820373_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NUH I H LAHULINA
Department of Environmental Qual

review V Other
Date of Ingecdon I -T-Z -9 7 i
Fadlity Namber Time of Inspection 12- 45` Use 24 hr. time
Farm Status: - i _ Tota! lime (in boar) Spent onReview
or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
Farm Name: _� �Q r Ire, P=US 5 .Ltd County:
Owuer Name: -- a r% Se b�G'S Phone No:
Mailing Address: _-29 so creep's 13f i _. r tt?Z I Q J X11 C Z -
Onsite Representative• r1 C'integrator. D,04 a2 ao d
CartiBed Operator: -- C k r) e -S - al e Je S _ Operator Certification Number. 17
Location of Firm:
Latitude C�0 6 QLongitude • ` as
hot Operational Date Last Operated:
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
f
amber� Poultry �. >Nuatber �*' C
itBe �lNamber s aR
Wean to Feeder'
Feeder to Finish:, Non- Beef
QAC 1
F w to Wears
Farrow W Feeft
Farrow to Finish � ��❑ Other Type of Livest4x*
� ..-�`'s+a 'j`' , . .:� _ -.. ?.::. «"�slw ,. •`.!- .,. �::! �` ".r•�, �'"�""%-'.�",�.-�'`e'"""f�,s';��'F,.�-�'�'s�. �- z • �«Y'�`•` ..,��' t�s;`'u�.�rz.:�r
Number of Lagoons `1 Holding Ponds. Subsurface Drains Present
`s` YLO LAgoon Area Spray Rdd Area
figneral . `
1. Are there arty buffers that need mamtmaa0 Yes $No
Z Is any discharge observed f -om any part of the operation? 13 Yes *0
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ANO
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Wates (if yes, notify DWi) ❑ Yes ).allo
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gaymin? /✓
d Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes 010
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 00
4. Was there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than fivm a disrlarge? ❑ Yes ��/*
S. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoonsUlding ponds) require - 0 Yes 0 o
maint mence(m provement?
Ceadnued on back

6. h temlity not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria? ❑ Yes ONO .
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in rraponsible charge Cd inspection after 111197)? [] Yes Plo
S. Are these lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? D Yes kNo
Structures (Lagoons and/or Hgldin, g P�
9. is structural fieeboard lest than mate? E3 Yes M(No
f=reeboard (ft): con 1 Lagoon 2 Lagoon 3 Lagoon 4
I0. 1's seepage observed from any of the ? 13 Yes �(No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structim observed? ❑ Yes ;<No
12. Do any of the structures need ❑ Yes ANo
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWl)
.13. Do any of the stvctwzs lack adquate marker to identify start and stop pusap&g levels?
Waste Aanllcatioa
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WW, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWI)
15. Crop type �6tr Y+ "Ack.-
16. Do the active crops differ with those designated in the Antral Waste Management Plan?
17. Does the f xility have a lack of adequate acmW for land application?
IS. Does the cover crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available irrigations equipmerd?
Er ertified Facilities Ooly
20. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan ready available?
21. Does the facility fail to comply with the Animal Waste Management Plan in any way?
22. Does mord keeping need improvement?
23. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
24. Did Rcviewer/iaspecw fail to discuss review1inspection with owner or operator in cberge?
Yes ❑ No
El Yes Plc.
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes P(No
13 Yes /qNo
E3 Yes ❑ No
D Yes ❑ No
[3 Yes ❑ No
El Yes E3No
❑ Yes ❑ No
CAIZ1IttCnLS (refer to question
ozer OO ii6mii wFc` h
plain any Yl BIISwGFS 2Fay recommesdatons or any D.�'
<C' - 'f 3 • C F `Y '"� wCF. ""a „[�Y Y !
Use drawings of facility tt3 better a place sntuat x ;fuse addrtsotsal pages as accase�r)
........ ._ _ .. .. .. .-... ... ..-
#k 13 5+vp PL, ker neejs io be irs ll«�4
4
Reviewerllospector Name
Revfwer/iaspector Signature:
cc: Division of Mater QualiryoPater Qnaliry Station, Facility Assessment Unit
DM= — Z
11/14/96

Farm Name/Owner:
Mailing Address:
County:
Integrator: .
On Site Represented
Physical AddresVU
Site Requires Immediate Attention: V49
Facility No. 6 z-3-7 3
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANUAAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: i 6 , 1995
Time: W:30 km._ '
Phone: SZI - 4 4 9
_ Phone:
0-60 sD - [ on; It a (:;Fr CM Ai't. _r ai =.
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: 2-000 WL4&k Number of Animals on Site: looo c oo leo s
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: AC
Latitude: Longitude, '
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient 'freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) es)r No Actual Freeboard: Z Ft. S Inches
Was any seepage observed from theoon(s)? Yes or 4y Was any erosion observed? Yes or
Is adequate land available for sp y? r No Is the cover crop adequate? Y' or No
Crop(s) being utilized: %rzs
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings? ft or No
100 Feet from Wells? 1e or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or&
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS .Map Blue Line: Yes or&6)
Is animal waste discharged into water of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes or& If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? Yes or�q h).� neelek as iyaec�
Additional Comments: sficre�F�r.r, - 1 [ 0 wcs _ o� sw, D�onit•,. - ero
Me b
Suva a- 1'SDFT_Z+i*P1 W.d U kA \N_ -41 ah�`cri �� mer, ru r 4,J raw, b* r
6d a"_
Inspector Name
cc: Facility Assessment Unit
Signature
Use Attachments if Needed.

W
+ ell
Lg p Nrl rMK7r. d r
Rwor
MMI/ uA OCR
p b ' •? '�
�slow w � rte" 'i. O ,,..ij• ,�".:yr. .
MMMM11 ARM.
Met
an
sp
10 70
i i yrAocrrrNURa � '� �►r ~ � � +u p,+woMb B Q r'y,. :+�s:i;'�'���'.r �1"Y�
AID Ab
R, anK
O 8 TAYLOR! r' fir r Vii. ,,y.
�P 8 napakiuTnNrb '� mr, *�. .E�'i{,I r• i
• Y } aAnAN �' w '� 11 is ';...�t• �,: �' . {, r
Y a � •. Kf �4M A a� ,.'I..r.., , 41+1�f',r•L"II � '
12 ! F g',ti� BnrtwAY g �, ^•r.4�;' i"'.�y;.t.
RT: rl
fp ? Yi NUN
am13
lorAANAwR 04b�`i
ti
MOM 4 Ott �: ; • 4 �.
CO 1111
V `1 its oil ;
a,,l t
CROtl O DrDim 0
.rf�r�� t I y' l i. • y,
a':
04 Pill
IT
LN
Own

State'of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • 0
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor � E H N F1'
.
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Andrew McCall, Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
September 2, 1994
Mr. Charles Reeves
Route 2, Box 121
Garland, NC 28441
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
Confined Animal Feedlot Operation
(CAFO)
Charles Reeves
Sampson County
Dear Mr. Reeves:
On August 16, 1994, an inspection of your confined animal operation was
performed by the Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO). Please find enclosed a
COPY of our Compliance Inspection Report for your information. It is the
opinion of this office that this facility is in compliance with 15A NCAC 2H,
Part .0217, and that Animal waste Management is being properly performed.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact
me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Grady Dobson
Environmental Engineer
GD/tf
Enclosure
cc: Facility Compliance Group
George Upton
Wachovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

0
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENV , EEALTS & NATURAL RESOURCES
DMSiON OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
Far= Name/Owner Inspection Date
Cha les Reeves 16 4
Mailing Address
Route 2, Box 121
Garland, NC 28441
Fara No.
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
SECTION I
Confined Animal Operation Tye:
Horses, cattle, swine, poultry, or sheep
SECTION II
1. Does the number and type of animal meet
the CAM (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation REGISTRATION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12 -month period?
4: Does this facility have a CERTIFIHD ANIMAL
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN?
5. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
X 13 Comments
X �.
x
x
x

Administration and Procrram Management
6. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc?
SECTION III
Field Site Management
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
Map Blue Line Stream?
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application site have a
cover crop in accordance with the
TIFICATION
5. Is animal waste discharged into waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flushing system,
or other similar roan -made devices?
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices
(BMP) of the approved CERTIFICATION?
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approximately }
8. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
SECTION IV
Comments
X N comments
x
X
x
X
X
Comments
Section II (4) - This is an existing facility; and Mr. Reeves has until
December 31, 1997, to comply with this regulation.
Section II (6) - Mr. Reeves has been in the hog business f or over 17 years.
Houses and mobile homes are located closer than the 750 -ft minimum criteria
and were built after the Reeves, facility had been in business for years.
X
Section II (4) - This is an existing facility; and Mr. Reeves has until
December 31, 1997, to comply with this regulation.
Section II (6) - Mr. Reeves has been in the hog business f or over 17 years.
Houses and mobile homes are located closer than the 750 -ft minimum criteria
and were built after the Reeves, facility had been in business for years.

Section III (4) - Mr. Reeves has a well managed cover crop of Coastal Bermuda
grass and winter grain. He is not required to have a Certified Plan until
December 31, 1997.
Section III (7) - This facility does not have a lagoon. The 250 sow farrow to
finch operation is built over pits. These pits are pumped periodically and
land applied on the Coastal acreage.
Mr. Reeves was advised to discuss his situation with SCS and Agricultural
Extension representatives of Sampson County. It is my opinion that Mr. Reeves
does have a certifiable operation for animal waste management.

-,-��f
�- ��l'�
/ f Fez ��- =f�'� —1j'I
z �a r�� —
II''i

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment. FKAA
Health and Natural Resources V4j
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Governor C � �'
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C
Andrew McCall, Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
September 2, 1994
Mr. Charles Reeves
Route 2, Box 121
Garland, NC 28441
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
Confined Animal Feedlot Operation
(CAFO)
Charles Reeves
Sampson County
Dear Mr. Reeves:
On August 16, 1994, an inspection of your confined animal operation was
performed by the Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO). Please find enclosed a
copy of our Compliance Inspection Report for your information. It is the
opinion of this office that this facility is in compliance with 15A NCAC 2H,
Part _0217, and that Animal Waste Management is being properly performed.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact
me at [phone].
Sincerely, e
Grady Dobson
Environmental Engineer
GD/tf
Enclosure
CC: Facility Compliance Group
George Upton
Wachovia &dlding, Slate 7i4, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-504.3 Telephone [phone] FAX910-4a6-0707
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1096 post -consumer paper

NORTH CAROLIKA DEPARTKENT OF ENV UMENT, HEALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIROIDEENTAL MANAGEMENT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
Farm Name/Owner Inspection Date Farm No.
les Reeves 8/16/34
Hailing Address --
Route 2, Box 121
Garland, NC 28441
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
ECTI N
Confined Animal Operation Type:
Horses, cattle, swine, poultry, or sheep
SECTION II
Y N Comments
1. Does the number and type of animal meet
the CAFO (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)] x
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation REGISTRATION? x
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12 -month period? x
4: Does this facility have a CERTIFII� ANIMAL
WASTE MANAGEMMT MM? x x
5. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)? x

Administration gad Program Management Comments
6. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc? - x X
SECTION III
Field Site Management Comments
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
Map Blue Line Stream? x
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream? x
3. Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste? x
4. Does the land application site have a
cover crop in accordance with the
CEEtTIFICATION_ PLAN? x x
5. Is animal waste discharged into waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flushing system,
or other similar man-made devices? x
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices
(BMP) of the approved CERTIFICATION? x
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approximately ) x x
S. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory? x
SECTION IV
Comments
Section II (4) - This is an existing facility; and Mr. Reeves has until
December 31, 1997, to comply with this regulation.
Section II (6) - Mr. Reeves has been in the hog business for over 17 years.
Houses and mobile homes are located closer than the 750 -ft minimum criteria
and were built after the Reeves, facility had been in business for years.

Section III (4) - Mr. Reeves has a well managed cover crop of Coastal Bermuda
grass and winter grain. He is not required to have a Certified Plan until
December 31, 1997.
Section III (7) - This facility does not have a lagoon. The 250 sow farrow to
finch operation is built over pits. These pits are pumped periodically and
land applied on the Coastal acreage.
Mr. Reeves was advised to discuss his situation with SCS and Agricultural
Extension representatives of Sampson County. It is my opinion that Kr. Reeves
does have a certifiable operation for animal waste management.