The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About850003_CORRESPONDENCE_20171231in CD ro W c c 8 C n ' i q0 "� rw r rr �w ��rr �rrr r r r r �rrl� rr + �.44 1740 „JzSr 1607 c w 161 B 1` M7c RE 704 ;`� IFiR ray' RD. x ! 30 v L 14�4 amp it Q a V 1612 �• P.O Vx 1602 764 'aD 440 " OLD 704 ,-�` 1441 �D�fHifH 1617 � � •� , � 4A5 1601 s� 1608 01 160? 1611RD nS z J4M fl0 1�44 '�5�1�$/ 164D 1603 R4DNxFORD 1606 a\ �xER :++� V 116 . 09 titANAiNG RD L. 14 }444 1602 b 165] GILYER 144Z LA 9 9 1604 t /''0 5 ° v� 160a-� . x 443 a 1652 •fer 4 51 PO' 1606 1606 1633 1497i' µ 1651 " JOHN MISER tAwSDN RD. `� 4957 7E.Yg SN �t rl 1651 II Lilt YELL ' 1631 �r iOwsonr.,'0 4KFORD RD. oR 1496 ` A bsa P MOOREFIELD , y Mt+ ANDREW IAS7 y� �ROAD 04 a NNETT AD. I�i� f y cb 99 a r41 7 E 9 4449 f I ° 500 �frw •gin E RD ShowC'rpp�. 1652 '--� 1501 E Ni� LL�s �a SAM READ RD. qf) MABE . flQ _. 1659��~ R 151 Q 1�5i 1637 I wt<ss I � - Chi' N 1 a/ NqQ 16 5 1654 P�O tip•` TERRY/ r 1�96 1440 IZ y, HOLE R c 1 65 - -" O per' OAKLEY635 ' �, Ra 1d36 1733 WWft Rt D fn .144 6 !¢43 �7� "t*1 aUPO� �F W A rT RMichael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary North Carolin artment of Environment and Natural Resources F Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director Division of Water Quality 0 � July 8, 2002 Mr. Mark Pendleton 5768 North Highway 8 Lawsonville, NC 27022 SUBJECT: Revised Permitting Notification Pendleton Farm, #85-3 Stokes County Dear Mr. Pendleton: The Division of Water Quality -Winston-Salem Regional Office recently sent you a letter dated June 6, 2002 notifying you to begin the general permit process. At that time, your operation was believed to be classified as an animal feedlot operation requiring you to meet .0200 rules as described in NC Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2B .0200. After a review of your unique situation by both DWQ Non -Discharge and Soil and Water Conservation management staff in Raleigh, it was determined that your operation will not be classified as an animal feedlot operation. The decision was based primarily on the fact that the two denuded feedlots (each having less than 100 cattle) are not located in the same concentrated area. It was also noted that no obvious water quality concerns were noted in the creek or near the buffer area at this time. Please be advised that the Director of the Division of Water Quality could still require you to obtain a Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP) or an individual permit for your facility if it is determined that your operation has actual or potential impacts to surface waters of the State. Should you plan to increase cattle numbers to more than 100 head in either of the two denuded feedlots, you will be required to obtain a CAWMP and request reactivation of your facility prior to stocking animals. I am enclosing a copy of the "Confirmation of Removal' form for your records. The original copy has already been sent to the Non -Discharge Permitting Unit in Raleigh. The Winston-Salem Regional Office apologizes for any inconvenience caused by the previous letter. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (336) 771-4600. �Sincerely, Melissa Rosebrock Water Quality Specialist Attachment cc: DWQ Non -Discharge Permitting Unit — Sue Homewood Stokes County Natural Resources Conservation Service/Soil and Water Conservation District Marlene Salyer — DSWC WSRO Margaret O'Keefe — DSWC RRO V4'SRO_DWQ-FaciIity_F� .ii� es_____j' Central Files N. C. Division of Water Quality//Water Quality Section 585 Waughtawn Street Winston-Salem, NC 27107 {3364771-4600 A BCD;=hen Customer Service 1 800 623-7748 4b 6 f 0 . 0 CONFIRMATION FOR REMOVAL OF REGISTRATION This is to confirm that the following farm does not meet the 2H .0200 registration requirements. Please inactivate this facility on the registration database. Facility Number: U r i Farm Name: ��P,V1 � +on Farl')'1 Owner: �( ,�'' pep le - Mailing Address: - o r 1, ff, q lea County: f Opera ' n is: below threshold out of business/no animals on site closed out per NRCS standards Sipe: Agency: � �= r Please return completed form to: DE DTR-DWQ Water Quality Section Comniiance Group P.O. Box 2951; Rakigh, NC 2752�— 0535 RR-3/97 Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Floss Jr., Secretary North Caroiinartment of Environment and Natural Resources Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director Division of Water Quality June 6, 2002 Mr. Mark Pendleton 5768 North Highway 8 Lawsonville, NC 27022 SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection Certification/Permitting Notification Pendleton Farm, #85-3 Stokes County Dear Mr. Pendleton: This letter is to summarize the Division of .Water Quality's (DWQ) compliance inspection of May 30, 2002. This inspection was performed to determine if your facility should be removed from registration. Please find, attached, a "Final Notes" copy of the completed inspection form for your review. On the date of the most recent inspection, 88 cattle were observed confined . to a denuded lot. An additional 92 cattle were on a vegetated pasture across the creek. As discussed during the inspection, these pastured cattle come onto a second denuded lot by way of the stock trail to be fed daily. A visual inspection of the facility showed the creek buffer to be well vegetated and the pasture to have improved erosion control. However, after conferring with DWQ Non -Discharge staff in Raleigh, it was determined that your operation is in fact, an animal feedlot, requiring you to meet .0200 rules as described in NC Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2B .0200. You will be receiving' correspondence from the DWQ Non -Discharge Permitting Unit shortly, outlining the process for certification and permitting of your cattle operation. The Winston-Salem Regional Office appreciates your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions concerning the compliance inspection or permitting, process, please contact me at (336) 7714600. Sincerely, - ✓�r�/� Melissa Rosebrock Water Quality Specialist Attachment cc: DWQ Non -Discharge Permitting Unit — Sue Homewood Stokes County Natural Resources Conservation Service/Soil and Water Conservation District Marlene Salver — DSWC WSRO Margaret O'Keefe — DSWC RRO WSRO DWQ Facility Files Central Files NICDENR N. C. Division of Water Quality//Water Quality Section 585 Wauahtown Street Winston-Saiem, NC 27107 (336) 771-4600 Customer Service 1 600 623-7746 OD IFwof,Water.Quality, Q Di on of Soil'and Water Conservatiion- Q�Other•Ageney Type of Visit *Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access Facility Number U:uc 411, ��isil:-/30/2002 'rime: 12[}tl 0 Not Operational O Below Threshold ❑ Permitted 0 Certified ❑ Conditionally' Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above 'Threshold: ........................ Farm Name: Plr idictonfarut..................... County: S. vkca................................................ 1'E'5RQ........ ....................................................................... Owner Name: M,tijj.......................................►�tiJ�tont Phone No: - 2.:2i1G2.................................. MailingAddress: ..7. [.kl x..................................... ................................. .................. laamonYillc...NC.................................................. 2702,; ............. FacilityContact: RmuTriadigt.9a..........................................Title:................................................................. Phone Net: ................................................... Onsite Representative: Rogc r•.ftutdlctola....,,•„......•„ , Integrator: .................. Certified Operator:Rogcr..M Pcrtdjcjoja....... __........................... Operator Certification Number. 21.33............................. Location of Farm: NC 8 2 miles N. of Lawsonville located on both sides of NC 8 1 1/2 miles S. of NC VA state lines. []Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle - [:]Horse Latitude ®• 31 1 03 1. Longitude 80 • 136 F__28711 Design Carrent� •F ;=;:: , a::w Design' 'Curren ' -. = Design.• Current: . Swine Canacity Pnnulation::_-_ Poultry_ f ... Canacity Panulation.... Cattle'. Capacity,' PODulation•. ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer 419 ❑ Dairy ❑ Feeder to Finish 10Non-Layer 1 425 180 ❑ Farrow to Wean « ❑ Other _ __Total4Designt_Capaeity, 425 ❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Gilts ❑ Boars , r ` " - - ,Total°SSi,W' 340,00U Numbe�o&rago+as l 0 r5fq 9 �'�❑ Subsurface Drains Present ��❑ Lagoe►n Area 10 Spray Field Area IPi y o - -s._ �t V.i7..i..'ief S.v T 3•w "', a"�.'4t'- - &Holden Ponds 1 S`olid Tra w 0 No Li uid Waste Management System t`N t u ® el g y Discharges & Stream Impacts 1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes ❑ No b. It dischar.,e is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (If yet. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No c. If dischar«e is observed. what is the estimated flow in zallmin? d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No 2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge'? ❑ Yes ® No Waste Collection & Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 Identifier: ...................................................................... ...... Freeboard (inches): 05103101 Continued Facility Number: 85-3 . Date of Inspection 5/311/20t12 . 5. Are there anv immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? lie/ trees, severe erosion. ❑ Yes ❑ No seepage, etc.) 6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or closure plan'? � ❑Yes ®No (If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ) 7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ®No 9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level elevation markings? ❑ Yes ❑ No Waste Application 10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No 11. Is there evidence of over application'? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ❑ No 12, Crop type 13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No 14• a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No t5- Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No 16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No Required Records & Documents 17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No 18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? (ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ® Yes ❑ No 19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes ❑ No 20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ❑ No 21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ❑ No 22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ❑ No 23, Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes ® No 24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ® Yes ❑ No 25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No 113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit. r-• ' [],Field Copy ® Final Notes 'Questions that were left blank were either not applicable to this facility at this time or were not checked during today's inspection. _ 18, This facility does not have a CAWMP. -24. This facility should be checked periodically until the question of certification/permitting can be determined. � 1& On the date of today's inspection there were 88 cattle confined to a denuded lot. Another 92 cattle were on vegetated pasture. A stock trail between the pasture and second denuded lot ted. The stock trail leads from the pasture through a creek crossing, and into the denuded lot. The two denuded lots are about I apart. Per owner, the .atare not fenced onto the denuded lot, but are ke ton the pasture and brought up to the second denuded lot to feed each day. Reviewer/Inspector Name Mel" Rosebrock >, ,• ,„ ., Reviewer/Inspector Signature: % ; .% f `1- ! f I` -' Date: 5136 IC 05103101 Continued 85-3 l):rtc�pt'�tinn 3/30/20112 . t)dorr Isles 2.; Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge actor below ❑ Yes ❑ No liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation'? 27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours'? ❑ Yes ® No 28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application'? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ❑ No roads. building structure, and/or public property) 29. Is the land application spray system intake not located neitr the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ❑ No 30, Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No 3 t. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover'? ❑ Yes ❑ No 32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged till pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No le on pasture have access to water from a spring and at the cattle crossing. The creek buffers look good and are well vegetated. pasture is now vegetated with much improved erosion control. No channeling of erosion from the pasture into the creek was also has an unknown number of cattle on pasture across the road. Dennis Ramsey (DWQ), 615102, this animal operation should be considered an animal feedlot since cattle come onto the nd denuded lot to be fed daily (>45 days/year) and that vegetation cannot be established and maintained on this second sited lot. was also made to the SB 12171nteragency Group's memo (716100) to WSRD (Melissa Rosebrock) stating that this should be considered a feedlot and subject to the .0200 regulations, including permitting for the same reasons as stated xrge Permitting Unit has been requested to initiate correspondence with Mr. Pendleton requiring certification and of his beef cattle operation. 05103101 J NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOtI� R ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL ,RESOURCES (�aa 4S`` ff ��++�� CONSERVATION DIVISION CGrriGIEW15 ATER CONSERVATION N.C. HNR J U L 13 2000 f Wiri,,ton -Salerm Regional OffiCiN MEMO7arltitoll July 6, 2000 TO:a R p4tl� k FROM: Pierce SUBJECT: Stokes County Pendleton Beef Operation You requested guidance from the SB 1217 Interagency Group in determining if the Mark Pendleton farm comes under the .0200 regulations. You explained that at every occasion a DENR representative visited the farm, more than 100 animals were on site and the confinement areas were void of vegetation. The site contains two separate areas where cattle are held. The opinion of the Interagency Group based on your information is the site should be considered a feedlot and meet .0200 regulations as long the confinement areas don't have vegetation and the threshold of 100 head is exceeded. A feedlot in the .0200 rules is defined as a confinement area where vegetation cover cannot be maintained and further states the confinement period must be 45 days out of a 12 month period and not necessarily consecutive days. The site as you described, appears to meet this criteria. cc: SB 1217 IGrMembers Stokes SWCD Mark Pendleton Post -It' Fax Note 7671 Date 0 2- pages► To Moro From SQ f Co./Dept. i \ !� w Co. Phone # Phone # Fax # 5r}' b iFax# Post -it® Fax Note 7671 ' Date ( aol b. To S V e_ From ' S Co.JDep1. Co. r , �J Phone # Phone # Fax # Fax # I� .F !EIGN, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1614 F-HomE 919-733-2302 FAX 919-715-3559 , AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLEA/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER 'JORTH -!NQ r DEP ►RTiVI NT OF � ;• , - } t r .�X• w �; "ENV, NMEN�T�t r, 1VATURAL RES + , WINSTON=SALENf, REGIONAL -.OFFICE' - FAXjRA_ NSMITTAL Division ,of Water. Quality 5$5 waughtown . Street Winston-Salem, N.C. 27107 Phone: (336)771-4600 - .Fax: (336)771-4630 T0: -J FAX INUNTBER: --f=— FROM - DATE: n Nlumber of pages (including cover page): COIMTvIENTS: r .0 Action Items - ' I Review of April Minutes II Request for Assistance in Stokes County III Next Guidance Document IV Guide for Managing Forge Crops in Waste Utilization {CES Publication} V Reformat Guidance Document VI Lagoon Emergency Plans for•Greater that 25-year Storm Events VII Plan Components for Inactive Lagoon Management INFORMATIONAL VIII100 Year Floodplain Swine Buyout 06/08/00 17:03 '03305932847 STOKES SWCD 0011 FAX Date- Lob I Stokes Soil & Water Conservation District P.O. Box 98 Danbury, NC 27016 To'. i OeJ(s�sc, Phone: I Fax: ')'I I - Lkoa:L?), ( From: 6M 5 n--, A Phone: (336) 593-2847 Fax: (336) 593-9232 CC: Number of C2 S A/ /,07 Al le/el M _ Jre, 1 3) 7,"77,,&/ 11,1 TA ' X 5 ; jg e if $-A a ro a -( 3/. 1&P 54 � rig r �,..�,� �r ° J`{ �• � `� �`�': � I. fico r• cm 5.a► + r f . IL Ell `• AA 42 y flit CO �� ri - .� -�F �.: ,:�•.;� ill _ •�•' . f t•: r... 9 + 'f `i- i.' j. •�j �,.�r1';- �j} ..Zip �:c '•x s:. � ® _ ; y � " ��ti` ' sue' •y;J� .,.. .. '_� .:� '1 Ll ram, � ;Fl�. �� : -� �.� -xh �_ i �:••_. • y 's�9 0 OIL - 'max Y��' �� - �'c"= � �.f''�� 4 '• ,� -�"x-" •.tom-- - y"�i.="'�K.��., �.--��t --./�- - .x �'LL "�• •� S L --. �. ., FYI -Mark Pendleton #85-3 -'- 0 ob Subject: FYI -Mark Pendleton #55-3 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 14:58:38 -0400 From: Melissa Rosebrock <Me]issa.Rosebrock@ncmail. net> Organization: NC DENR Winston Salem Regional Office To: Sonya Avant <Sonya.Avant@ncmail. net>, Sue Homewood <Sue.Homewood@ncmail. net> Hey Guys! Jenny rankin and I went up to Stokes County to count cows yesterday and look around the farm. We counted about 80 cows on the confined lot (Mark stated there were 83) and about 65 on another lot that had an openening in the gate ..... i.e. not confined. He has no waste storage structure and milk records obviously, so there were no records to review. There were some badly eroded areas up from the creek (approx. 100-200 ft.). Although the areas that were eroded were very bad, the sq. ft. area that was eroded looked as if it had gotten smaller. Some grass looked as if it were coming up on a heavy use area next to the oldest barn. This area has been a source of contention in the past I think. I spoke with Tom Smith and Ken Martin with the County Office and they said that the creek has "run black." Odor was not bad at all yesterday, although Tom Smith says it can be quite pungent. Mr. Pendleton stated that on the lot with 65, the cows are only confined one day as they are brought in and one day as they are loaded out. He said he runs a load out each month for a total of no more than 24 days. On the confined lot, the cattle are brought in for a week to a month so that they are not eating grass (so as to eliminate "yellow fat" and not be docked financially). Mark stated that as cattle leave that lot, others -are brought in.....but never so many as to go above 100. Ken and Tom say the facility never had a WUP ..... but Mr. Pendleton says he did have one. Mr. Pendleton stated that he plans to even reduce his numbers further due to health problems (cancer surgery, etc.). However, he currently has hundreds of cows on other lots around his home, on other farms, and in Virginia and Kansas. I spoke with Mr. Pendleton about "what is was" and "what it looked like." I told him it looked as if he had gotten tired of working with the county and decided to just say he was below the numbers so he didn't have to complete a WUP. We discussed that other farmers in the area had been complaining that he didn't have to abide by the same rules as they did. We discussed that since his farm and lots are on both sides of a main highway that a lot of people would be watching what was happening on his farm. I also discussed with him the consequences of keeping over 100 cattle on a confined lot without notifying us and completing a WUP. He said he had never had any problems with DWQ. Do we have any "legal" reason to keep him on the 0200 list? I'm assuming he will now come off the >100 threshold list? Anything else I need to follow-up? Thank you. Melissa Melissa Rosebrock NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section 585 Waughtown Street Winston-Salem, NC 27107 I of 2 5/ 12/2000 2:59 Pa- WORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES WINSTON-SALEM REGIONAL OFFICE *T41 0 ,@so -mom DEN R FAX TRANSMITTAL Division of Water Quality 585 Waughtown Street Winston-Salem, N.C. 27107 Phone: (336)771-4600 FAX NUMBER: 9 a3 � V FROM: DATE: DSII �; Number of pages (including cover page): COMMENTS: -11 Fay:: (336)7 71-4630 0� v x m `� x l QF I � F.-Ii 41 Cb oc rn x• .rn rn r Lh rn 6 zoo e aoms • 4 I!, v 1 Lb9ZC6 9MQ COLT 00/90/90 6 i�.,h. , wed.• l` 1i, 'w1' r'.:'� � ' �,- ` pS y r� •C � 7 4 � fd!' � r+ Fvl-`�YT Iark Pendleton #85-3 Subject: Re: FYI -Mark Pendleton #85-3 . Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 08:55:53 -0400 From: Sue Homewood <sue.homewood@ncmail.net> Organization: DWQ To: Melissa Rosebrock <Melissa.Rosebrock @ncmail. net> CC: Sonya Avant <Sonya.Avant@ncmail.net> sonya can ask Carroll pierce to put it on the next agenda, she can tell you when the next meeting is and they can talk about it and set a date to go see it if they decide that's necessary. Melissa Rosebrock wrote: nres hates to see them come off the 0200 list .... bad history they think ...... the lots are within a few feet of one another. could you let me know what i need to do to have the interagency group look at the farm?? that would be great, sue. i just haven't had enough experience yet ...... the other lot next to the confined one always has cows on it ..... and would always be above 20..... the other day it had 65.........i would love for someone else to make a determination this first time so i could learn and see what criteria they use. thanks, melissa Sue Homewood wrote: it may, according to guidance from the 1217 interagency group, the number of cattle to be considered in developing a WUP are the number confined, plus any that are contributing the majority of their waste to the same concentrated area. so, its sticky but i would decide based on how often the "other lot" is used and if you can say that basically the "other lot" has more than 20 cows on it at any one time, then it may be that we can call it 100 confined in one area. you may have to get the interagency group to go out there and make a ruling. what does nres think? if they would call it confined and will back us up you may want to call it confined. its really hared to determine on some of the cattle farms and you just go with what you think you can make a reasonable arguement for. sorry, not a good answer, sue Melissa Rosebrock wrote: the lots are next to each other..... within a few feet. Does that make a difference?? Sue Homewood wrote: as long as the 65 cows are not directly next to the 80 cows i don't see how we can call him above threshold. however, i would strongly caution him that you will stop by periodically and see how many cows are in the bigger lot or if the cows in the other lot are being confined (he may just have the gate open for your visit?) so we can feel comfortable that he is truly below threshold. especially with other local farmers upset. that's what i can think of now, but ask me again in 3 weeks and i may very well come up with a different answer..... have a good weekend. l of 6 5/22/2000 8:13 AM A14 I rellt NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 585 Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27107 Telephone 336-771-4600 4 FYi-M rk Pendleton #85-3 • i Melissa Rosebrock wrote: Hey Guys! Jenny rankin and I went up to Stokes County to count cows yesterday and look around the farm. We counted about 80 cows on the confined lot (Mark stated there were 83) and about 65 on another lot that had an openening in the gate ..... i.e. not confined. He has no waste storage structure and milk records obviously, so there were no records to review. There were some badly eroded areas up from the creek (approx. 100-200 ft.). Although the areas that were eroded were very bad, the sq. ft. area that was eroded looked as if it had gotten smaller. Some grass looked as if it were coming up on a heavy use area next to the oldest barn. This area has been a source of contention in the past I think. I spoke with Tom Smith and Ken Martin with the County Office and they said that the creek has "run black." Odor was not bad at all yesterday, although Tom Smith says it can be quite pungent. Mr. Pendleton stated that on the lot with 65, the cows are only confined one day as they are brought in a e . He said he of no more than 24 days. On the confined lot the cattle are brought in for a week to a month so t at ey are not eating grass (so as to eliminate "yellow Fat" an not be docked financ' Ma kr sate that as ca a eave that lot, others are, rought in.....but never so many as to go above 100. Ken and Tom say the facility never had a WUP.....but Mr. Pendleton says he did have one. Mr. Pendleton stated that he plans to even reduce his numbers further due to health problems (cancer surgery, etc.). However, he currently has hundreds of cows on other lots around his home, on other farms, and in Virginia and Kansas. I spoke with Mr. Pendleton about "what is was" and "what it looked like." I told him it looked as if he had gotten tired of working with the county and decided to just say he was below the numbers so he didn't have to complete a WUP. We discussed that other farmers in the area had been complaining that he didn't have to abide by the same rules as they did. We discussed that since his farm and lots are on both sides of a main highway that a lot of people would be watching what was happening on his farm. I also discussed with him the consequences of keeping over 100 cattle on a confined lot without notifying 'us and completing a WUP. He said he had never had any problems with DWQ. Do we have any "legal" reason to keep him on the 0200 list? I'm assuming he will now come off the >100 threshold list? Anything else I need to follow-up? Thank you. Melissa Melissa Rosebrock NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section 585 Waughtown Street Winston-Salem, NC 27107 Voice: (336) 771-4608 ext 265 FAX: (336) 771-4630 5/22/2000 8:13 AM Re: FYI 'Mark Pendleton #85-3 . Sue Homewood Environmental Engineer NCDENR - Division of Water Quality Non -Discharge Permitting Unit 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 919-733-5083 extension 502 fax: 919-733-0719 Mailto:Sue.Hgmewood @ncmail.net Melissa Rosebrock NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section 585 Waughtown Street Winston-Salem, NC 27107 Voice: (336) 771-4608 ext 265 FAX: (336) 771-4630 Melissa Rosebrock wrote: the lots are next to each other..... within a few feet. Does that make a difference?? Sue Homewood wrote: as long as the 65 cows are not directly next to the 80 cows i don't see how we can call him above threshold. however, i would strongly caution him that you will stop by periodically and see how many cows are in the bigger lot or if the cows in the other lot are being confined (he may just have the gate open for your visit?) so we can feel comfortable that he is truly below threshold. especially with other local farmers upset. that's what i can think of now, but ask me again in 3 weeks and i may very well come up with a different answer..... have a good weekend. Melissa Rosebrock wrote: Hey Guys! Jenny rankin and I went up to Stokes County to count cows yesterday and look around the farm. We counted about 80 cows on the confined lot (Mark stated there were 83) and about 65 on another lot that had an openening in the gate ..... i.e. not confined. He has no waste storage structure and milk records obviously, so there were no records to review. There were some badly eroded areas up from the creek (approx. 100-200 ft.). Although the areas that were eroded 3 of 6 5/22/2000 8:13 AM -Re: FYI -Mark Pendleton #85-3 • were very bad, the sq. ft. area that was eroded looked as if it had gotten smaller. Some grass looked as if it were coming up on a heavy use area next to the oldest barn. This area has been a source of contention in the past I think. I spoke with Tom Smith and Ken Martin with the County Office and they said that the creek has "run black." Odor was not bad at all yesterday, although Tom Smith says it can be quite pungent. Mr. Pendleton stated that on the lot with 65, the cows are only confined one day as they are brought in and one day as they are loaded out. He said he runs a load out each month for a total of no more than 24 days. On the confined lot, the cattle are brought in for a week to a month so that they are not eating grass (so as to eliminate "yellow fat" and not be docked financially). Mark stated that as cattle leave that lot, others are brought in ..... but never so many as to go above 100. Ken and Tom say the facility never had a WUP ..... but Mr. Pendleton says he did have one. Mr. Pendleton stated that he plans to even reduce his numbers further due to health problems (cancer surgery, etc.). However, he currently has hundreds of cows on other lots around his home, on other farms, and in Virginia and Kansas. I spoke with Mr. Pendleton about "what is was" and "what it looked like." I told him it looked as if he had gotten tired of working with the county and decided to just say he was below the numbers so he didn't have to complete a WUP. We discussed that other farmers in the area had been complaining that he didn't have to abide by the same rules as they did. We discussed that since his farm and lots are on both sides of a main highway that a lot of people would be watching what was happening on his farm. I also discussed with him the consequences of keeping over 100 cattle on a confined lot without notifying us and completing a WUP. He said he had never had any problems with DWQ. Do we have any "legal" reason to keep him on the 0200 list? I'm assuming he will now come off the >100 threshold list? Anything else I need to follow-up? Thank you. Melissa Melissa Rosebrock NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section 585 Waughtown Street Winston-Salem, NC 27107 Voice: (336) 771-4608 ext 265 FAX: (336) 771-4630 Sue Homewood Environmental Engineer NCDENR - Division of Water Quality Non -Discharge Permitting Unit 4 of 6 5/22/2000 8:13 AM • cc a c 0 m Is ppE U LA Ln O Ln to ,C cn O G Z w • t IJ State of North Caroline Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Bill Holman, Secretary Kerr T. Stevens, Director Mark Pendleton Pendleton Farm Rt. 1 Box 31 Lawsonville NC 27022 Dear Mark Pendleton: 1 � • NCDENR' NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT ANp NATURAL RESOURCES RECEIVED ,.: December30, 1999 N.C. Dept. at EHNR 'JAN 1 1 2000 Winston --Salem Regional Office Subject: Fertilizer Application Recordkeeping Animal Waste Management System Facility Number 85-3 Stokes County This letter is being sent to clarify the recordkeeping requirement for Plant Available Nitrogen (PAN) application on fields that are part of your Certified Animal Waste Management Plan. In order to show that the agronomic loading rates for the crops being grown are not being exceeded, you must keep records of all sources of nitrogen that are being added to these sites. This would include nitrogen from all types of animal waste as well as municipal and industrial sludges/residuals, and commercial fertilizers. Beginning January 1, 2000, all nitrogen sources applied to land receiving animal waste are required to be kept on the appropriate'recordkeeping forms (i.e. IRR1, IRR2, DRY1, DRY2, DRY3, SLUR1, SLUR2, SLD1, and SLD2) and maintained in the facility records for review. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) compliance inspectors and Division of Soil and Water operation reviewers will review all recordkeeping during routine inspections. Facilities not documenting all sources of nitrogen application will be subject to an appropriate enforcement action. Please be advised that nothing in this letter should be taken as removing from you the responsibility or liability for failure to comply with any State Rule, State Statute, Local County Ordinance, or permitting requirement. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Sonya Avant of the DWQ staff at (919) 733-5083 ext. 571. SincereI Kerr T. Stevens, Director Division of Water Quality cc: Winston-Salem Regional Office Stokes County Soil and Water Conservation District Facility File 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone 919-733-5083 Fax 919-715-6048 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper i� December 10, 1999 Pendleton Farms 5767 N.C. 8,Hwy. N. Lawsonville, N.C. 27022 V Dear Ms. Avant, Please find the enclosed copy 'of the, form "Request for Removal of Registration". After meeting with representatives of our local NRCS and District Engineer, Tommy Burchette. I have decided that I should reduce the number of cattle in confinement to less that 100 head. W. Burchette and NRCS representative concurred with this decision. I will maximize the utilization of grass on my farm though rotational and intensive grazing practices. Effective January 1, 2000, confined cattle on Farm 85-3 will be less that 100 head. cc Banner Shelton, Chairman Stokes S WCD, Sincerely, R. Mark Pendleton Pendleton Farms �y ,. �y ��• X...�firs",• .w♦*� r-,sv 1 i;•u+i tc7 12/01/09. 12;02 '&338 079 3088 YADKIN SWCD REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF REGISTRATION- _ _ -- _�- J2]002/002 Th, followins farm does not meet the 2H -.0200 registration requirements. Please inae6vate this facibiv on the registration database. >=aciLty \umber: Farm A ame. 0"' ' Mailing Address: Count•: all � . � � �►� � I •a , � � r This Operation is: � Jpasture on11' (no confinement) drn' litter poultry operation out Of business/no animals on site V...-below out per.NRCS standards below the threshold (teas than 250•swine, 100•confined cattle. 75-horses. 1000•3hccp or 30.000•poulm with a liquid animal waste manarernam system) •-•-,•, ��••Comments: • .1 am aware that even though.] may qualify to be removed from the -animal operations reCisvation database, the Diievor of thi Division of Waler Qualify (D\X'Q) may still require me to obtain a Certified Animal Waste Plan (CANVNIP) or an individual permit for this facility. This decision will be made based on this f3:ilit%'$ 8au51 or potential impacts on surface waters or the State of North Carolina. I am also aware that should I. in the future. de,lde to repopulate this facility at or below the originally registered r►um�er of animals. I am rcquirtd icy obtain s C a\%•\IP and request repctivauo:, of the facility from the DWQ prior to stoc}dn� animals• Any expansion to this fa;illi L could require me to apply for, and obtain a petrrtit prior to expansion, Si,nature; sm�-P-t'lj I Da'te': ' �x$-91 Please rcrum completed form to: DENR•DWQ Water Quality Section s Non -Discharge Compliance Unit • ' ` P.O. Box 29335 Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 `