
obtained and had the opportunity to review the actual design plans
and information for this facility, assuming they exist, we will
provide additional written comments to DWQ.
Our comments, which we request DWQ to consider in its decision
to permit this facility, are as follows:
1. SITE EVALUATIONS ON FAIRVIEW FARMS SITE
On August 21, 1996, Mr. Larry Graham, the technical specialist
identified in the Written Notice of Intention, conducted what
purport to be two "siting evaluations" on the Fairview Farms site,
identified as Fairview Farms Sites 1 and 2. Copies of those two
purported siting evaluations, dated September 25, 1996, are
attached hereto as Exhibits 2 and 3. Each purported siting
evaluation was based upon the assumption of 5,200 swine and a
lagoon capacity of approximately 24.5 million gallons, for a total
lagoon capacity of approximately 49 million gallons on the site.
The written Notice of Intention for this project provides for
22,800 swine and a series of four (4) 28.8 million gallon lagoons,
one (1) 2.8 million gallon lagoon and one (1) 12.5 million gallon
lagoon, for a total lagoon capacity of approximately 130 million
gallons.

MOSER. SCHMIDLY, MASON & ROOSE
T. Stevens ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Page 4
January 28, 1997
It is our position that neither of the purported siting
evaluations complies with the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 106-802(4),
and therefore, should not exempt Purvis Farms from any of the
current statutory or regulatory provisions for the siting and/or
construction of an intensive swine operation. It appears that
Purvis Farms rushed to have these site evaluations "conducted"
prior to October 1, 1996, in an attempt to avoid compliance with
the 500 foot set -back requirements from property boundaries for
construction of any facility for a swine farm, and to contend that
Purvis Farms does not need to obtain a permit for this facility
until such time as animals are placed on the site rather than prior
to construction, as now required by N.C.G.S. § 143-215.10C. In
1996, the legislature amended N.C.G.S. 106-803 to change the
property boundary set -back requirements from 100 feet to 500 feet.
This amendment applied to any new or expanded swine farm for which
an appropriate site evaluation was not conducted prior to October
1, 1996.
N.C.G.S. § 106-802(4) defines a site evaluation to "mean an
investigation to determine if a site meets all federal and state
standards as evidenced by the waste Management Facility Site
Evaluation Report on file ... or a comparable report certified by a
professional engineer ... "(Emphasis Added). The purported siting
evaluations completed by Mr. Graham are wholly inadequate. A
simple review of the purported "evaluations" establishes that no
investigation was conducted as contemplated by statute, and that
the purported evaluations are so full of disclaimers to truly be
meaningless documents. The obvious deficiencies in the purported
siting evaluations include, without limitation, the following:
(a) The engineer did not conduct a reasonable investigation
as to the actual location of the swine facilities on this site and
the distances to other residences or property line boundaries. The
purported siting evaluations state, "it does not appear" that the
lagoon or housing sites would violate the 100 foot property line

MOSER, SCHMIDLY, MASON & ROOSE
T. Stevens ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Page 5
January 28, 1997
set -back requirements under the previous version of N.C.G.S. § 106-
803. However, at the same time the engineer advised the owner to
employ a surveyor to verify property lines and all set -backs.
According to one of our clients, surveyors only just visited her
property during the week of January 20, 1997. The engineer made no
representation or finding that the facilities were not within the
500 foot property line set -back requirement now contained in
N.C.G.S. § 106-803. Of course, one of the major reasons for a
siting evaluation is to insure compliance with statutory set -back
requirements. The engineer's failure to do so other than "eye
balling" the site and aerial photographs is woefully inadequate for
a valid and lawful site evaluation pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 106-802.
(b) The "odor control" sections of the purported siting
evaluations are inadequate in that the sole conclusion reached by
the engineer was that "due to remote location of the site, the
engineer does not think odors should be a significant problem for
neighbors". The engineer made no investigation as to the location
of neighboring houses or the prevailing wind direction, gave no
consideration to possible expansion of the minimum treatment volume
of the lagoon, and made no comment relating to sound judgment in
land application of waste. Each of these deficiencies conflict
with the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 106-802 and the requirements of
the Waste Management Facility Site Evaluation form. (Exhibit 4 -
United States Department of Agriculture Form NC-CPA-17, Waste
Management Facility Site Evaluation).
Also, the engineer only considered the odor control problems
related to the two (2) lagoons mentioned in the purported siting
evaluations. As we now know, Purvis Farms intends to construct a
total of six (6) lagoons on this site with a total
lagoon capacity of approximately 130,000,000 million gallons.
Unbelievably, no consideration was given by the engineer to the
total impact of such a gigantic facility as it relates to odor
problems for neighboring property owners.

MOSER, SCHMIDLY, MASON & ROOSE
T . Stevens ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Page 6
January 28, 1997
(c) In the purported siting evaluations the engineer stated
that he "made no effort to evaluate endangered species or their
habitat at this site". A total failure to evaluate this item
ignores the statutory requirement of an "investigation to determine
if the site meets all federal and state standards" contemplated by
G.S. 106-802. Specifically the Waste Management Facility Site
Evaluation Form inquires as to whether endangered and/or threatened
species habitat is present and requires a "yes" or "no" response.
The engineer's response of doing no evaluation on this critical
issue is simply inadequate and not in compliance with N.C.G.S. §
106-802.
It is interesting to note that the Deep River, in the general
vicinity of this proposed facility, contains two known designated
critical habitat areas for an endangered species of fish; the Cape
Fear Shiner (Exhibit 5, a Fish and Wildlife Service publication
related to this endangered species and its habitat). Evidently,
the engineer believes that ignorance of these facts allows him to
make a certification without an investigation. Such assumptions
are not allowed by G.S. 106-802.
(d) In the purported siting evaluations, the engineer stated
that he has "no knowledge of any scenic, historical or
archaeological significance of the site." Of course, given his
failure to investigate, the engineer's lack of knowledge may be
understandable. However, the purpose of a site evaluation is to
conduct an investigation to determine whether such areas are on
site, or will be impacted, by the proposed construction. The
engineer's failure to conduct such an investigation makes the
purported siting evaluation inadequate and violative of N.C.G.S. §
106-802. Interestingly, a number of members of the Deep River
Coalition report to having seen collections of numerous arrowheads
obtained from this site.

MOSER, SCHMIDLY, MASON & ROOSE
T . Stevens ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Page 7
January 28, 1997
(e) The purported siting evaluations conducted by the
engineer did not include a Waste Utilization Plan as required by
the Waste Management Facility Site Evaluation form. In•fact, in
the purported siting evaluations, the engineer specifically stated
that the "engineer has not evaluated the site for waste
utilization." The engineer goes on to state that he "believes"
there is sufficient land on which to irrigate the volume of waste
to be generated by the proposed facility of 10,400 swine somewhere
on the tract. Such a speculative statement again is not adequate or
in compliance with the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 106-802,
particularly given the much larger overall facility described in
the Written Notice of Intention for this project.
(f) Perhaps most troubling about the purported siting
evaluations for this site are the soils investigation sections.
The engineer admits that he is not a professional soil scientist
and further admits that no NRCS representative was on site when the
soils investigation was conducted. However, despite those alarming
disclaimers and the engineer's admitted lack of expertise, the
engineer attaches to the siting evaluations what purport to be
detailed soil classification forms relating to a number of pits dug
on the site. The purported siting evaluations conclude that while
the site has some rather serious soil problems, the engineer
"believes" that the soil is suitable for the then proposed facility
(i.e. the 10,400 head operation). That opinion, given the
engineer's disclaimers as to expertise and the substantially larger
operation described in the Written Notice of Intention, should be
given little, if any, weight and should be rejected.
Also, a careful review of the engineer's soil evaluation on
this site indicates that the proposed lagoons will need to have
clay liners. The engineer states, with no foundation, his "belief"
that sufficient clay from other locations on the site would be
available for use as liner material. However, given the

MOSER, SCHMIDLY, MASON & ROOSE
T. Stevens ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Page 8
January 27, 1997
substantially larger facility and number of lagoons and the sizes
thereof described in the Written Notice of Intention, the engineer
has made no representation as to the availability of sufficient
lining material for the six lagoons now planned for this facility.
For the reasons set forth above, our clients request DWQ to
find that the purported siting evaluations are not. legally
sufficient to exempt Purvis Farms from the currently applicable
statutes and regulations related to permitting and siting issues
for a large-scale swine operation. Further, our clients request
DWQ to order all construction on this site halted until the site is
properly permitted by DWQ.
2. FAILURE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND/OR
OPERATION OF ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
Based upon the Written Notice of Intention sent by Purvis
Farms to certain adjacent property owners, it appears that Purvis
Farms plans to develop an intensive swine operation that will house
and handle the waste of 22,800 swine. This project contemplates a
total of six (6) waste lagoons with a total lagoon capacity of
approximately 130,000,000 gallons. Also, we are advised that
construction on the large-scale hog operation actually began on
January 27, 1997. Based upon the information that we have received
from DWQ, Purvis Farms has not applied for, or received, a permit
for the construction of this facility.
N.C.G.S. 143-215.10C specifically provides that "no person
shall construct or operate an animal waste management system
without first obtaining a permit" ... Therefore, any construction on
this proposed facility by Purvis Farms prior to being permitted by
DWQ will violate this specific statutory provision.

MOSER, SCHMIDLY, MASON & ROOSE
T . Stevens ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Page 8
January 27, 1997
substantially larger facility and number of lagoons and the sizes
thereof described in the Written Notice of Intention, the engineer
has made no representation as to the availability of sufficient
lining material for the six lagoons now planned for this facility.
For the reasons set forth above, our clients request DWQ to
find that the purported siting evaluations are not legally
sufficient to exempt Purvis Farms from the currently applicable
statutes and regulations related to permitting and siting issues
for a large-scale swine operation. Further, our clients request
DWQ to order all construction on this site halted until the site is
properly permitted by DWQ.
2. FAILURE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OR
OPERATION OF ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
Based upon the Written Notice of Intention sent by Purvis
Farms to certain adjacent property owners, it appears that Purvis
Farms plans to develop an intensive swine operation that will house
and handle the waste of 22,800 swine. This project contemplates a
total of six (6) waste lagoons with a total lagoon capacity of
approximately 130,000,000 gallons. Also, we are advised that
construction on the large-scale hog operation actually began on
January 27, 1997. Based upon the information that we have received
from DWQ, Purvis Farms has not applied for, or received, a permit
for the construction of this facility.
N.C.G.S. 143-215.10C specifically provides that "no person
shall construct or operate an animal waste management system
without first obtaining a permit" ... Therefore, any construction on
this proposed facility by Purvis Farms prior to being permitted by
DWQ will violate this specific statutory provision.
M

MOSER, SCHMIDLY, MASON & ROOSE
T. Stevens ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Page 9
January 28, 1997
3. FALSE CERTIFICATION OF THE EXISTENCE AND DISCLOSURE OF AN
ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
On December 30, 1996, the consulting engineer on this project
forwarded a three page letter and an executed Animal Waste
Management Plan Certification Form to the Division of Water
Quality -Compliance Group in Raleigh, North Carolina (see Exhibit
6). On page two (2) of the transmittal letter, in the last
sentence under the "General Comments" section, the engineer states:
"The reader must review the glans to see what is_being _certified."
On the top of page 3 of the transmittal letter, the engineer
states: "A copy of the design information and the certification
forms will be sent to the farm owner and the local NRCS. Only the
certification forms and vicinity maps are being sent to DWO."
(Emphasis Added).
Pursuant to Freedom of Information Act and Public Record Law
requests to the Moore County NRCS, we have been provided copies of
the two (2) purported siting evaluations on Fairway Farms, a copy
of the December 30, 1996 letter from Larry Graham to the DWQ-
Compliance Group, and copies of the Animal Waste Management Plan
Certification Forms signed by the engineer. On January 22, 1997,
we sought confirmation from the Moore County NRCS that these were
the only documents on this proposed operation that had been
provided to that office (see Exhibit 7). That fact was confirmed
to our offices in writing by the Moore County NRCS on January 23,
1997 (see Exhibit 8). Therefore, it appears that the "design
information" on this operation has not been provided to the Moore
County NRCS as represented in the engineers letter of December 30,
1996. Further, given the engineer's statement that the "plans"
must be reviewed to see "what was being certified", the failure to
provide those design plans to the local NRCS office constitutes a
false and misleading certification. Currently, no one knows
whether an Animal Waste Management Plan even exists for this
proposed operation.

MOSER, SCHMIDLY, MASON & ROOSE
T. Stevens ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Page 10
January 28, 1997
Purvis Farms has a substantial history of environmental
violations in the operation of swine farms, including a false
certification of information provided to this agency. As I am sure
you are aware, Purvis Farms was sued in Montgomery County by North
Carolina, through its Attorney General, and had its operation
enjoined for numerous regulatory violations, including false
certification of the existence of an animal waste management plan.
(See Exhibit 9 - The Attorney General's Memorandum in Support of
the State's Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the Montgomery
County action.) The Attorney General in his Memorandum stated...
"Purvis callously responded (to the fish kill that occurred by a
direct discharge into a creek) with a false certification that an
animal waste management plan had been obtained and would be
followed. In fact, this plan was never prepared or implemented...".
Further, the Attorney General stated... "Purvis is operating its hog
farm with total disdain for North Carolina's environmental statutes
and administrative rules --a condition that is detrimental to the
public health, safety, and welfare". Finally, the Attorney General
concluded..." As the facts convincingly demonstrate, Purvis cannot
be trusted to act in a responsible manner to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare".
REQUEST TO REQUIRE N.G. PURVIS FARMS INC. TO OBTAIN AN
INDIVIDUAL NON -DISCHARGE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF THE FAIRVIEW FARMS ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Under the .0200 Rules, the DWQ retains the authority to
require an operator of a intensive livestock operation to obtain an
individual nondischarge permit. T 15A N.C.A.C.: 02H.0217(b). The
Environmental Management Commission's (EMC) rule governing the
issuance of general permits allows the DWQ to require an operator
to obtain an individual nondischarge permit. The non-exclusive

MOSER. SCHMIDLY, MASON & ROOSE
T . Stevens ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Page 11
January 28, 1997
list contained in the regulation that allows for individual permits
includes "noncompliance with Division rules" as a ground to require
an individual permit for an operator of an animal waste management
system.
The entire history of this project, together with the known
inclination and past history of Purvis Farms ignoring and willfully
violating Division rules and regulations, mandate an individual
non -discharge permit in this case. The woeful inadequacy of the
purported siting evaluations, conducted in what can only be
described as a last minute effort to avoid new statutory permitting
and property line set -back requirements, the false representation
to DWQ that the design information for the animal waste management
system had been provided to the local NRCS office, and Purvis
Farms' history of previous violations are relevant considerations
in this decision. N.C.G.S. 9 143-215.1(b) (4)b.2. provides that the
EMC shall have the power to require any permit applicant to satisfy
DWQ that the applicant, or any parent, subsidiary, or other affiant
of the applicant "has substantially complied with the ... waste
management treatment practices applicable to any activity in which
the applicant has previously engaged and has been in substantial
compliance with other federal and state laws, regulations, and
rules for the protection of the environment." As is obvious,
Purvis Farms can make no such showing.
It is obvious that Purvis continues to act in accordance with
its past practices. Submitting incomplete or very preliminary
data; reckless or intentional disregard to regulatory requirements;
failing to disclose information until challenged cr required to do
so; racing to beat statutory deadlines in an attempt to avoid new
regulations; and falsely representing the fact of the disclosure of
information in official submissions to this Department appear to be
the standard and established practices of Purvis Farms. The DWQ
should exercise its discretion and under these facts, require

MOSER, SCHMiDLY, MASON & ROOSE
T . Stevens ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Page 12
January 28, 1997
Purvis Farms to apply for an individual non -discharge permit and to
issue an immediate cease and desist order to Purvis Farms to halt
all construction on this site until a proper permit has been issued
by DWQ.
Our clients, pursuant to the intent of the 1996 amendments to
the Swine Farm Siting Act, would request the opportunity to fully
participate in all proceedings related to the permitting of this
operation. Please provide timely notice to both Mr. Marsh Smith
and myself of all information received by your office related to
this project, and all meetings and hearings related to this matter.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this serious matter.
Please advise if your office needs any additional information, or
would like to meet with Mr. Marsh Smith and myself to discuss this
matter further. Given that Purvis Farms has illegally started
construction on this site, we would request a response within five
(5) days of the date of this letter.
We look forward to your prompt response.
Very truly yours,
MOSER, SCHMIDLY, MASON & ROOSE
4L J
�4
Stephen S. Schmidly
SSS\mhr
CC: Preston Howard
DWQ Compliance Branch -Raleigh, NC'
Wayne Robbins, Attorney for N.G. Purvis Farms, Inc.
Judy Bullock, Assistant Attorney General
Ruth Kirby, Moore County NRCS
Harry Huberth, DRC-Chairman
C.R. and Shirley Creech
Anthony Costa
Tony and Linda Tysinger
Alma D. Goff
Marsh Smith

INDEX TO EXHIBITS
Exhibit No. Description
1 Written Notice of Intention to Construct
Swine Farm dated December 18, 1992.
2 Purported Siting Evaluation prepared by
Environmental Engineering Services on
Fairview Farms Site 1 dated September 25,
1996.
3 Purported Siting Evaluation prepared by
Environmental Engineering Services on
Fairview Farms Site 2 dated September 25,
1996.
4 United States Department of Agriculture
Form NC-CPA-17, Waste Management Facility
Site Evaluation.
5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered
Species Information Leaflet on the Cape
Fear Shiner.
6 December 30, 1996 letter to NCDEHNR,
Division of Water Quality -Compliance
Group from Environmental Engineering
Service Enclosing Executed Animal Waste
Management Certifications.
7 January 22, 1997 letter to Moore County
NRCS office from Marsh Smith!
8 January 23, 1997 response to Marsh Smith
from Moore County NRCS office.
9 Plaintiff's Preliminary Injunction Brief
in State of N.C. et. rel. MICHAEL EASLEY
v. N.G. PURVIS FARMS, INC.; 95 CvS 0517
(Montgomery County Superior Court).

BRUCET. CUNNINGHAM, 1R.
RICHARD E. DEDMOND
ANN C. PETERSEN
MARSH SMITH
CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
225 NORTH $ENNETT STREET
SOUTHERN PINES, NORTH CAROLINA 28387
MAILING ADDRESS
P. O. BOX 1468
SOUTHERN PINES, NC 28388
UJP W( j 695�0903
[phone]
January 24, 1997
JAN 2 7 1997
Mr. Melvin G. Purvis FA)k�Q'&DhLLE
M G Purvis Farms, Inc.- RtG, O FiCE
2504 Spies Road
Robbins, North Carolina 27325-7213
Re: Cancellation of Plans for Proposed Hog Operation
on Margin Farr
Dear Mr. Purvis:
This firm represents Paul F. and Patricia L. Rose, who
received a certified letter from you dated December 18, 1996,
enclosing a notice of intention to construct a swine farm on
property adjacent to the Rose property. The reason that I am
writing is because an article in the January 20, 1997
0M edition of The Pilot newspaper indicates that you no longer
have any intentions to develop the 432 acre Clyde Martin farm
0 for use as a swine operation.
Our firm had been employed to file comments with the Division
of Water Quality, Department of Environmental Health and
Natural Resources concerning the proposed operation. Unless
we hear from you to the contrary by January 31, 1997, we will
assume that the article in The Pilot is correct and that you
no longer have any intention to construct a swine operation.
Therefore, it would not be necessary for Mr. and Mrs. Rose to
file any comments with respect to your letter of December 18,
1996.
With all best wishes, I am
Sincerely yours,
CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH, L.L.P.
Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr.
BTCjr:md
cc: Mr. Paul F. Rose
Mr. Tommy Stephens, NCDEHNR-DWQ
Compliance Group, NCDEHNR--DWQ

EXHIBIT 2
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
Water • Wastewater Sludge • Agricultural • Industrial • Civil
SSP 2'6
September 25, 1996
N.G. Purvis Farms, Inc. -
2504 Spies Road
Robbins, N.C. 27325-7213 CUDY
Attn: Melvin Purvis
Re: Site Evaluation for the placement of swine confinement
housing and an anaerobic lagoon at the N.G. Purvis property near
Carbonton, North Carolina. Moore and Chatham Counties. Farm
designation is the "Fairview Farm, Site 1 Location".
Dear Mr. Purvis,
On August 21, 1996 I visited the above referenced site to
evaluate the parcel's potential for the correct and legal
placement of swine production facilities. This type of activity
is called a "Siting Evaluation". Please find below a brief
account of my evaluation of this site based on my visits and
research.
ProposedOperations
N.G. Purvis Farms, Inc. is proposing to build a farrow -to --wean
farm on a portion of a larger farm in the Northeast corner of
Moore County.
The engineer has discussed the plans with the Purvis Farms
personnel in order to obtain some preliminary values with regards
to lagoon sizing, etc.
Two confinement houses containing 2,600 sows each would bring the
total sows on this particular site to 5,200 head. The engineer
has estimated a full to overflow volume for the lagoon using a 5
year sludge storage to be approximately 24.2 million gallons.
This was done using the current NRCS standards. The engineer has
not considered future changes to the guidelines in this design.
These values are for reference only. Final sizes and volumes will
depend on the site characteristics, etc. The engineer has assumed
a single stage lagoon for the above figures, but a two stage
lagoon system could also be used,
Location Information
The farm parcel is located off of SR# 1621 just at the Moore
County and Chatham County Border. Attached is a vicinity map and
OSGS topographic map of the proposed site.
According to the .0200 regulations, General Statue 106 (Senate
Bill 1080), and Senate Bill 1217 all new swine facilities shall
be located so they are equal to or exceed a minimum distance from
neighboring structures. These set -backs are as follows:
5647 N.C. HIGHWAY 211, WEST END, N.C. 27376-9001 • PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

Residences (sited after 10-1-95) 1,500 ft.
Churches, Hospitals, or Schools (sited after 10-1-95)...2,500 ft.
Property Lines (sited before 10-1-96) ................... 100 ft.
Property Lines (sited after i0-1-96) .................... 500 ft.
swine facilities include the confinement houses, feed bins,
lagoon, lagoon dam, etc. Access roads, storm water control
devices, (i.e. grass water ways), irrigation fields, piping, etc.
are not part of the facilities under set -back limitations
according to the engineer's understanding. However the grower
should refer to legal counsel to confirm these opinions.
Based on aerial photographs, on -site observations, and
discussions with Purvis Farm personnel it would appear that the
proposed lagoon and housing site is at least 1,500 feet from
nearby residences and at least 2;500 feet from any church or
school. The site is greater than 100 feet from any property line.
The owner is encouraged to employ a surveyor to verify property
lines, set -backs etc. prior to constructing any portion of the
facilities.
The site is not in a flood plain. It is also greater than 100
feet from any "blue -line" perennial stream according to the USGS
quadrangle map for that area. The USGS maps for this site are
called the Bear Creek and.Goldston quadrangles.'
Based on observation, there are no utilities above or below
ground at this 'immediate site, it is unlikely that the site is
zoned by any municipality because of is remote location.
Wetlands
No wetlands or wetland type vegetation was observed on the site
proposed for construction. Much of the site is old pasture land
and is covered with brush and tall grass.
Odor Control
Due to the remote location of the site, the engineer does not
think odors should be a significant problem for neighbors. When
and if an anaerobic lagoon is fully complete on this site it will
need to be pre -charged to at least 1/2 its'capacity. This can be
done with pond water or well water.
Other Environmental Factors
The engineer has made no effort to evaluate endangered species or
their habitat at this site. However the site does not appear to
represent any unusual characteristics with regards to such.
2

The site in question is mainly old pasture. The engineer has no
knowledge of any scenic, historical, or archaeological
significance to this site.
Potential Waste Management Criteria
There are about 850 acres to the entire farm tract, more or less.
All acreage will be owned by N.G. Purvis Farms, Inc. Much of this
land is scheduled to be planted in pasture or hay fields. While
the engineer has not evaluated the site for waste utilization, he
believes there is sufficient land on which to irrigate the volume
of animal waste to be generated by these facilities somewhere on
the 850 acres.
Soil Investigation Findings
Soil Map Units: CrC - Creedmoor Fine Sandy Loam, 6 to 10 percent
slopes.
CrB - Creedmoor Fine Sandy Loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes.
A soil investigation was performed by the engineer on 8-21-96.
Eight observation pits were installed at several places around
the proposed lagoon site and data was recorded by the engineer. A
summarized log of these bore holes can be seen attached and
contains considerable soil detail. The purpose of these
observation pits was to identify below grade conditions and soil
compositions in and around the proposed lagoon site. The
following is a summary of the findings.
* Pits 1 through 4 had fairly poor clay material and did not
show ideal potential for lagoon construction.. However some of the
soil pits east of the wooded area did contain good plastic type
clays (CL and CH) that would work well for dam and liner
construction. Some soft shale rock was discovered. at deeper
depths but this rock would rip if needed for lagoon depth. The
better clay soils should be stockpiled and used as needed.
* A liner will be needed for this lagoon. The engineer would
suggest a well compacted clay liner about 24 inches thick be
used. The engineer ,believes that sufficient good clay is
available on this site for lining the lagoon.
* The engineer is recommending
core, or' liner construction be
loader and loaded pan.
that any soils used in dam, dam
compacted with a sheeps foot
* The site has some limitations due to shallow depth to
weathered rock. All clay material will need to be stripped off of
the underlying rocky material (WR) and the best clay material
used for dam construction. The marginal materials can be used on
the outer dam face provided it is protected from erosion. The
contractor can also go somewhere else on the farm and import clay
for a liner if needed. Rocky soils can be used for pad
3

construction or simply stored at an off -site location.
* Moderate site slope will require the designer to be careful
when considering dam height. Dam heights should be kept under 15
feet unless a permit is issued by the N.C. Dam Safety engineers.
A NRCS representative was not on -site to observe the soil -
findings during the soil investigation so the project engineer
categorized the soils encountered. The soils information used by
the engineer was classified by using standard NRCS interpretation
or classification.
The engineer does not imply that he is a professional soil
scientist or derived the soil classifications independently of
the NRCS guidelines. Soil classifications given on the attached
sheets are the engineer's opinion based on experience and
training received from NRCS personnel on other similar sites.
Conclusion
Based on the above parameters the engineer believes the site has
potential to be used for a swine operation of the size and scope
described. Soil conditions and set -backs should not prevent
construction. Purvis Farms should employ a surveyor to verify
1500 feet set -backs from residences, churches, etc. before any
construction begins.
This letter does not substitute for a full certified plan that
will need to be developed for the above referenced farm, but it
should be considered a complete site evaluation based on the
preliminary work done. The engineer can not take responsibility
for all information given to him by others or for things not
found obvious on the site. This site evaluation is not a
recommendation to the client for purchasing or "selling a parcel
of property and,is not a recommendation to build or not build
animal confinement housing at,this site. This site evaluation is
only -the first step in a more lengthy process of design and
investigation associated with proper waste management planning
and animal confinement placement.
I am sending the Moore County NRCS a copy of this letter for
their records. Please call if I can answer any questions.
Best
La r m, P.E.
Env onment 1 Engin Bring Se,vii,�+�
cc: Ruth Kirby (NRCS) +++'�(�1 CAROe'�i�
ws\c:\ws\work\engineer\letters\sitevals.ltr S.
0.••.EESSf �iy
r �.� 0,0
SEAL
� : 11602a.

C H A T H A M
�^ Lill
♦ \ A L�
tIRR y
Jjli �O
I, ULL
�' w Glandal
+ siY L ►
J J 1slJn Isar,
m Si1L 4 y an Glendon
LRl! 'liu J .
tut '► ♦3 Coal Spra q, I•
sts 3 .. is Ceti su
I i]! a
J rift h
r It Lai an r
►vM1Wm
LI U
v �
f
.•ed `,'.T sill U w
ss me
Liif
0.
r
W1
Cortory
ill OL � 4
�y
a Lill r
.1
7 '! •41 ' is1R
7J list, • 4y,F ti•
C^►►
Liu
G'
s113 N.0 STASi. I;I
LLI fill 1 1jiA <��7
I 1 V
tlsl �.r v
v r �
liiL ` !te!
MR.
llsi
llli
7 1 y LUL %I
3111h lif! JIM
.!�_, •� i !Y� RIfR
r<:jyl "1
L:! n lIf! i••
WHO LIU <
Rilw
K
~ �•a lE7R
n
Eowwaed h ,
lA Fos ti
S L. V U 171
t 1
�
77
ALL
,. !i'i �.
Approximate
Fairview
Farm
Hew Rrerdf
un
'
il! tulw�7
! �
lui
Site Area #1
& #2
A
"
i
� 1uR J�
1!LL
♦
p�'�e
slit .x 1"A
}
/(
U
HIRII Paul
Liu '
RIVER
Liu
e
u sin y
w G"
e
ME. Lilt
r
{
r cam
HIGH FALLS
d�,v'►
,
ss•tis'
Liu
r
LM
p sus '1
�
p
tus
v Liu
�s�
1
Redsmack
Liu
7,s
NO
t.t }
Priam Hill
1W
4
LE lill
tiu
b
tlfl ~ 5 ft!
i
♦4
, °
O
sil!
~ r.,i tilt
1.7 Uz
'
'e
G
i4
sift
w
lb
+
7
Liu
iiu sot
a ` ++� ~ itu
lu?
{�
a
/,�
7
.t IUp• .'1Of
/
n
_ r ,
. F'Ynlwrn
11 1t1 697 Airport
Iisl L
Mwoa`k +IRa ,
Fax I G VW
- erb'i, tit 14 .ti,
r � RR9R s
� 1F11.J r,�i' '
t ! ]s•]e'
sRss �
1!!l. • Iu[ lL1R .. • C'W
sRRi•
irr
p
�
LIRE
Exhibit 1
Vicinity Map For The Proposed
Fairview Farm Sites #1 & #2
i
i
� LM LILLI Moore County, N.C.
P 1RIL
J
2L G
1171 y 14
7�u
s ! SCALE
=
LLRL y l 0 I ! s a runs
7
V
'e Lull.!
A
1 NYLi
1.6
f�t7'
s.Rf!
SCALE FOR ENLAAGEMENTS
i1
!RJIL
r..
6
sRRl �
W HIyEI
i
Rra" MOORE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
lLU
LIII 1
reerule rf fr4
►�
G+M`Y
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION f
DIVISION Of HIGHWAYS" PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
God`
N ew"""oM W M Urt
111.
U.S•DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Ii eeeL I.F
LLU Drl.rw ,yy
•� t

BEAR CREEK QUADRANGLE COLDSTON QUADRANGLENORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
7.5 M I N UTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
-;I.. Q-9 I
Exhibit 2
USGS Topographic Map Of The Proposed
Fairview Farms Sites #1 & #2 0
Moore County, N.C.
0
;1 4
it If,
0)
r
i CarLont
'HAM C-
6 C)
0
Approxi
mate
J
of Location Site 1
47 41
4 41,
n
17
V '17
."4 11161KI� N1, Approximate
Location Site 2 300
N
lj f
"qq
SCALE 1:24000 •
0 1 MILE
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 -6000 7000 FEET
1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL

�Wl. _•^• )1 �'1�.�.;_ •��''+f.r�,--.• h,•.h�..r`;�/fti�• ^••�� •ram ,-
[!L :1 .�. • �.41 _ : ty -w •i„I'. .. •--' . �T'•;�I: YIt :J" '• , i '. „•:�,
_ l•�IY{i+f
�7•li �- �&if. • - ! � :,f. i�:f-1' lam,' �•i: • �r::r: a.,! M: ,.��jt �,.� / /
Soil Survey Of Moore Cour
N.G. Purvis Farms, Inc.
"Fairview Farms Sites #1
R 1''`y1'•V�..+tJf�� rr *r /��f 'y t
i AJ�
�
J.�,A �.1�1. F1 •_"I�.i'•.'^f/./// 5 y_ S•'.! i�',, i4; 1��� �,ll_� r�•�'•',,,
��� AAA � �i V�'J �'•f :'''
Lt•. }�^ %ill - �� gp >!''f
.�!�h •� •I - ';4.'.:Y-;I!{tf�rl,J'� .1�`;��'rn�i� "•'�'�''��;:�''lJI �.'l�ii �'�'!•;' fd "^�
';fin irC '� . / ... .-�^�!„''• ':4e.
iIJ.A�:•f -!`-:''_f�;a._��.'au'. ''la�Y=:� :� LC'•_,��� ,.::4t�s�'1tl
•RY�� f�•ra����,[-v f� r ``q+ �. �.� �'C •. �. �. �'�j pit /�� � % ���'�.. �
!sr�$�(y , T4 ,,�,�' �1 C �a�tr���ti I�..G� � Li���iy�+c•�i�. 's 0 '•li : '� •.
;_ire I.1 �'�+�•�.�"r�..�_���..�y`�►�.�•T`"`Y�:F_ _���IC� _ r,..l'�'_..i�`.1>��
i �i:.i �i�Fi � =i r' 'S �� '•��j F��'�a��' r'�0.ti.•;,•`�•. �-„'• t Y `� I�:tY�l-�-��;\f%'••r,�.r.
��"I:i�:S�`V .- i1 :� � {':�f••��C1t�r� ��.��.. .'_ ... `�1��`! .� .. j:�"� ::1.7 r-i, '�'_

SOIL INVESTIGATION LOG SHEET FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES
11&1e-
Landowner: VLC County:
Farm Name: F r —S SR#: M
Date Of Soil Investigation: — Z / ` 94
NRCS Employees Involved: Nth / / j =
Principal Soil Evaluator: c,
Planned Land Use: kems ; ��r �u1i h ��x�.v► ��r�uJ,, fv GLJEzc
Equipment For Investigation:�,�eP�
ti 4 Fe"r-e- �vr
1
x\A . .,.a
LOW
Avf 40rucl
Site Sketch

wk ` a)e-g,-/ /�-'r K
Pit
Number
Depth
Range
Material Material
Class Type
Material
Texture
Water I Digging
Found ! Difficulty
Comments
Here
I
I
t
-
�C
.'
e
;C:
' u M 6 1
F ile,
I
C
U i
5e_ L
G
f
CL
'
c
i f
—s
! p¢5•
i
CX
— ZC,
c_
C C
5'
C L
e-l".
-aa 1 C
I
TYPES OF UATERIAL ENCOUNTERED IN ECRINGS
(Use one of systems below) "
UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION
USDA CLASSIFICATION
OW -Well graded gravels; gravel, sand mix
g-gravel
GP - Poorly graded gravels'
s-sand '
GM - Silty gravels; gravel -sand -silt mix
vfs -very fuse sand
GC -Clayey gravels; gravel-saad-clay mix
31-sandy loam
SW -Well graded sands; sand-gr#vel mix
fsI-flue sandy loam - -
SP -Poorly graded sands
1- Ioam
SM -Silty sand
gI -gravelly loam
SC -Clayey sands; sand -clay mixtures -
sl-silt
ML - Slits; silty, v. fine sands; sandy Orclay ey silt
sil - silt loam
CL -Clays of low to medium plasticity ,
cl -clay loam
CH- Inorganic- clays of high plasticity
sicl-silty clay Ioam
MH- Elastic silts
scl- sandy clay loam
OL -Organic silts and silty clays, low plasticity
sic. silty clay
OH -Organic clays, medium to high plasticity
c -clay

;.f
;S
S.iNMAM0O TVINOIIIQQd

P at
EXHIBIT 7
n
3 '
C UNNING14AM, DF.nMQND, PETERSEN & SMITH, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
zzs NORTII BENNETT STREET
SOUTHPRN PINP5, NORTH CAR01INA 28381
ijwt.11'( T. C UNNINC-0 1AM, JR,
MAII INI : AI )1 MOS
1(11.1 IAKV t. UtI.IMUNU
- P. (). ROX 146$
ANN C. PMRSEN (w I1Q !rw' 11IM11
[i 11;Tl fiRN YINt$, Nl. 28388
MARSfI SMIIH January 22, 1997
1 X NO. (910) 69S4M3
VIA FAX
Ruth Kirby
Moore County MRCS Office
1-910-947--3686
RE: Public Records and FOIA Request for Information
on the Fairway Farms Site Near Carbonton,'
Dear Ruth:
Pursuant to my previous FOIA and Public Records reques,k:G you have
provided me with the following documents:
1. Two (2) site evaluations for the Fairway (aka, Fairview)
Farms site near Carbonton; :..,
2. A three (3) page 30 December 1996 letter from Lax:ry Graham
to the Division of Water Quality's (DWQ) Compliance. "Group in
Raleigh; and
3. A three (3) page Animal Waste Management Plan Cer�-.i,fication
executed on 30 December 1996.
The above setter referred to "design information" sent,.t-o "the
local NRCS" but not sent to DWQ. Other than the docum:-nts'listed
above, do you have any design information for the Fair -,way Farms
site?
Sincerely,
At-
arVsh Sm th
,.
Stephen 5chmidly, Esq.
'r
Ed Buchan, DWQ
DWQ -'- Compliance Group

EXHIBIT 9
STATE OF NORTH C.AROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE_
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF MONTGOINIERY 9S-CVS-0517
STATE OF FORTH CAROLINA, ex rel., }
MIICHAEL F. EASLEY, Attorney General, and ex rel., )
JONATH.AIN B. HOWES, Secretary )
North Carolina Department or Environment, Health ) ELA2. L- g 9 PRE RY
and Natural Resources, } P,urN-f"R0 Ny B$j F �R
Plaintiff, )
J.r
V. )
^ 4
N.G. P RV'IS FAKNIS, L1 C. ) -
)
Defendant )
Mns •
N. G. Purvis Farms, Inc. ("Purvis") owns and operates Riverside Farm. a swine operation near
the community of Mount Gilead, in Montgomery County. The farm consists of an animal feeding
operation and an "animal waste management system."' The animal waste management system
consists of four lagoons, where hog waste is stored and adjacent £gilds w:.ere the waste is to be
sprayed as fertfizer. (gym I� nL, $27, 1135.) Riverside Farm shares its spray fie?d with the Little River
Farm Purvis' adjoining operation, (Cam l=i,1, 46.) Since Riverside Fann was an on -going swine
operation on February 1, 1993, it was "deemed permitted" upon registration ,;ith the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources ("DEHNR"). ( laint, Ir14. 31.) Purtiis was later
` "Animal waste management system" is defined at 15ANCAC 2H.C=43(3) to mean "a
combination of struc:aral and non-strucnual practices which will proper;v c-cilect, treat, store or
arply animal waste to the land such that no discharge of pollutants occurs tc surface waters of the
state by any means except as a result of a storm more severe than the 25-ye_.r, _4-hcur s.orn."
Copies of the North Carolina Administrative Code ("NCAC") pro;isiors reference.- in this brief
are attached as Exjbits "Am and "B" to the Verified Complaint.

required, pursuant to 1:A NCAC 2H .0217(a)(1)(D), to obtain an approved animal waste
management plan' because it was determined that its existing animal waste management system,had
an adverse impact on water quality because of hog waste spill and resulting fish kill which occurred
in June 1994. (Complaint, 132,33.) This approved animal waste management plan was required to
set forth operational and maintenance standards and specifications in effect on the date of plan
approval. (fgmpjpj=, ` 33.) The plan had to be certified by a technical specialist approved by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service ("NNRCS")(formerly known as the Soil Conservation
Service). The technical specialist must certify that the best management practices which comprise
the plan meet the applicable minimum standards and specifications. This certification must be
submitted to DEHti1R. Purvis filed an animal waste management plan certincation for an existing
feedlot with DEHNR on October 27, 1994. (f c�, 4,r)4.) On the basis of this filing, Purvis was
considered asain to be "deemed permitted."
On July 20, 1995, DE NTR inspectors visited Riverside Farm and requested to see a copy of
the animal caste management plan for which the certification had been filed with the State.
(Complaint !PS, 40.) Purvis' on site manager was unable to produce the plan, a copy of which was
required to be kept by the operator at the Farm. {Camplt 1j36, 40.) Further checking by the
DEHNR personnel led to the admission by David Purvis, the president of Purvis, that an animal waste
management plan had not, in fact, ever been developed for the site. (Cam ljaint,142.) Because no
plan had been developed for the site, Riverside Farm did not regain its "deemed permitted" status
"Approved animal waste management plan" is defined at 15 A NCAC 2H .0203(4) to mean
"a plan to properly collet:. store, treat or apply animal waste to the land in an en%ironmentally
sue manner and approved according tc the procedures established in 1 5A NCAC 2H

and its continued operation without a permit is prohibited by G.S. § 1.13-215.1 and 15A .NCAC 2H
0217. (Complai , 1,44, 45.) On September 20, 1995, the State filed this action seeking a
preliminary injunction against the continued illegal operation of the facility.
On September 27, 1995, a DEHNR inspector t'aveling over Dison's Creek observed that the
creek was black in color. (A$datiit of Kenneth L. Averire,13.)' Upon investigation, the inspector
determined that the discoloration was, in fact, animal waste from Riverside Farm that was entering
the creek (Averitte Affidavit,15.) The inspector observed that sludge from one of the waste lagoons
had been dumped on a hillside near the lagoon. (Averir:e Affida-,it, 1j5.) Prior to the dumping of the
sludge on the hillside, it appeared that all vegetation had been removed Loin the slope. (Averitte
Affidavit, 15.) The farm manager indicated to the inspector that it had rained the previous evening.
(Averitte Affidavit, !j5.) Whinthe pecto car rrtaet Daysd Pur►zs that evening, Mr. Purvis
adrrutted that Purvis was responsible for t ie_ _waste entering the creek: (Avenge Affidavit, 118.)
Based on the September 27, 1995 inspection, the State was granted a Temporary Restraining
Order on September 28, 1995 requL-ing Purvis to halt &.e land application at the site, to submit a
mitigation plan to the State within 24 hours, to implement the mitigation plan upon approval and to
submit a certified animal waste management plan to DET-NR within ten days. On September 29,
1995, the Fayetteville Regional Office received a Ietter from Purvis seeing forth its mitigation plan.
(Supplemental affidavit of Kenneth L. Averitte, Exhibit A.)` While the plan called for incorporation
of the waste into the soil, it lasted no emergency measures to keep the disturbed soil and waste
' .AEda�it of Kenneth L. Averire filed on Septembe. 2S, 1995 in support of the State's
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, hereinafter, " verine :A.5dw-it."
` Supplemental Affidavit of Ke,. eth L. Averire filed on O�.ober 6, 1995. Here:na=ter.
"Supplemental A lidasit."

4-
mbcture out of Dison's Creek A few hours after the mitigation plan was received, a respcnse from
the Fayetteville Regional Office was sent by facsimile to jir. Jerry Purvis who had signed the
mitigation plan. The response stated that further site preparation needed to be done to prepare the
site for planting and that "installation of effective erosion control measures will be required to
minimize the threat of se invent and sludge runoff to surface waters." (Supplemental Affida,,it,
Exhroit B.) Despite the Order of the Court and the response from the Favetteville Regianal.Ofce,
ds Purvis- did.. , T resulted to further dishgeto r ....._. , , Y,.not install ade,w uate-measures which then ., ., . .. .. ._ .c..._.-ars .. , .__.the.Creek
.... - ..,
(Supplemental AfEdavit,';8, 9 and Exhibit C.)
On September ?9, 1994, DEHti'R in Raleigh received a dccument entitled 'Nutrient
?liana -ement Plan for N. G. Purvis Farms, Inc." (davit of Dennis R. R.:.msey, �.}' This Nutrient
N anaeement Plan was Uk-ev►ise submitted to the Montgomery County office of the National Resource
Conservation Service. (.davit of Hubert Jerome Pate, Jr., 1,3.)6 «'bile this document may be a
proper starting point for 4-ie design of a total solid waste management Flan (Pate Affidavi-z 15.), it
is not an animal waste management plan within the meaning of the 1= A NCAC 2H .O_OO riles.
(Rmnsey Affidavit, 54.) Furherrnore, the certification for an animal waste management pla-n has not
been submitted or receiver by DES-. (Ramsey ?davit, jj 4.) Therefore, Purvis' operation at the
Riverside Fam does not have a cerdned animal waste management plan (Ramsey .Affida%it, `C), and
the operation remains unFzrrtvtted.
: Edas:: ofDennis R Ramsey file^ on October 6, 1995. Hereine...r,
' Affi;:a,,it of H_ber, :.-tome Pate, ;r. 51ed October 6, 199.. Herein_=ter "Pate :�=.d_•.it."

-5-
L THE STATE IS ENTITLED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ENJOEYrqG PURVIS'
CONMTUED OPERATION IN VIOLATION OF NORTH CAROLINA'S
EYVIROY.DIENTAL LAWS AND ADhM'I.STRAM-E RULES.
Due to its false cation!!La wm was opwith. ,an apprcvedand�certified
animal waste_ managemeri�-pia and its disregard for proper land application�practices; _Purvis Was,
p � ,J tall unneces� release of hog res waste into the Dison's Creek. onstblc for ati illeg al and to
Presently, Riverside Farm is refilling its lagoons with hog waste without an approved and certified
waste managernert plan, and without reducing the number of hogs producing waste at the farm. In
fact, since July of 1995, it appears that the population at Riverside Farm has -"nacreased from below
3000 to 4300. (Cann faint, Exhibit K; Supplemental Affidavit, 3.} In sum, ?urvis is operating its
---� hog farm with total disdain for North Carolina's environmental statutes and ac_-ni:nistrative rules - i
condition that is defrimeritalit�fit a pu4L Te , safety a d welfare:
The General Assembly has provided that the citizens of North CaroIL-ia have an in^.mediate
remedy to correct such an intolerable situation. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.6C authcrzes the State
to sue for injunctive relief to restrain violation or threatened ,iolation of any provision of North
Carolina's x-ater and air resources statutes, administrative rule or conci.ions of a violatoes
environmental permits. The statute mandates that "[u]pon a determination by the court that the
alleged violation ... has occurred or is threatened, the court shall grant tte relief necessary to
prevent or abate the violation or threatened -violation." (emphasis added). N. C. Gen. Stat.
Cf. Stanley v. Department of Conservation and Development, 284 \.C. 1-, 36-37, I99
S.E.?d 6411, 655 (1973) (constitutionality of bonds to finance pollution, abate:,:ent equipment
upheld; the Court notes that "[bjevond any doubt air and water polluticn ha,: e become n-v•o of
modern secie.,�s most urgent problems ... [and] abatement and control of e :,-ironsrental
pollution are i.-n.mediately necessary to the public health, sa,°e }, and general •-ve!fare").

MI
§ 143-215.6C. Further, N. C. Gen. Stat. § 1-435 provides that a court may issue a preliminary
injunction upon a finding that plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested and the relief requested
consists, at least in part, of injunctive relief.
Although private litigants must meet two requirements to obtain a preliminary injunction
(likelihood of success on the merits and either irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is not
issued or the necessity to protect his rights during the course of the action),' the test is different when
the State brings an action to vindicate the public interest pursuant to a statute which provides for
injunctive relief to abate violations of law. In such actions, the State is not required to show actual
injury has resulted. Rather, it must show only that the violative acts or practices adversely affect the
public interest. State ex rel. E bnisten v Challenge, Inc., 54 N.C. App. 513, 521-22, 284 S.E.2d 333,
339 (198I)-Morgm; Attorney General v L Zre To Be Great, 15 N.C. App. 275, 276-77, 139 S.E.2d
802, 804 (1972). The Court of Appeals noted in Challenge, Inc. that this rule is in accord with the
law in other jurisdictions: "Many other jurisdictions have held that where an injunction is authorized
by a statute designed to provide a government agent with the means to enforce public policy, the
usual grounds for relief need not be established as lcng as the statutory conditions exist." Challenge,
Inc., 54 N.C. App. at 522, 284 S.E.2d at 339. i,ioreover, this test dovetails with the mandatory
language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.6C that the Court must enjoin violation or threatened violation
of State en-,ironmental pollution laws. Thus, the Sate is entitled to injunctive relief enjoining Purvis
from ccn&,uing to operate its hog farm in violation of the environmental laws of North Carolina upon
a.E.P. Indusmies v. McClure, 308 N.C. 393, 401, 302 S.E.2d 754, 759-60 (1983);
Kcplan v, ProlVe Action League, 111 N.C. App. 1, 15-I6, 431 S.E.2d 828, 835, appeal
dismissed. 335 N.C. 175, 436 S.E.2d 379 (1993). cert. denied, _U.S. —, 1I4 S. Ct. 27S3,
129 L. Ec, 2d 894 (1994).

-7-
a showing that Riverside Farm's hog waste lagoon and spray fields are not being operated or
maintained in compliance with an approved and certified waste :management plan as required by law.
That the Riverside Farm is being operated in violation of the law is clear. Unquestionably,
Purvis cannot lawfully maintain its hog waste lagoon and discharge waste on its fields without a
permit. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1(a). Purvis recognized this indisputable fact by following the
administrative procedure to regain its "deemed permitted" starus, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0217.
Purvis did�this by falsely certifying that it had an appioved and �ertined animal waste management If Purvis had operated its hog fare in accordance with a cer,15ed animal waste management
plan Riverside Farms' operation would be lawful. However, its failure to obtain a plan after
adversely affecting to the waters of Dison's Creek through a discharge in June I994, means Purvis
is not deemed permitted and is subject it to enforcement action by the State. 15A NCAC 2H.0217(d)
and (0.
YAs the facts 4nvincingty acme onstrat� Purvis cannot b to actin spbnsible inaiinei
protect.tlie public health safe' and welfare;' Jh November 1993, DEIIN-R found animal waste
overtopping the rim of the recirculation lagoon at Riverside Farm, resulting in hog waste entering
Dison's Creek. In June 1994, a discharge from.a recirculation pump resulted in a fish kill in the
waters leading to Dison's Creek. Purvis' response to the fish kill should have been to prepare and
implement a certified animal waste management plan to prevent further environmental impact. This
is what the Iaw required. Instead, Purvis callously responded with a false certification that an animal
waste management plan had been obtained and would be foIIowed. in fact, this plan was never
prepared or implementedwwhich set the stage for future viola- cns by P r%,is.
The agreement which David Pur is signed as tan of vs :e^.ircation form provided:

-8-
I (we) understand the operation and maintenance procedures established in the
approve anirnal waste management plan for the farm named above and will implement
these procedures. I (we) know that any additional expansion to the eadsvng design
capacity of the waste treatment and storage system or construction of new facilities
will require a new certification to be submitted to the Division of Environmental
Management before the new animals are stocked.(we) also Wld=and that there
Must be no disc aMC of Animal waste from this systcm.Ig urface waters of the state
either through a man -:Wade con tyance orthroughrunoff from a storm event less
that '1-v '74- . The approved plan will be filed at the farm?
and at the o$'ice of the local Sctl and Water Conservation District. (Emphasis added.)
4Darid Purvis' false certification is directly responsible for the recent chain of events which
resulted in Dison's Creek once again ruruting black with hog waste. The non-existent plan was to
contain an adequate spray irrigation nerd, buffer zones near waterways and roads, a schedule for
applications ofv me and rates of appucation. In the absence of the plan, Purvis lard bare the slopes
around the lag -cons and dumped the w-,ste in piles on the barren earth , a practice which would never
have been part of an approved plan. Nothing prevented the rain from carrying the waste into Dison's
Creek Yet David Purvis had cenined that he "understood that there must be no discharge of animal
waste from [&,e Rive. -side Farm] system to surface waters of the state ... through runoff frcm a
storm event less severe than the 23-year, 34-hour storm."
The State is aware that Purvis has begun the process of obtaining an approved animal waste
management Flan by submitting a nutrient management plan to the Montgomery County Soil and
Water Consenation District and the S•=e. Ibis plan, however, is blatantly inadequate if it is intended
to be a animal waste management plan a_s even a cursory reading of the rules and the a—davas
presented by State demonstrate.
True to Purvis' pas disregard fr the public interest in its pursuit of its own self-interest,
? �'r +�•, 36, Exhibit I.

Purvis ccntiaues operation of the Riverside Farm without an approved waste management plan,
including having e4q ate land available and properiy prepared to handle land application of the waste
from the lagoons, in la&r= violation of the law. Ag the N.C. Gen. Star_ § 143.215.6C provides, the
Court must enjoin Riverside Farms' aontin ag violations of North Caroliaa's environmental laws and
administrative rules, azd proof ofin eparable harm is not ra=sasy to obtain such relief State er rel.
F.dmisten v. Challenge, Inc. and Morgan, A torney General Y. Dare To Be Great,. supra, p. 8-9.
Evert if the State was required to demcns=e irreparable harm or the necessity to protect the
public's rights during the purse of the lion, as private litigants must. (see A.F.P. lndusrries and
Kcplm, miFz:, p. S n- 9), the evidence supports such a showing. By contiming to operate without
r a plan, Purvis is operating under cxrcumstancxa which are even worse than those that existed when
the fast two documeuted discharges into Dison's Creels occurnd. Now the bare slopes with hog
waste and no saver crop are poised over the waters leading to Dison's Creek..114 exnergeacy,
to u>stalied m z�sporesa #c tli� I'ei'nparary`.Riiur�gOrder have failed coniplefeIy, No plans
bar been submitted by the engineer supposedly hired by Purvis to design measures to protect the
water leading to Discrfs Creels No measures to alleviate the effect of the wr_ste already in the stream
have been proposes as required by the Temporary Restraining Order and as promised would be
forthcoming in Purvis' mitigation plan dated September 29, I995.1' No approved waste management
plan is in places �Tha company tiratt li to ilte 5tate"'"a5-oat the acsteace of a plan to protect the
iALW.;i-j.::_f x:.Y..[.._:r.�....__•__•_•... _.
�..�.-.1."�R.w,.sr �++''�+r^r l�wywar. -i. w.r^r.�+'wy.�w.•:.w.'^
= tnvtronrr a and 5 intent to aft e y suc :a cotltssiues to .do business as usual:
Th re a si c' ear ne"rty topmtxt e:public interest during the course of this action by
�enjoirb" P "operation of Riverside Fug &'In apat_ dczregara for the WWc' Moreover, the public
:o Temporary Re,,-tra'using.Order, IF:(c); Supplemental Affidavit, F.actioit A, item S.

5 in
-1�1wt11 be irreP Y continued operation results in �oundwaterycontamu=on or:
arabl , harmed if Purvis' co...... .
continued surface water due to its random application of hog waste from the lagoon to the slopes
around them without any idea of the proper application rates or methods. Urttess the CaurtJ=`
7 � •—r..-°�-i+� +v .- � e�.;_._....-•-fit•. .. .e...+..,-;,*�. �..w.r••••sr�-Y�
uitercedes to forcz Purvis foirtiiiue its �lea1 hog fariiutig acrivines_, the stage will lie set for this
7io—Hy hisiary fo iepeafl-6- ."I
IL THE STATE IS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER REQUIU G RIVERSIDE
FAP:NIS TO ABATE THE PUBLIC N. T-ISAINCE TH.-tT PRESENTLY EXISTS
ON ITS PROPERTY.
In addition to the starutory remedy, &.e State" has a came, on law remedy== entitling it to
abate the public nuisance resulting from Pur✓is' hog farming operations in violation of North
Carolina's environmental laws and administrative rules. The North Carolina Supreme Court has
defined common law public nuisance to be "Ew3hatever tends to endanger life, or generate disease,
and affect the health of the community; whatever shocks the public morals and sense of decency;
whatever shocks the religious feelings of the co=uniry, or tends to its discomfort." State ex rel.
Rhodes v. Simpson, 325 N.C. =14, 519, 385 S.E.2d 329, 332 (1989), caing Sxte v. Everhardr, 203
N.C. 610, 618, 166 S.E. 738,742 (1932); see also Twiny v. State, 85 N.C. App. 4-1, 49, 354 S.E.2d
:: The Attorney General has the common laws power to sue on behalf of the citizenry of
the State to abate public nuisances. N.C. Oren. Stat. §§ 4-1 and 114-1.1. See.A*Lean Y.
Townsend, 227 N.C. 642, 643, 44 S.E.2d 36, 36-37 (1947) (the Attorney General is the
appropriate State official to bring public nuisance actions); Rufus L. Edmisten, "The Common
Law Powers of the Attorney General of North Carolina", 9 N. C. Central Law J. 1, 29-3 0 (1977).
'` N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-539 provides that public nuisance actions may be brought for
damages, injunctive relief or both. This statute superseded the ancient Art of nuisance which has
been replaced by more modern forms of pleading :.n a unitary civil action. Barrier v. Troutman,
231 N.C. 47, 55 S.E.2d 923 (1,949). However, common law causes of action for nuisance remain
in effect. Biadix v. Herredon Furniture Industries, Inc., 76 N.C. App. 30, 331 S.E.2d 717
(1985) (Nor►h Carolina Clean Water Act does nct abrogate cc=on ;aK nuisance actions).

-11-
296, 301, disc. rev. denier, 3=0 N.C. 177, 358 S.E. 69 (1987) (same). The Restatement of Torts
defines public nuisance as "an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public,"
Restatement (Second) of Torts, at § 82113 (1979), citing as examples when a defendant's conduct
involves significant interference- with public health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience and when
his conduct is prohibited by statute, ordinance, or administrative regulation. Id at § 82IB(2).
Public nuisance results in strict liability since it depends simply on the existence of the
condition to be abated and not on fault." The balancing of equities that takes place in private
nuisance actions does not occur in the public nuisance serting. Nor is the State required to show
i,. eparable harm or lack of an adequate remedy at law, but, instead, oriv the existence of the
c;:ending condition which must be abated. See Common►vealth v. Barnes and Tucker Co., 3I9 A.2d
871 (Pa. 1974); Village of Wilsonville v. SCA SerWces; Inc., 426 N.E.2d 8=4 (Ill. 1981); Georgia
ti. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U.S. 230, 237,27 S.Ct. 613, 619, 51 L. Ed. 1038, 1044 (1907) (state
may insist on abatement of nuisance rather than money damages). Where there are violations of
statutory environmental laws or regulations, the infracµons are generally considered to be abatable
u See Cities Service Company v. State, 312 So?d 799 (Fla. App. 1975) (strict liability
applied in lagoon spill case); New York Y. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1051 (2nd Mr.
1985) (site owner held responsible for maintenance of public nuisance irrespective of negligence
or fault); State Department of Ern ronmental Protection v Yentron Corp., 468 A?d 150, 157
(N.J. 1983) (expressly recogni2ing imposition of strict liability for toxic waste pollution under
common law nuisance); Commonwealth v Barnes and Tucker Co., 319 A2d 871, 883 (Pa. 1974)
("absence of facts supporting concepts of negligence, fcreseeabiEty or unlawful conduct is not in
the least fatal to a finding of the existence of common law public nuisance"), on remand, 353
A.2d 471 (Pa. Commw. 1976), qffrmed, 371 A2d 461 (Pa. 1977), appeal dismissed, 434 U.S.
807, 98 S.Ct. 38, 54 L. Ed. 2d 65 (1977); Branch v. Western Petroleum, Inc., 657 P.2d 267, 274
(Utah 1932) (nuisance "not centrally concerned with the nature of the conduct causing the
daunage, but with the nature and relative importance of ,he interests interfered with or invaded");
S,—. to Y. Schenectady Chemicals, Inc., 459 N.Y.S.2d 971, 976 (N.Y. Sup. 1983) (not necessary in
public nuisance action to show negligence); Wood v. Pic:Ilo, 443 A2d 1244, 1249 (RI. 1982)
(n42!igence is not an element of a ruis=ce case).
a

_12_
as nuisances; per se. See Raz=ement (Seco 4 of Torts, § 821B(2)(b); Branch V. Wesern Petrolewn,
Inc., 657 P.2d 267, 276 (Utah 198_) (stan:tory water pollution violation as nuisance per se)."
:Without doubt, Purvis' current - ope=on of its Riverside Farm in total violation of State
enwonine WI0Vs awn ZfiiREii- ti�e rules 66-n,s rotes a pubfc nuisance Per se which must be abated
until Riverside Farms fully complies with 4he law. As the evidence amply demonst. motes, there is no
approved waste management plan to minimize damage to the waters of thq state: The present
onclition of Piversi3ee Farms is so intolerable that it must a abatedTas a public nos ce
CON•CLUSTON
The Court should enter a =dator: preliminary injunction ordering Riverside Farms to cease
operating its hog farm until it fully demonsuates that it can comply with the eaviron;nental laws and
administrative rules applicable to its hog fanning operation. Specifically, the State requests an
injunction be entered prodding that opera:ions oMverside Farm be discontinued until a complete
certified waste ma.nage.•nent plan is submired and its preliminary implemention is confirmed by the
State. Additionally, Purvis should be required to submit and implement engineering plans for
measures designed to keep contamination from reaching the tributaries of Dison's C. eek which run
through Riverside Farm Fina.I' y, Riverside should be required to assess and correct tte groundwater
and surface water impacts from its current and past operations.
14 When propeny operated a hog fa.-ming operation is not a nuisanceper se. See, e.g.,
Mocay v. DmayPQck:ng Co., 7 N.C. Ap7. 463, 172 S.E.2d 905 (1970).

'this is the 6 day of October, 1995.
-13-
1IICHAEL F. EASLEY
Attorney General
PhMp A. Telfer '
Special Depury Attorney General
udith Robb Bullock
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
Post, Office Box 629
Raieigli, North Carolina 27602
Telephone: [phone]

CERTMCATE!QE SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing PLADI'I'IF'FS'
PRELIl1 (NARY INJUNCTION BRIEF, upon counsel for the defendant by hand delivery to the
following address:
P. Wayne Robbins, Esquire
Brown and Robbins
Post Office Box 370
Pinehurst, North Carolina 28374
This is the 6 day of October, 1995.
Judith Robb Bullock
Assistant Attorney General
=r

EXHIBIT 8
P 02
01/23/97 11:17
UN=A 3TA, TES
DEN RTMEAT Ui'
AGRICULTURE
Notaml
Resources
Consermdon
,Sankt
e9 10 947 9B80
January 23, 1997
muure mko)
P,Q, Boar 908 Mr. Marsh Smith
707PInthurst Cunningham, Desmond, Peterson and smith, L: i. P.
Ave.
P.O. $OX 1460
canhase,IVV
Southern Pines, NC 28388
28327
Dear Marsh,
Phone:
[phone]
In your letter dated January 22, 1997 -yogi asked
if I had received any information other thaT,"I.tems
listed below or "design information", This.."design
information" was referred to in a letter sett to the
Division of Water Quality on December 30, InQ6 along
with the Animal Waste Management Plan Certific—ation.
1. TWO site evaluations for Fairway (alA
Fairview) l
2. Three page letter from Larry Graham,."to DWQ
dated December 30, 1996;
3. Three page Animal Waste Management N-an
Certification dated December 30, 19S)6.
I have looked through our files on the,:;P11rvis
operation and I can find no other documents.`�nr_
design information. The documents listed a))ove are
all I have on the Fairway operation.
Sincerely,
W
Ruth Kirby �/
District Conservationist
Q 001

EXHIBIT 3
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
Water • Wastewater - Sludge - Agricultural • Industrial - Civil
September 25, 1996
N.G. Purvis Farms, Inc.
2504 Spies Road
Robbins, N.C. 27325-7213
Attn: Melvin Purvis
Re: Site Evaluation for the placement of swine confinement
housing and an anaerobic lagoon at the N.G. Purvis property near
Carbonton, North Carolina. Moore and Chatham Counties. Farm
designation is the "Fairview Farm, Site 2 Location".
Dear Mr. Purvis,
On August 21, 1996 1 visited the above referenced site to
evaluate the parcel's potential for the correct and legal
placement of swine production facilities. This type of activity
is called a "Siting Evaluation". Please find below a brief
account of my evaluation of this site based on my visits and
research.
Pro osed operations
N.G. Purvis Farms, Inc. is proposing to build a farrow -to -wean
farm on a portion of a larger farm in the Northeast corner of
Moore County.
The engineer -has discussed the plans with the Purvis Farms
personnel in order to obtain some preliminary values with regards
to lagoon sizing, etc.
Two confinement houses containing 2,600 sows each would bring the
total sows on this particular site to 5,200 head. The engineer
has estimated a full to overflow volume for the lagoon using a. 5
year sludge storage to be approximately 24.2 million gallons.
This was done using the current NRCS standards. The engineer has
not considered future changes to the guidelines in this design.
These values are for reference only. Final sizes and volumes will
depend on the site characteristics, etc. The engineer has assumed
a single stage lagoon for the above figures, but a two stage
lagoon system could also be used.
Location Information
The farm parcel is located off of SR# 1621 just at the Moore
County and Chatham County Border. Attached is a vicinity map and
USGS topographic map of the proposed site.
According to the•.0200 regulations, General Statue 106 (Senate
Bill 1080), and Senate Bill 1217 all new swine facilities shall
be located so they are equal to or exceed a minimum distance from
neighboring structures. These set -backs are as follows:
SEP 2-6 1
5647 N.C. HIGHWAY 211, WEST END, N.C. 27376-9001 - PHONE .[phone] - FAX [phone]

Residences (sited after 10-1-95) ...................... 1,500 ft.
Churches, Hospitals, or Schools (sited after 10-1-95)... 2,500 ft.
Property Lines (sited before 10-1-96) 100 ft.
Property Lines (sited after 10-1-96) .................... 500 ft.
Swine facilities include the confinement houses, feed bins,
lagoon, lagoon dam, etc. Access roads, storm water control
devices, (i.e. grass water ways), irrigation fields, piping, etc.
are not part of the facilities under set -back limitations
according to the engineer's understanding. However the grower
should refer to legal counsel to confirm these opinions.
Based on aerial photographs, on -site observations, and
discussions with Purvis Farm personnel it would appear that the
proposed lagoon and housing site is at least 1,500 'feet from
nearby. residences and at least 2,500 feet from any church or
school. The site is greater than 100 feet from any property line.
The owner is encouraged to employ a surveyor to verify property
lines, set -backs etc. prior to constructing any portion of the
facilities.
The site is not in a flood plain. It is also greater than 100
feet from any "blue -line" perennial stream according to the USGS
quadrangle map for that area. The USGS maps for this site are
called the Bear Creek and Goldston quadrangles.
Based on observation, there are no utilities above or below
ground at this -immediate site. It is unlikely that the site is
zoned by'any municipality because of is remote location.
Wetlands
No wetlands or wetland type vegetation was observed on the site
proposed for construction. Much of the site is old pasture land
and is covered with brush and tall grass.
Odor Control
Due to the remote location of the site, the engineer does not
think odors should be a significant problem for neighbors. When
and if an anaerobic 'lagoon is fully complete on this site it will
need to be pre -charged to at least 1/2 its capacity. This can be
done with pond water or well water.
other Environmental Factors
The engineer has made no effort to evaluate endangered species or
their habitat at this site. However the site does not appear to
represent any unusual characteristics with regards to such.

The site in question is mainly old pasture. The engineer has: no
knowledge of any scenic, historical, or archaeological.
significance to this site.
Potential Waste Management Ckiteria
There are about 850 acres to the entire farm tract, more or less.
All acreage will be owned by N.G. Purvis Farms, Inc. Much of this
land is scheduled to be planted in pasture or hay fields. While
the engineer has not evaluated the site for waste utilization, he
believes there is sufficient land on which to irrigate the volume
of animal waste to be generated by these facilities somewhere on
the 850 acres.
Soil Investigation Findings
Soil Map Units: IrB - Iredell Clay Loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes.
CrB - Creedmoor Fine Sandy Loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes.
A soil investigation was performed by the engineer on 8-21-96.
Five observation pits were installed at several places around the
proposed lagoon site and data was recorded by the engineer. A
summarized log of these bore holes can be seen attached and
contains considerable soil detail. The purpose of these
observation pits was to identify below grade conditions and soil
compositions in and around the proposed lagoon .site. The
following is a summary of the findings.
* Most of the soil pits did contain fair clays (CL) that would
work well for dam and liner construction. However this clay
material was usually found in the upper 4 feet. Some soft shale
rock was discovered at deeper depths but this rock would rip if
needed for lagoon depth. The better clay soils should be
stockpiled and used as needed.,
* A liner will be needed for this lagoon. The engineer would
suggest a well compacted clay liner about 24 inches thick be
used. The engineer believes that sufficient good clay is
available on this site for lining the lagoon.
* The engineer is recommending
core, or liner construction be
loader and loaded pan.
that any soils used in dam, dam
compacted with a sheeps foot
* The site has some limitations due to shallow depth to
weathered rock. All clay material will need to be stripped off of
the underlying rocky material MR) and the best clay material
used for dam construction. The marginal materials can be used on
the outer dam face provided it is protected from erosion. 'The
contractor can also go somewhere else on the farm and import clay
for a liner if needed. Rocky soils can be used for pad
construction or simply stored at an off -site location.
3

* Moderate site slope will require the designer to be careful
when considering dam height. Dam heights should be kept under 15
feet unless a permit is issued by the N.C. Dam Safety engineers.
A NRCS representative was not on -site to observe the soil S „
findings during the soil investigation so the project engineer '�La
categorized the soils encountered. The soils information used by
the engineer was classified by using standard NRCS interpretation
or classification.
The engineer does not imply that he is a professional 'soil
scientist or derived the soil classifications independently of
the NRCS guidelines. Soil classifications given on the attached
sheets are the engineer's opinion based on experlience and
training received from MRCS personnel on other similar sites.
Conclusion
Based on the above parameters the engineer relieves the site has
potential to be used for a swine operation of the size and scope
described. Soil conditions and set -backs should not prevent
construction. Purvis Farms should employ a surveyor to verify
1500 feet set -backs from residences, churches, etc. before any
construction begins.
This letter does not substitute for a full certified plan that
will need to be developed for the above referenced farm, but it
should be considered a complete site evaluation based on the
preliminary work done.>The engineer can not take responsibility
for all information given to him by others or for things. not
found obvious on the site. This site evaluation is not a
recommendation to the client for purchasing or selling A parcel
of property and is not a recommendation to build or not build
animal confinement housing at this site. This site evaluation is
only the first step in a more lengthy process of design and
investigation associated with proper waste management planning
and animal confinement placement.
I am sending the Moore County NRCS a copy of this letter for
their records. Please call if I• can answer any questions.
Best JR6gdzlis
Lar y
E ' onme 1 Engin ring Services
cc; Ruth Kirby (NRCS)
ws\c o \ws\work\engineer\ letters\sitevals. ltr �4% 1-\SL AROe/'�'•,
iso.��o��ssl���fS
SEAL
" 11602
N ��?M

C.'HATHAM' I. C 0 U N T Y
�,• 711Ai� ; 't i.l 1jJ*
L� a ';°' .I, Approximate Fairview Farm
� L111.J! I
How $randy
.A Liu
Site Area #1 & #2 ti
ryyF LaIII ]ilr< Li7E GMg
Lai h LU
Liu / llll
+ •a C&W Sprinps I
LllL Os L. Lill
ill !ia 1
IS �
♦� i G
Liz � T li]! 1il4 T •* 11mi
/ NW4A '�� ll2l M1 Liu
Lin * }
ti •• .7 ♦ 1171
LQtl1 Lill HIGH FALLS
ISU '
.\
sins• .
- fill �r 14S'1 � Liu
e 7� J �GN4
~ ull Llil 1,1
:orrery R � ♦1 v
}LL 0. - 4 ' Lilt 1i21 /
.� Lill v Lill NOW ILK ]�
�o
w LW O' llil ,l
q sol
+� ail ` ti• I.t o 1tlL tilt Frinf HIq
LJaT }.. C OI. fill r
G .. ♦p sr . 1K3 O
�i UU imtP Jill +-7 LM G
10
fill � LW
,alb :. UU Ilk" ^ /
+� CHAT GE Sola 111n .1419 Lz ��
y C� rO/.7L �yil� A I... LU L
UU K STATE.- ,=yi:" 's{e. 'i6. ^ s •R .�'"' ^ ,0 � L111 L�p
Lm
roflEsr Y i 1 nr r soi r ; , _ lulNo
ass !Sr `A P t141 , Y IAA 1.4i <. > 77•]0
a !J ! liu 1114 s
f a , . Lsli LJSI ` Cq _
Irw 11li tit N ,4
.� llssl `� n 4 u uAi } >}
LUL 0. Exhibit 1
Jir ` JIlL Nma«I Vicinity Map For The Proposed
L t au y ` Fairview Farm Sites 01 & #2
171L 4 ilil * r.l yLmi I�
,�� UU Moore County, N.C.
�rn � t M JEaI. usl y r.t llll -
�
'., h ,1111 17JL
- !� / ' ' h• V Dili` l� �q � uu
IF,v t14
:J lIi
a
. • + �+ - �..•
L1rry l3i3 117i "�� T2 1� ]11L .7 +`7r.7 1S7I SCALE FOR ENLARGEMENTS
L41 1IAL LIU 1.
Lul T 01
�v ? L17i { c • �
.�
�_ " R'"' MOORE COUNTY
to x
'�` ~� NORTH CAROLINA
• SerA p ort <iJ7 g
,. t rrula {T Tw
•q, '� t
° Akirp11r. egy COY NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
V 7a P ' ♦' y I DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS -ILAN"a AND RESEARCH $RANCH
W[ Ill" ' gay w CtsWlYnp,r M IM tly
I ew omit vYI.
,o! U.S. DMATMENT OF TAANSFOITATION
Lzd Tr FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Toy
• { 1171 r•! � �
'� I

BEAR CREEK QUADRANGLE GOLDSTION QUADRANGLE
NORTH CAROUNA
NORTH CAROLINA
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
44, Al
M, 'j
Exhibit 2
USGS Topographic Map Of The Proposed
Fairview Farms Sites # 1 & #2 G
Moore County, N.C.
0
` `rim �� %�� i
P
r
rase ll
rw
19-
xpa.
Carbons:,e k
"HAM CO
CIMT 01 k ) .-,0 ;:) ..
ILL j
Approximate B.
57 Location Site 1
tJr k
7
%
lc�N� Jr
a
>
Approximate
Lo cationn,
Site 2
A
j
0
CIS
0.
mr.
SCALE 1:24000 •
0 1 MILE
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 500() 5WO 7000 FEET
1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL

N . G
"Fainp,
A-7
r.
V.Z!
"__1 17_1!1�':
YMP

SOIL INVESTIGATION LOG SHEET FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES
Landowner:ha,r;sfs�G�G,, . County:_pGr�
Farm Name: �,rJ,rJv.►�s -,y �',� Z.w SR#: 16
Date Of Soil Investigation: 4 Z -Z�
MRCS Employees Involved: 110E
Principal Soil Eva]
Planned Land Use
Equipment For Investigation:_,", jjga--r c Z 10 C —1!�Ag,- / ,',yP_
re
1
Site Sketch \
�1
L I r1(t.

^. ./. �—~
. - _ . _ 5^,' --~
FarmName: 1�&I,ea)
Pit
Number
Depth
Range
Material
Class
Material
Type
Material
Texturk
Water 1 Digging
Found I Difficulty
Comments
Here
04
TYPES OF HATEMAL ENCOUuTEREv IN BORINGS
(Uze one of systems below)
UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION
GW -Well graded gravels; gmvel, sand mix
GP - Poorly graded gravels'
GM - Silty gravels-, gravel-saad-silt mix
SW -Well graded sands; sand-gr4vel mix
SC - Clayey sands; sand -Clay mixtures -
HL - S Ilts; silty, V. fine saads; sa ' ady or clayey silt
CL- Clays of low to medium plasticity.
CH - lAor ganlc- c lays a f hi gh p lastirAty
MH - Elastic $!Its
OL - Organic silts and silty clays, low plasticity
CH -Orlanic clays, medium to high pliLsticity
USDA CLASSIFICATION
g - gravel
S, sand
vis -very fine sand
f3l-ane sandy 102
31 - silt
sil. silt loam
CI -clay loam
Bid -silty clay loam
sd -sandy clay loam
sic. silty clay
C-clay

rl
Pi
2

EXHIBIT 4
eQUnited States _ Natural _ NC-CPA-17
Department of Resources - 1-96
Agriculture Conservation
_ _ ......_... ... Service
WASTE MANAGEW.N7 FAC=Y SM EVALUATION
WvIATION
WlnuICI
TELEPHONE
LOCATION
:,
SIZE OPERATION
LOCATION DATA
DISTANCE FROM NEAREST RESIDENCE NOT OWNED BY PRODUCER FT.
DISTANCE FROM NEAREST PUBLIC FACILITY (schoo4 church, ex.) FT.
IS SITE WTIHIN 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN7
YES _ NO _
If yes, MRCS cannot provide assistance.
IS SITE AT LEAST 100 FT. FROM A "BLUE LAVE" PERENNIAL STREAM?
YES _ NO
If no, site must be relocated_
IS SrM WITHD`IN 1 MILE ZONING JURISDICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY?
YES _ NO _
If yes, landowner should consult with local zoning board about required
permits. Permits must be obtained prior to design approval.
ARE UTILITIES IN CONSTRUCTION AREA?
YES _ NO
If yes, see Part 503 of the National Engineering Manual and follow policy.
(Copies of maps or other reference materials may be attached to site
evaluation.)
WETLANDS
WILL SITE INVOLVE CLEARING WOODLAND OR ANY NON -CROPLAND? YES NO _
If yes, producer must complete Form MRCS-CPA-38 (Request for Certified
Wetland DeterminationMeiineation).
WILL ACTION RESULT rN SWA,IiPBUSTNG? YES NO
IF WETLANDS ARE INVOLVED, IT IS THE RESPONSIB1LrTY OF THE PRODUCER TO CONTACT THE US ARMY CORP OF
ENGINEERS %jND THE DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEME2dT TO DETERN NE IF PERMITS ARE REQUIRED.
IF WETLANDS ARE INVOLVED, THE PRODUCER SHOULD NOT CLEAR ANY LAND UNTIL A WETLAND DELINEATION
IS MADE.
MRCS will provide technical assistance in wetlands only under the following conditions. For natural wetland
Inclusions less than one acre in size, NRCS will provide assistance only if the functions and values lost are fully
mitigated. For natural wetlands greater than one acre in size, NRCS will provide assistance only after a
rigorous sequencing process to include avoidance, minimization of impacts, and compensatory mitigation is
carried out in that order of preference.
ODOR CONTROL --
HAS ODOR CONTROL BEEN DISCUSSED WITH PRODUCER.:
• PREDOMINANT WIND DIRECTION? YES _ NO _
• POSSIBLE EYPANSION OF TREATMENT VOLUME FROM I CU. FT. ,MINIMUM YES NO _
• PRECHAROING LAGOON WITH FRESH WATER TO AT LEAST 1/2 YES , NO _
OF THE CAPACrM .
• USING GOOD SOUND JUDGMENT IN LAND APPLICATION YES NO
OF WASTE?

P 0!
EXHIBIT 5
-aU--------------------------------------------------------------------------------a
et&
U.S. FrSH AND WILDLIFE SZRvrCE r
ENDANGERED SPECIES
INFORMATION LEAFLET '"V ■
---------- ---------------------- -----'-----------`-------------------------.-------------
THE CAPE FEAR SHINER
THt FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
The Endangered Species Act of 1973
recognizes that many of our nation's
valuable plant and wildlife resources
have been Lost and that other species are
close to extinction. The Act provides a
means to help preserve these species and
their habitat for future generations.
The Cape Fear shiner (No-tropis
makistogko7al is restricted to four
small popu a ions in forth Carolina's
Cape Fear River drainage. The best
population exists in the Deep River near
the its' junction with the Rocky River,
in Chatham and Lee Counties. Three
smaller populations exist in the Rocky
River above the Rocky River hydroelectric
facility in Chatham County; the Deep
River and its tributary, Fork Creek in
Randolph and Moore Counties; and Neals
Creek in Harnett County. To help secure
the shiner's continued existence, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service added this
fish to the Federal Endangered and
Threatened Species List on
September 25, 1987.
DESCRIPTION, BIOLOGY AND HABITAT
The Cape Fear shiner is a small (2 inches
long), moderately stocky minnow. Its
body is a pale, silvery -yellow color. A
black band runs along its sides. Its
fins are yellowish and somewhat pointed.
The upper li is black, and the lower lip
has a thin lack bar along its margin.
The eyes are moderate in size and are on
the sides of the head.01
~'--
71r
Little is known of this 'shiner's food
habits; but based on the si.-orture of its
digestive system, it is be)ieved to feed
primarily on plant material. No
information is presently available on
breeding behavior, longevity, or other
aspects of its life history.
`r
4, _ ...
If
+The Cape Fear shiner ;'s generally
associated with gravel, cobble, and
boulder substrate. It has peen observed
inhabiting slow pools, riff:res, and slow
runs, often around beds of aquatic
vegetation. Juveniles are or.+.Pn found in
slackwater, among large rock' outcrops in
mid -stream, and in flooded side channels
and pools. The Cape Fear shiner usually
is found within schools ,nf related
species but is usually nnr the most
abundant species in the school.
WHY IS THE CAPE FEAR SHINER NO RARE?
Before the Cape Fear Riven system was
extensively dammed, the Cape. Fear shiner
was certainly more common. However, dam
construction greatly alter,7d the Cape
Fear River ecosystem. Hany stream
reaches that once provided ideal rocky

pool and riffle habitat for the Cape Fear
shiner were tf_ansformed into a series of
long impoundments. The Cape Fear
shiner, unable to survive and reproduce
in these •iiiipounded stream reaches,
persisted only in a few isolated river
reaches that still contain the rocky
pool/riffle riabitat. These remaining
small and isolated populations are now
very vulnerabl=�- to toxic chemical spills,
decreases in water quality, and other
habitat degrad-,tion. As the populations
become isolated from each other by dams,
there is little chance for an area to be
repopulated without our help.
WHY SHOULD WE-IJE CONCERMED ABOUT THE
LOSS OF SPECIES?
Extinction is J natural process that has
been occurring since long before the
existence of man. Normally, new species
develop, i(i:" a process known as
speciation, at about the same rate that
other species -become extinct. However,
because of a)r and water pollution,
forest clearin'�, loss of wetlands, and
other man -induced environmental changes,
extinctions air now occurring at a rate
that far exct:'As the speciation rate.
Each extinction diminishes the diversity
and complexityof life on earth. The
loss of a sin{jle species may result in
few environmental repercussions; however,
all life on earth is interconnected. If
enough "livin4,'connections" are broken,
whole ecosystems could fail, the balance
of nature could be forever altered, and
our own survival could be jeopardized.
Furthermore, th'e" diversity o animal and
plant life pprovides us with food and many
of our life�:saving medicines. When a
species is lost. -'the benefits it may have
provided are gone forever.
WHAT You CAN DO. TO HELP
Toxic chemicals have killed aquatic life
in many of our nation's rivers. As only
four small Ca a Fear shiner populations
remain, this fish could easily be lost to
�ollutants. Remember, whatever we ut on
he land may eventually enter our Jvers.
Be careful with the use and disposal of
used motor oil, pesticides and fertiliz-
ers, and other chemicals, especially near
Iy creek, no matter how small.
Siltation is another major problem for
aquatic life. Silt can smother fish eggs
and kill the insects that provide an
important food source for other
organisms. A wide buffer strip of
natural vegetation along waterways can
help filter silty runoff from disturbed
lands. Livestock and their waste cause
pollution; they should by kept out of
rivers.
Be concerned with the quality of the Cape
Fear River and its tributaries. Watch
for fish kills, illegal dumping of waste,
unusual water color or smell, and other
changes in the river's condition. Report
the occurrence of such events to yoilr
State conservation agency.
The rivers and the plant and animal life
that inhabit them are now dependent on us
for survival. These natural p laces with
their diversity of life, can benef,t and
be enjoyed by all of us; with our help,
they can be there for future generations.
Prepared by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
7041665-1195
Summer, 1992
"Printed on 100% rocycied paper°
£0 d

ENVIRONMENTAL. ENGINEERING SERVICES
Water ' Wastewater ' Sludge ' Agricultural ' Industrial • Civil
December 30, 1996
NCDEdNR EXkIBIT 6
Division Of Water Quality - Compliance Group
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N.C. 27626-0535
Re: Animal waste management plans. Tec.bnieal Specialist certifications for the
'Fairway Farm - Site 01" off SR# 16n, ' Carbonton. Couw=n ty,: Moore
County/Chatham County. Owners are.Purvis Family-Fazm% LLC.
To Whore It .lay Concern,
Please find enclosed one or more signed cartificati.on forms for the above
referenced farm. The attached Technical Specialist fb=i(s) is (are) bc=g sent in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H. 0200 ruses and regulations for =imal wasw
storage, treatment, and utilization on new or &Vending facilities. The mgmed
forms attached to this letter are indicated below:
Section IL Certification Of Dwigm
A) Collection, storage, treatment system ......................................yes
B) Land appheation'site.............................................................. yes
C) Rine -off controls from exterior lots ......................................... yes
D) Application and handling equipment ...............................,..,.,. +
Sermon III. Certification Of lataRa&n.
A) Collection, storage, treatment installation .............................. no
B
Land
application site ............................................................ no
C) Run-off controls from exterior lots : ..................... .:......... 4...... no
D) Application and handling equipment installation .................... no
+ included in this correspondence but certified by others.
The reader will, please note the following comments about the above
certification(s);
Rt6tiVED
JAN - 2 tQ07
FAM 11'!FS ASSESS ENT 11»Cr
2145 FOXFIRE ROAD, JACKSON SPRINGS, N.C. 27281 • PHONE [phone]" FAX [phone]

neral Comments
Any and all attached certification forms are being signed by the Technical
Specialist in an effort to comply with the requirements stated in the 15A NCAC
2H 0.200 rules for animal waste management at new or cV. anding animal
operations. The Technical Specialist is stating that the plans being certified are
complete to the best of bis ability to comply with the intent of the, rules. However
the enclosed certif cation(s) reflect the plans being complete at the tune of
development and within the scope of work ordered. If plans were done at an
earlier date, the plans being certified herein may not comply with recent rule
changes or the most recent specification revisions published by the Natural
Reso=es Cansetvation Service (MRCS), DWQ, legislative actions, etc. Some of
the rules and sbndards developed for animal waste systems are not well defined as
of this certification date, In addition some of the rules and guideliaes needed for
such certifications are sti11 under interpretation. The Technical Specialist has
made every effort to comply with thz intent of the 0.200 rules.
The Technical Specialist is certifying brat the above referenced farm has a
certifiable plan for the system or systems being discussed in this letter. The details
of certified plans can differ between farms and can wary depending on whether the
farm is existing or if the farm is new. The certification form(s) indicate that the
plans being discussed should work for that farm given the on site level of
management required is provided. No certification can be all inconclusive and be
certified to contain each and every aspect of all possible outcomes associated with
high, itmasity animad graving operations. The reader must review the plans to see
what is being certified.
§medic Coramentg
1. The Fairway Farm - Site #1 is a new farm and was sited August 21, 1996, The
Fairway Farm - Site 41 waste storage and ure a system plans were
developed by Environmental Enizineeriug Services during November and
December of 1996.
2. A new waste utilization plan was completed for this faun. by Environmental
Engineering Services in December of. 1996, This is a workable plan for the
farm and has been discussed with the farm owners. This plan is the best it can
be prior to on -site planting and related work.
3. The Fairway Farm - Site 41 noes not contain exterior lots where animals are
,kept (e.g. faced lots, lounging areas, etc.). Therefore the certification related to
run-off control from exterior lots is being certified as "non applicable".
4. The irrigation syst= on the Fairway Farm - Site #1 is being designed as a new
system. The technical specialist certification farm for this aspect is being
supplied by others. A copy of this signed farm is included in this
correspondence for your records.

A copy of the design infoana#ion and the cepcation form(s) will be sent
to the fam owx= and the local MRCS. Only the certification forms and vicinity
maps are being sent to DWQ. Should you have questions please call my office.
Best
cc; Malvin, Ptuvis
Ruth Kirby (NTR.CS)
enclosures
secuices

1HIY. r.1w�� b:Uf( m 1VIMkiIlrs I,In"
Animtal Waste Management Plan C;ertiucanon
• (Please type or peat all information that docs not mquirc a #spa,=o)
Name of Farm: Fair.w-'ay. - arm, _ Farm j 1 _;facility No: -
Owner(s)Narrie;'purvis Family Farms,_LLC ^� _ , PhoncNo:910-948-2297
Mailln-Addy ss-__2504- spies Road, Robbins, N.C. 27325-7213_
Farm Location: Fourteen Digit Hydrologic Unit:
Latitude and Lonsitudc• 3 5 3 0 5 5 j 7 9 2 2- 32. County: Moor e
Please a=cz a copy'of a county road map with location identified and descri-ae below (Be specific: road
names, dire::.tions, milepost, etc.):
�tieratiart-b�cri tFi��
Type of Swine No. of Animals
❑ Wean to Fender
❑ Feeder to Finish
M Farrow to We= _5s 2 0 0. saws
a Few to Feeder
❑ Farrow to F'tn.ish
7),pe of Poultry No. of Anin a Type of C,=fe A) of Animals
D Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Pullers �7 Acrf
0rher Type of Livestock: Number of Animals:
Acrzage Available for Application: —2 QQ + _ Required kc,-=ge:
Number of Lagoons I Storage Ponds :_ 2 Total Capacity: 3.8 5 9 , 2 6 0 Cubic Fret (ft3)
Are subsurface drains preseut an the farts: YES or 1 NO (please circle one)
'.11 p171l IIt Ip9It/!I>!I�[ip Ill lkiiM III III pi flip 7I1II{IRi>E#��#�#Ir iM •a17�i 1011�I JlII�III �>R#R#� g11M iN gfglM Rfi7lC ql l�l#�id[7q ip 711III alye sl #71 dI i1ilp#III7p IM /I�IF�IF IF
Owner j Manager Agreement
I (we) verify that 4 she above Wormatiou is cornet and will be updated upon changing. I (we) understsad the opw=ou pad
rnaintraance procedures astabiisbed in the approved arimai waste manageinant nlaa m for :he farnamed above and will
itapla=anC theses p=acrsia=. i (we)'know that any expansion to the existing design rapacity or the waste trcaw=t atui
storage system or coastruction of new facilities will require a new certification to be submitted to the ]division of
Enviraameata! ltifamaQemeni bcfore''se paw auimais are story I (we) umdex =d that rhere must be ao discbarp of ania.ai
waste E;a= the storage or apoli"don system. to su=- = waters of the =m either directly through a man-made cooveyauce or
from a storm avmnt less sevw-- dash :he 25-year, 24-hour storm and there must not be :un-aff from the arlplicestiast of az.ittzsl
wnsv- I (we) understand that run -Off of gnilucaum from lounging and heavy use amens must be minimized using u--hnicW
standards developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Sayice. Thu approved pica will be filed at the farce and at the
offie:. of the lotto' Borg and Water Copservation District I (we) kosw that any modification roust be approved by a technical
specialist and submitted to the 5oi1 and Water Conservation District prior to implementation. A change in land ownership
reeuirw wriura tiodfl=don to OEM or a mew certification (if the approved plan is changcd) within 60 clays of a dde trans&x.
.Name of Land
$ice to
Date: 12-30-96
Name of Manager(if different from owner):
Signature: Date:
AWC - April 24, 1996 1

�r+n. r.i��r o•r�ari•i L�'svlr«+in ������ ..
Technical Specialist Certification.
L, As a technical specialist da mated by the North Carolina Soil and Water Conservation Commission
pursuant to ISA NCAC GF .0005, 1 certify that the animal waste management system for the farm
named above has an animal waste management plan that meet,5 or exceeds standards and specifications
of the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) as specified in ISA NCAC 2Hr0217 and the.
USDA-Naturai Resources Consen ation Service (NRCS) and/or the North Carolina Soil and Water
Conservation Commission pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0217 and 15A. NCAC 6F .0001-,OOOS. The
following elements arc included in the plan as applicable, While each ea,tebory designates a technical
specialist who may sign each cartificauon (SD, 5I, W{JP, RC, I), tha technical specialist should only
certify parts for which they axe technically competent.
II. Certification of Desi iZ
A) Cnlleetion. Stornz;,ILgt entSvstem
Chacl, rho apprapdozo bar
❑ st' f c' ' v wi t f (SD or WI1P)
Storage voiume is adequate fdr Operation caaacity; storage capability consistent w�tbtxwlrrrrr+,ii
waste utilization reaui,rements,
X .New, expanded or retrofitted facility. (SD) ' r' ;
Animal waste storaga and treatment structures, such as but not limited to coff cedon sylAik6, •
lagoons and ponds, have been designed to meet or exceed the minimum starid;�ral�s Opel/ 1602
specifications. � -r� , q
Name of Technical Specialist (PI -ease Print): L-=7,F:, Qmtm, k'.Fs_
.0.,friiiation:
No..
0;,'it
B) sand ArinJica
The plan provides for minimum separations (buffers); adequate amount4of land VAv
utUizauon; chosen crop is suitable for waste managerent; hydraulic and nutrient lgadiaj .
%4
Name of Technical Specialist (Please Print); ja= r
Affiliation: Cxs-'atm= •;
Address
sianaral
C} &n4£f Cont4wrs fr
Gnack ;ha appropriate box
Esciliry without ,e Mdgr Ions (SD or WUP or RC)
his :aciiity does not contain any exterior lots.
M
zone No. :_ 910- +3m," -
ate: 12-30 96
rRA NG1S
Name of Technical Specialist (Please Print); p31
, '7494i.N1111
Affiliation:_ tmk
Address
Signatu
F,r�tinrrurrair�
%i
+�'S
s S EAL I
aaw
ac'1l w e 'a got (RC} r r; i I60Z
Methods to rtinimiz_ the run off of pollutants from lounging and heavy
d;simed in cccordwica with technical standards developed by NRCS.
ANVCr April:-4q,'W6 2
aone No.: 910-295--=
aLP-:-12-30-96

'Chcci- fhs. appr+opriara bQ.c
Exisrin�.facill Mch existirlIF uuleft as atiq". ;u�M=r (WUP or n
AsumsLl waste aspUC240d equipment specified is the plan has been ei.thar field cals'17rated or
evalumid in a=ordance with existing des;p charts and tables nerd is able to apply waste as
aecessasy to accommodate the waste rz =a;emeat plan: (existing application equ=prtlestL can
cover the area requLred by the, plan at rates nac to r-td=d richer the specified hydraulic or
ncurieat•loading rams, a schedule for timing of appUcadons has been established; required
buffos cast be maintained and calibration and adjusuzaeat guidance era contained as oat of the
per)-
p w' e c ' e ' 'na ncT1i wisbour exivITIVr wa to ]ic ion emainment (n
Artimai waste application equiprncat sprciicd in the pica leas been designed to apply waste as
necessary to accommodate the waste managemcnt plan; (proposed appllcation equipment cats
cover the area rcqu.i=d by the play ac rates not to exceaf tither the saecified hydr ar. or
nuc feat lauding rates; a schedule for timin g of applications has t3ecai established;-equirtd
buffets can be maintained; calibration and adjustm=c guidance are contained as part of the
Plan).
Narnc of Terhhical Specialist (Please Print): ir
Affil.LatlQil:,,..
n Add='S(A3=CY): �'� � a NC- _ 90 ( N . "a AJ !a Phoac NoA) a -9
J
SiQaaet=. `'�'� Date• !� - 3 0
HI. Cerdfizatfon of Installation
A) Col ]e n r tl'1iiatfo
NSz exAanded or retrofitted aci]ity ($n
Animal waste storage and treatment sauctures. such as buc riot iimitrd m lagoons -and panda.
,+ have been instaUed in accordant-- with rho approved plans to mect or excccd the minimum
standards sad spccif cations.
For =isAngfaci Wcz withour retraf a, no carrocation fs necassary.
N=c of Tazhzkal Specialist ("'r lease Print):
AfF]iatf.oa:
Addrtss(Ageacy):_ - - - - - — �hoac No.:
Signature: Dam
AWC -- AP6124,1996 3

JyAN. n7. 1997 )A6:22pn ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT x�
74 N0.� P.9i1S
I �
or.,
�+► N. IOU �
� uJa yy
r , JAAL
�. Will, Lung Ih ULL Approximates Fairview Farm �
' Site Area #,t�1 "
liLl ' ua � u.raf S t �4 A
rrall
+ Gi.wrr+S+ 1�14 �Yw JtfL
UU
;7J r
yu Koh J.AJ
UU .0 s
i J QW 3p "i , !u
.+
� 1{11 �
GILL ! • '� f Rini?
3
r p� LOU Sp4 > 111E , yli v CN,
JC
Tura �� W l LI U ` +fi lIJA
♦ LAU
+ LIM w �` ,. H I G H FALU
,a 1ua ' • �„�+,
Jl MA r.1�
JTl •
11J1 1lil .
rFf ti ~ UJl lut �w1
i,rT 1lJi r 7
4�
LW V 1
M u '
i41i � " yv ya
yr+ r ull uri 4N Lru is
.+ fr of
04 1 „ILL ,., 1 L"A r q
}I � hL1111r1f iA1L •� + M
/ jai
LAU Lou
i� rlfl' L J lAJ1 lus istt yu
K .. �. Jill +'Ir♦ IrN� n
�•t
!
� ' �� I!!. ULL IU1 /1L
17J1 1{L STA _ +
UIM,J %lha �4 ify ti lAfC •~` ,
+lfl yv
`� • T l
II.r \ W�iro
UU LM R ,9 In C , !r
4 il11 ,r 1!
T7 L IJ
"' t ,,r Exh:Lb 't 1
U,e JrsL Irlaa.fl Vicinity Map For The Proposed
Fairway m Sites Far
,� • ) , "u r"°J MOare CountN.C.
#'� # 2
Y
L7a uu iKL
iJM
r:t' • •+ •. w � + ✓ 7 4r ! 11G Sf17. � C. UU
Jul Jim
. 1!ffi •. SCALi
.rly>; •. I Ny • �� fi7t 4 W4 ` .i '.C„ c I s a wR
11Y !ll► r iJiJ�� ° LIl4 ��r� .0
A JUI
r LnY LI>t yJa 77 " LYi +! ySt .! ICAA! IpA INIJA,CP.IRtfTS71
J,{fl YR� �..
UIL
i lid �+ t17R
hlry.Mj r RIV._ _ (./. O �/. R E COUNTY
.� J� i�i
% NORTH CAROLINA
IIL 1 / t •Il► Y , .e 11H u7J , , i glruN fl rrf
NORTH CAWLINA DEPARTAAENT OF TRANSPORTATION
71vf51414 OF NIGNWAYS-01LANKING AM RMUM3 f 1tANCH'•
YiL Iu1 eJ w cearf.Jsfw +whl na
11.4. DPA1U dNT OF TRANSPORTATION
FMtRAS MGW$VAY ACMIK13"ATION
..M .. I ylt
yl=elk 1 .� ir'p I ' J.1 ` .NJ

Tests.find many wells contaminated
BY STUART LKAVt:NWORTH
"}� t t � �-
'��z "5,+ r r water to health problems, partic'
STAFF WRITER
Y�#
,IIo��melwaferr
d�n�n ; r r t -�v, , fhrF.; r Marl for nursinginfants. As a
e
When state health authorities
L ��
r� " result,state health officials have
#9#: +.
started testing private drinking
Y4
r d fate,'
u
,�i° .
urged more than 89 families iden-
water wells near livestock farms
QUehato°r,
4f4r Hitiataa�
o1:1f drinkir1$,rarv�l 1a s ,
,:. , „,
tified through the testing prograrn
last year, they expected to find a
opt'
fl ,. +
Sri y°
_
not to drink from their wells and
few isolated cases of tainted water
Q��E*'
ii farms Nea_rIQ,w
1
w
to use bottled water.
supplies
f }� <g F �RIs;#4 , Otrho
" '
A year later, many of them are
But 15 months later, the pro-;
" "- i `°` ' �`
1 conceratrmt a q
uwuafa,
-:
still without a clean source of
gram has stunned even its most
ccn: n " `fa�;drinki . p
�Y�:
water, including Donna Kirch-
ardent skeptics: Out of 948 wells
u
meter, who lives near a hog farm
tested statewide,, more than a,
Source: N.C. Divww of Epidemiology
in the Robeson County town of
third show some contamination .
Parkton.
and nearly one in 10 have nitrate
North Carolina ,' � ' . -
- lem with nitrate contamination, "I am really angry," said ICtrch-
pollution above levels considered
Even so, the testing program
regardless of where it comes meter, a 33 year -old mother of two
safe to drink,
has revealed several instances
from," said Ken Rudo, a state tax- boys who moved to Parkton with
State officials aclmowiedge that
where large hog farms are the
icologist who has led the water her husband in 1995. "Our prop -
some wells could be polluted by
clear cause of tainted groundwa-
testing program. "This raises a , erty is worthless. I have to sit here
septic tanks or sources other than
ter, particularly in Robeson and
red flag.... a real cause for con- each day wondering what is going
Livestockfarms.ThE problem, they
Sampson counties ..;
cern." to happen as my kids grow up."
say, is compounded by poorly con- ,..
"What this data shows is that
Since the 1950s, numerous stud-
structed water wells in rural ;
we have a, serious, serious prob-
ies have linked nitrates in drinking SEE WELLS, PAGE 24A
WE L LS But Walter Cherry, aTiog industry of contamination under a swine Y
CONTINUED FROM PAGE lA i .,; lobbyist, say the findings deserve farm owned by Robert Parnell,
further investigation before the brother of State Sen. David Parnell
The water testing'data, obtained,. state imposes new requirements
by The News & Observer this week on farmers. Nitrates, he noted, can ae ce 176 fo'"t po
through a public records request,;, come from a range of sources — ' u Dro >—a n9a 11' farm's
comes at a crucial time for the including septic tanks and wells dug LPAW
oons hogs pens' designed
state's growing hog industry and into old farm land that was fertilized to hold about 17,000 swine — sit
the thousands of people who live ; �r many years. within a few hundred feet of iCzrch-
nearsuch fauns. Contrary to popular belief, hog , meier's house and at least seven
In coming months, several coup farms are not the only source of ' other homes with nitrate -tainted
tyhealth departments —including nitrate that gets into drinking wells,
those in Chatham and Columbus, water;" said Cherry, director of the Parnell couldn't be reached at his
— will consider proposed ordi N.C.. Pork Producers Associatlon. home or office, but Tommy Steven-
nances to protect residents from "One septic tankcan cause as much son, the water quality division's
livestock pollution and odors. contamination in one well as a hog regional supervisor in Fayetteville,
Meanwhile, the state Division of farm,". - said there's no doubt the farm
Water Qualitywill hold public hear Since it started in September caused the groundwater contami-
ings in four towns tonight on a new , ..1995, the water testing prom has nation. "What we are doing now is
permitting scheme for hog farms;; been the focus of a bureau tic. checking to find the exact source on
Environmentalists say the permits tug waiwithin the Department of. the farm,"
should require large livestock oper Environment, Health and Natural
ations to monitor their groundwater; Resources. Last December, the State ofFc' J also say that hog
But officials with the water quality Hunt administration nearly waste is the likely source of some
division, along with farm lobbyists, gypped the free testing proms, contaminated wells in Johnston and
say that such a blanket requirement but it was quickly restored after Sampson Counties, since no other
would be excessive. protests from rural residents. source could be identified.
In an interview, Rudo acknowl- "Because of the' acute toxicity of
Tests raise questions, edged the test results leave some
nitrate," said Ruda, "that is some -
Gail Lewis, an anti -pork activist questions hanging. Part of the tying we have to address."
who lives near a hog farm inPender problem, he -said, is that inspec- When ingested at certain con -
tors with the water quality division
County, says.that much of the con- centrations, nitrate is a proven
tamination could have been pre-, haven't had the time or resources cause of methemoglobinemia —
vented if the state required moni- to investigate each circumstance of commonly known as "blue baby
toeing wells for hog farms, as it does a tainted well found near - a live- syndrome" — a rare but potential
. k fy
stock for new landfills. sdeadly illness caused by lack of oxy-
"This shows that the state needs In several cases, however, state gen in infants.
to get off its butt," said Lewis, a regulators have been able to estab- In a report this year, a Washing -
leader of a statewide fish a link
group called ton -based environmental group
Alliance for a Responsible Swine In Robeson County, for example, 'found that hundreds of public water
industry. "If the regulators had done ;t'6a regulators have found a plume systems nationwide had been cited
their job, we wouldn't be in a state — -. -- --

EXHIBIT l
JAW
i. Name and Address of th person intending to construct -.`.swine farm:
N.G. Purvis Farms Inc:.
2504 50i,es Road
Robbins, NC 2732-7211
2. Type of swine farm and design capacity of the animal w;-�ste manage-
ment system: 4 separate fa row tc, wenni: g farms with 5, 2oa i.,.ows on each
farm with each farm having a lagoon caps,-ity of approximate:iy 28,867,265
gallons; plus a small house for 200 hoary with a lagoon ca.,ltity of
approximately 2,886,726 gal ons and an isolation house for '.f..900 gilts
with a .lagoon capacity of 1 ,546,906 gallons lot)
3. �o o
management and Address of to finical specialists preparing thy; waste '00
1.
Larry F. graham, .Ir.
Environmental Engineering services
2145 Foxf ire (toad
Jackson Springs, tic 27281
4. Address of local soil End water conservation district ,,f.fice:
Moore County Soil and Water conservation
P.O. box 908
Carthage, NC 28311.7
5. Thil is to further -.nf .rr you teat ,-6u nake make' writt-P. comments to
the Division of water Quality, Departmew. of Environmental'11palth and
Natural Resources:
DEH - rayettevill Regional office
ATTN: Water Qual ty Division
Wachovia Buildincy
Fayetteville, NC i28301

® ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
r
Water ' Wastewater" Sludge ` Agricultural ' Industrial • Civil
December 30, 1996
NCDEHNR
Division Of Water Quality -'Compliance Group
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N.C. 27626-0535
Re: Animal waste management plans. Technical Specialist certifications for the
"Fairway Farm Site 41" off SR# 1621, Carbonton Community, Moore
County/Chatham County. Owners are Purvis Family Farms, LLC.
To Whom It May Concern,
Please find enclosed one or more signed certification forms for the above
referenced farm. The attached Technical Specialist form(s) is (are) being sent in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H. 0200 rules and regulations for animal waste
storage, treatment, and utilization on new or expanding facilities. The signed
forms attached to this letter are indicated below:
Section U. Certification Of Design.
A) Collection, storage, treatment system ..................................... yes
B) Land application site............................................................. yes
C) Run-off controls from exterior lots ......................................... yes
D) Application and handling equipment ...................................... +
Section M. Certification Of Installation.
A) Collection, storage, treatment installation .............................. no
B) Land application site............................................................. no
C) Run-off controls from exterior lots ........................................ no
D) Application and handling equipment installation .................... no
+ included in this correspondence but certified by others.
The reader will please note the following continents about the above
certification(s):
kt�-64ED
JAN -- 2 j1)Q7
E: r'UTIES ASSESSMENT LIMIT
2145 FOXFIRE ROAD, JACKSON SPRINGS, N.C. 27281 • PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

General Comments
Any and all attached certification forms are being signed by the Technical
Specialist in an effort to comply with the requirements stated in the 15A NCAC
2H 0.200 rules for animal waste management at new or expanding animal
operations. The Technical Specialist is stating that the plans being certified are
complete to the best of his ability to comply with the intent of the rules. However
the enclosed certification(s) reflect the plans being complete at the time of
development and within the scope of work ordered. If plans were done at an
earlier date, the plans being certified herein may not comply with recent rule
changes or the most recent specification revisions published by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), DWQ, legislative actions, etc. Some of
the rules and standards developed for animal waste systems are not well defined as
of this certification date. In addition some of the rules and guidelines needed for
such certifications are still under interpretation. The Technical Specialist has
made every effort to comply with the intent of the 0.200 rules.
The Technical Specialist is certifying that the above referenced farm has a
certifiable plan for the system or systems being discussed in this letter. The details
of certified plans can differ between farms and can vary depending on whether the
farm is existing or if the farm is new. The certification form(s) indicate that the
plans being discussed should work for that farm given the on -site level of
management required is provided. No certification can be all inconclusive and be
certified to contain each and every aspect of all possible outcomes associated with
high intensity animal growing operations. The reader must review the plans to see
what is being certified.
Specific Comments
1. The Fairway Farm - Site #1 is a new farm and was sited August 21, 1996. The
Fairway Farm - Site # 1 waste storage and treatment system plans were
developed by Environmental Engineering Services during November and
December of 1996.
2. A new waste utilization plan was completed for this farm by Environmental
Engineering Services in December of 1996. This is a workable plan for the
farm and has been discussed with the farm owners. This plan is the best it can
be prior to on -site planting and related work.
3. The Fairway Farm - Site # 1 does not contain exterior lots where animals are
kept (e.g. feed lots, lounging areas, etc.). Therefore the certification related to
run-off control from exterior lots is being certified as "non applicable".
4. The irrigation system on the Fairway Farm - Site 91 is being designed as a new
system. The technical specialist certification form for this aspect is being
supplied by others. A copy of this signed form is included in this
correspondence for your records.

S

A copy of the design information and the certification form(s) will be sent
to the farm owner and the local NRCS. Only the certification forms and vicinity
maps are being sent to DWQ. Should you have questions please call my office.
Services
cc; Melvin Purvis
9 Ruth Kirby (NRCS)
enclosures

�a

Animal Waste Mana(yement Plan Certification
(Pk:'se type or print all information that does not require a signature)
Existn?;.or';or,E:cpanded:,'(please ci:rcleotie) 1�s•.-`tt,=z `,�+f:,
General Information:
Name of Farm: Fairw_ay. Farm. --Farm #1 Facility No:
Owners) Name:., Purvis FamilV Farmer LLC Phone No: 91 0-948-2297
Mailing Address: 2504 Spies Road, Robbins, N.C. 27325-7213
Farm Location: Fourteen Digit Hydrologic Unit:
Latitude and Longitude: 3 5 30 5 5/ 79 2 2' 32 County: Moore
Please attach a copy of a county road map with location identified and describe below (Be specific: road
names, directions, milepost, etc.):
Operation Descrit)tion:
Type of Swine No. of Animals
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
• Farrow to Wean 5,200 sows
❑ Farrow to Feeder
• Farrow to Finish
Type of Poultry No. of Animals Type of Carrie No. of Animals
❑ Layer 0 Dairy
© Pullets 0 Beef
w`
Other Type of Livestock Number of Animals:
Acreage Available for Application: 2 0 0 +- Required Acreagd: 9 2 + / -
Number of'Lagoons / Storage Ponds: 2 Total Capacity: 3 , 8 5 9 , 2 6 0 + / - Cubic Feet (ft3)
Are subsurface drains present on the farm: YES or NO (please circle one)
Owner / Manager Agreement
I (we) verify that ail the above information is correct and will be updated upon changing. I (we) understand the operation and
maintenance procedures established in the approved animal waste management plan for the farm named above and will
implement these procedures. I (we) know that any expansion to the existing design capacity of the waste treatment and
storage system or construction of new facilities will require a new certification to be- submitted to the' Division of
Environmental ManaQemeni before the new animals are stocked I (we) understand that there must be no discharge of animal
waste from the storage or application system to surface waters of the state either directly through a man-made conveyance or .
from a storm event less severe than the 25-year, 24-hour storm and there must not be run-off from the application of animal
waste. I (we) understand that run-off of pollutants from lounging and heavy use areas must be minimized using technical
standards developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The approved plan will be filed at the farm and at the
office of the local Soil and Water Conservation District I (we) know that any modification must be approved by a technical
specialist and submitted to the Soil and Water Conservation District prior to implementation. A change in land ownership
requires written notification to DEM or a new certification (if the approved plan is changed) within 60 days of a title transfer.
Name o
S ignatu
Date: 12-30-96
Name of Manager(if different from owner):
Signature: Date:
AWC -= April 24, 1996 7

rrecimical Specialist Certification
r , Asa technical specialist desil-nated by the North Carolina Soil and Water Conservation Commission
pursuant to 15A NCAC 6 .0005, i certify that the animal waste management system for the farm
named above has an animal waste management plan that meets or exceeds standards and specifications
of the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) as specltled in 15A NCAC 2H.O217 and the
USDA -Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and/or the North Carolina Soil and Water
Conservation Commission pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.O217 and 15A NCAC 6F .0001-.0005. The
following elements are included in the plan as applicable. While each category designates a technical
specialist who may sign each certification (SD, SI, WUP, RC, I), the technical specialist should only
certify parts for which they are technically competent.
II. Certifxeaiion of Design
A) Collection, Strrr;zne Treatment System
Check the appropriate box -
Existing facility without retrofit (SD or WUP)
Storage volume is adequate for operation capacity; storage capability consistent t�clx+�"fir"r►i��
waste utilization requirements. `�' CAR4�
�I New, expanded or retrofitied facility (SD)
Animal waste storage and treatment structures, such as but not limited to cogecti'on sy3 A16, w
lagoons and ponds, have been desi-ned to meet or exceed the minimum staridaras and11602
specifications. -=_ r .'•,
Name of Technical Specialist (Please Print): F. GrahErn P.E. ^. r r;�Gt�i��►���Q��.
Affiliation: Ctrai}•tart
Ad
Sig
B)
Na
Afi
Ad
Sig
C)
Che
Name of Technical Specialist (Please Print):
Affiliation: Ch
Address(Ap
Si;natur
ANVC -- April24,
hone No.: 910-295-3252

t- -
D) AnWication and Mndlino—Equil2mcnt
4 ` Check; the,appropriaie box.
❑ xi ti o. aci itv with exist'n waste applic2tign e ui ment (`WUP or I)
Animal waste application' equipment specified in the plan has been either field calibrated or
evaluated in accordance with existing design charts and tables and is able to apply waste as
necessary to accommodate the waste manaacraent plan: (existing application equipment can
cover the area required by the plan at rates not to exceed either the specified hydraulic or
nutrient -loading rates, a schedule for timing of applications has been established; required
buffers can be maintained and calibration and adjustment guidance arc contained as part of the
plat?)-
❑ Mcw,orexpanded facilityl_orexistingfiicilit withorrtexistin; wasie_apaication-equipment (I)
Animal waste application equipment spccifcd in the plan has been designed to apply waste as
necessary to accommodate the waste management plan; (proposed application equipment can
cover the area required by the plan at rates not to exceed either the specified hydraulic or
nutrient loading rates; a schedule for timinb of applications has been established; required
buffers can be maintained; calibration and adjustment guidance are contained as part of the
plan).
Name of Technical Specialist (Please Pant): i b • WAII
Affiliation: GRA- rnc-c �s14 , '
Address(Agency): ,;Z31 a NC_ Owy %01 N M8g Ks U;, i [P., N C_ Phone Ho.: 1 a - t- 3 a
{� Signature: ` � Date: �� - 3,o9 9
111. Cerh; f cation of Installation
A} Collectign. Stgrine, rcatme t l'nstailatian
I1ew, expanded or retrofitted facility (SD
Animal wastt storage and treatment structures, such as buc not Wrtited to lagoons and ponds,
have been installed in accordance with the approved plan to 'meet or exceed the minimum
standards and specifications.
For existing facilities without relroflts, no cert{4catioa is necessary.
Name of Technical Specialist (Please Print):
Affiliation:
Address(Agericy): Phone No.:
Signature: Date:
A1VC -- April 24,1996

C!HATHAMi ,� ` C0UNITY I 1 I I
' Ill! Si11 I.1 .�• ti r , 111 ., ,
I: t f es t LW L1 LH
i t'S y
1ltk
4.Q91
1 Approximate Fairview Farm
LiFs .' ull•� . r
L!l! Ho,. Drench `.
,uu _
uu Site Area #1
la 1.I1! \ 1.nwar ► �
Lill v Gl.nden'o ° ?aw Jlli.
all Ul] 1{J '• J
SiL
YQ• a ,+
li � i t�. L!]4 L � WE
Liy ' • � � •e
'J v � �u3t� r.• p�Q
aide Gl.nnd`w 1Sit
.p �ti v
10 .� .i' Lt34 High Fcfl.
lily Pd` Lilt
J Lilt y P
Un \ Cool SPrinpl ,.
1 11LE r l ltL 7l 06 ICU a n `` ! RIVER
a �—��` S 11R Lilt 1 y
-
L/l1 Jitl \ F G
Pulnom �� Lill !},tL ,` l (t` 17I7
U21
�? Jill
r"
`� � IFgi.., L+•� � HIGH FALLS
•aod '; l,• lfll 0 "+ G�adts � � r�`� n.�
`C
�`} � 0`� �•' r. ,Ill 1/77 ���, `
LJ /RBjr
I!ZL OL — , Lin
till J,
v 1411 �.¢ 3 � g
1 Q
° 11/f ! Lill l{Ji. C,, tJl!14 I!
30,
Ja
�•• lrinl Mill 1171 a
N ,► Y. M Uli ^ 1W Liu 111.1 5 #1S
's
0
lilt1l? G
,...,; , •,:,n_ Liu .. llil l g
J., .7'.�„,,..� f14 '1', >, 7n5, , i,•� '.Liu �+• ° + 'a / / -
f1,9!.IAIJ b n
4;. ,,, 4r'r!{ I,1 :;,; ,�, '::!t?t :.�• !!ii 1,1 4 �? y •• Ila r!117
•,i}a 101 .1 �0
;,..• a (,i� ,f$ CART AGE 4''i!! 4 +�,/ ;sly r p
-... iilia
.1,. .W.. t!I!
.1 It - .2 '� 's J•� ' � tiD
11h' n, 1( .. t,;i I 7 Ilo. 'p �. IIN c I
jFORESI' 7 .111n '1/w l34] i] ./ .F
1401 u4 Lla 1 35"Wr
{U , INS` /' 1420 , { .,. ! COS•
1 LU 112
C .1 .1 J Sill \} ]7 •1J Is 11 Liu ! It
" v Exhibit 1
' ° c LLca.
L , HaRc1.3t '^+ Vicinity Map For The Proposed
>u` 7 LOU Fairway Farm Sites #1 & #2
121t ,�v 1 ,1 •• • ,•7 UU 1'l33 u9J: ,.• �,1& 11°JL tu3 Moore County, N.C. '
Llu tlli l IJ1L
LTPl.LiIF , Liu v 1331 y 3 r 1 Y
� \7 • h 2 it11li + a SCALE
i ` itl4 1 I a I 1 3 . MUS .
r
74 ' !li! Sillily j ry - d — '.? ° LIl! Wit
L121
! r'`rf g J171 .s .s • ti .8 3 tze i
Ll1i R SCALE FOR ENLARGEMENTS i
Ulfl. •� 77 f 1 L�AO' Lf11fil
L101. LIFT . /
1' Ai�+lr •'1^'1, LIN, ,FS�;ti`t•....• .r,, 'w
LtAL �
•• ? !Ili '7 '•,`.�, ,1 4.."'" / LIN
.g LIIl t.] H . W it's
Eol+wood r r ;;:S � RlLtr�- MOORE COUNTY ,
LW
Jg WLI ' o _.- j , I�, �' NORTH CAROLINA
lstwn P' j; dJ
� SI1J a
,317 -t1f ., Sor r m. :.` ,f .. A LIN 1 1 r1°ra.16 11 two
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
kk 1A 5 # DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS —PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH:-
Li1L ,ill \ Lp�y4 n. COD.11.11g., "I"
MwdoC�trill.
U.S.OEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY AOµJNISTRATION
l till. Lr � g.a I�
,, Favlea" f a° I ..... r•;' 1 � {g �T � 1,1 { ` ,0H