310750_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20180607

%ieility Number 13T -ICJ
Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: // ��A'�rrival Time: i I' C- Departure Time: County: D v I n
Farm Name: �� ATV <�s Fesyto Owner Email:
Owner Name: 64 e �Yj i.e Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative: LAB (' B (,$_
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to I
Wean to I
Feederto
Farrow to
Farrow to
Farrow to
Gilts
Other
Other
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Region: WlV_U
Integrator:
Certification Number: a..
Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non
-Layer
Pullets
Poults
Design Current
Discharges and Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWR)
e. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)? _
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes X No ❑ NA ONE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Yes [—] No
Yes I�fNo
Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
❑ NA O NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili ,Number: Date of Inspection: -71
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
tgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: 'L ?
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
!] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes J�XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes b�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. KYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Excessive Pending 9�pydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑,(Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
�[I Yes ❑ No ❑ NA❑,,�, NE
pp�
7❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA �NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
Page 2 of 3
❑ Yes [-]No
[:]Yes [-]No
❑ NA XNE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA )jjNE
❑ NA XNE
21412015 Continued

Facili Number: Date of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA X NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
the appropriate box(es) below. 101,
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [—]Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA �NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [XNE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes KNo
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
&'
e ld Ct-r-VQr_ raw% . bloom a of rN—'C61 VV6T+ �"- ,
b`f hock si t e zvw l CkMd
MisN �tbw-I�`�
pv IVCVC;'k 1\& +�'elGiS '� I�hwv� li��1iirGit�n . � Cwv�
�`Jd I
p-yeveA Dd6. H � ire �- l av -Fg re oyoU 4-b
YOSi ' ►m UR7,@, hCcWr,'yU,
Reviewer/Inspector Name: NU m ,eT , Phone: % - 7q ( -7 39 7
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �� Date:
Page 3 of 3 212 J15

Miguez, Kristin
From: Miguez, Kristin
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 9:50 AM
To: King, Morelia s
Cc: Powell, David C; Mellinger, Michael J; Lawson, Christine
Subject: RE: [External] Observed Waste- Flight 6/6/18
DWR-WiRO visited 31-750 (identified as Ponded Waste 2 in the complaint) on the afternoon of 6/7/18. Helen Perez and
Kristin Miguez walked the field and ditch in the vicinity of the center pivot shown in the photograph. There was
evidence of ponded waste in the field in several low-lying areas. There is a DOT roadside ditch that is eroding onto the
grower's land that is causing additional erosion towards a ditch and low-lying area by the edge of his spray field. There
was no visible evidence of wastewater in the ditch. We suggested he address these actively eroding areas in order to
prevent further erosion and to prevent it from becoming a route for potential runoff, suggested he aerway if possible;
and to be aware of field conditions before and after land application to prevent pending of waste.
Thank you,
Kristin Miguez
From: King, Morelia s
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:00 AM
To: Miguez, Kristin <[e-mail]>
Cc: Powell, David C <[e-mail]>; Mellinger, Michael J <[e-mail]>; Allen, Trent
<[e-mail]>; Lawson, Christine <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Observed Waste- Flight 6/6/18
Thank you Kristin.
Morelia
Morella Sanchez King
Wilmington Regional Office: 127 Cardinal Drive Extension; Wilmington, NC 28405
morella.sanchez- kingpncdenr.gov; (P)910 796 7218 - (F) 910 350 2004
`� �othinq (:omp;are
' ;Mad correspondence to and tram this address is subject to the
Notl1i Caroli,!ra Public Records Law and may be disclosed to ;hots parties.
From: Miguez, Kristin
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 10:53 AM
To: King, Morella s <[e-mail]>
Cc: Powell, David C <[e-mail]>; Mellinger, Michael J <[e-mail]>; Allen, Trent
<[e-mail]>; Lawson, Christine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [External] Observed Waste- Flight 6/6/18
I will be back to the office shortly and will investigate and see what Farm this is.

From: Patrick Connell [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 5:11 PM
To: King, Morella s <[e-mail]>
Cc: Christian Breen <[e-mail]>; Kemp Burdette <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Observed Waste- Flight 6/6/18
Good afternoon Ms.King-Sanchez
A flight was conducted today in Duplin and Sampson County by Cape Pear River Watch. Questionable
hog waste management was observed. Attached are documents and timestamped photo's (geotag in
metadata) addressing our findings.
GPS Coordinates:
Ponded Waste I
34.849123°
-77.898839'
Ponded Waste 2:
34.8531890
-78.130087°
Fixed Sprayer:
34.827202°
-78.2237190
All the best,
Patrick Connell
Cape Pear River Watch
<Ponded Waste (1).JPG>
<Ponded Waste (2).JPG>
<Fixed Spray- Woodline (3).JPG>
<Flight Referral Letter Ponded Waste l.docx>
<Flight Referral Letter Ponded Waste 2.docx>
<Flight Referral Letter Fixed Sprayer 3.docx>
3

a-q 50
RiuerWatch
June 6th, 2018
Ms. Morelia King -Sanchez Environmental Program Supervisor III
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
morella.sanchez-king @ncdenr.gov
Re: Observed Waste from Flight
Ms. Sanchez -King:
A flight was performed today (6-6-2018) in Duplin County by Cape Fear River Watch. During the flight
we observed questionable waste management practices near hog farms. Attached are time stamped
photos containing global positioning system coordinates (GPS) in its metadata and a Google Earth
image of the general area. The attached photos show ponding on an active spray field.
Coordinates: 34.853189,-78.130087
A WATERKEEPER ALLIANCEOMember
617 Surry St Wilmington, NC 28403
Phone: [phone]
www. c a o e f e a rr i v e rw a t c h. o rg

Page 3 of 3
Calic fear
River Watch
Thank you for your consideration on this matter, and please contact me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Patrick Connell
Cape Fear River Watch
Cell: 910-728-3373
Office: 910-762-5606
[e-mail]

46" . .
■
4

7 2-5-- 0l4
1k<1/ /VC ZS-(f-JT
6 .-z () /Y
JUL p 2 7uid j
Lfy
CIE
q/ 0 2- l

va
c
0
0 y
i6 W
� c
O
v_ ca
D•
c
C0.O
Olpo
CoU
J N
0
LL
O
1
1
1
�1
;1
i
1
YI
0
0
Q
It
M
N
N
ai
C_ N
E i
N
C
2 O
m c_
m N
X
NN
E
a
N
N O
E CL
0
� U
CD
3 m
c �
o
O_ U
Cc
C
.Q
E
C c0
� C
m a
O N
m �
c �
E L
m
oc
O
a)
c E
O
2
n
Y
m
r C
C
N N
a 0
U O
c O
c U
N —
a 0
Z