200001_Inspection_20211028

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 200001
Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWC200001 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine
County:
Cherokee
Region:
Date of Visit: 10/28/2021 Entry Time: 10:00 am Exit Time: 12:00 pm Incident #:
Farm Name: Notla Farms
Owner: J Randolph Shields
Mailing Address: 115 Dairy Farm Rd
Owner Email:
Asheville
Phone: [phone]
Murphy NC 28906
Physical Address: 115 Dairy Farm Rd Murphy NC 28906
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35° 00'
Longitude:
84° 11' 17"
Eleven miles west of Murphy on US Hwy 64 West at the intersection of Dairy Farm Road and Emory Anderson Road.
Question Areas:
▪ Dischrge & Stream Impacts
▪ Records and Documents
▪ Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
▪ Other Issues
Waste Application
Certified Operator:
Secondary OIC(s):
John H Shields
Operator Certification Number: 21365
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Johnny Shields
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Timothy R Fox Phone: [phone]
Date:
Inspection Summary:
Tim Fox with ARO DWR inspected the site.
Johnny Shields was present for the inspection.
The waste storage pond is designed to hold 90 days of waste and washwater from the operation.
Sludge accumulation in the pond should be monitored for maintenance when applicable.
Waste anaylsis provided for 5/14/21 & 10/18/21.
Soil samples taken on 5/25/21.
Spot checked Feild 16A corn/silage 15.7 Acres 189.7 Lb/acre.
We discussed certified operator hours available.
Page 1 of 5

Permit: AWC200001
Owner: J Randolph Shields
Inspection Date: 10/28/21 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 200001
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Type
Identifier
Effective
Date
Built
Date
Closed Designated Observed
Date Freeboard Freeboard
Waste Pond
WASTE POND
09/09/1997
24.00
40.00
Page 2 of 5

Permit: AWC200001
Inspection Date: 10/28/21
Owner: J Randolph Shields
Facility Number: 200001
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at:
Structure
Application Field
Other
a. Was conveyance man-made?
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
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 Waters of the
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ larc
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (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
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
Hydraulic Overload?
Frozen Ground?
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
PAN?
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
Total Phosphorus?
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Evidence of wind drift?
Application outside of application area?
Crop Type 1
Yes No NA NE
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ • ❑ ❑
Corn (Silage)
Page 3 of 5

Permit: AWC200001
Inspection Date: 10/28/21
Owner: J Randolph Shields
Facility Number: 200001
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
Crop Type 2 Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
Management Plan(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 acre
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Checklists?
Design?
Maps?
Lease Agreements?
Other?
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
Weekly Freeboard?
Waste Analysis?
Soil analysis?
Waste Transfers?
Weather code?
Rainfall?
Stocking?
Crop yields?
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
Page 4 of 5

Permit: AWC200001
Inspection Date: 10/28/21
Owner: J Randolph Shields
Facility Number: 200001
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
120 Minute inspections?
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipmen
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
appropriate box(es) below:
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 to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
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 regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by 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
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
CAW M P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Yes No NA NE
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
IEI
IEI
El
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
Page 5 of 5

Facility Number
*Division of Water Resources
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: ®Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Farm Name:
Co v"(2C
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Arrival Time: 1`60 t7 ,„Departure Time:
tibP la -GoaLs
/Z.`Otap,tnConnty: elelrt/,C&&.Region: 1/e0
Owner Email:
i.a4f AUL— `sh. ei.d-S Phone: Cif " 414{"-g( 35 (e)
16 7Nt4-t2gi t en.- (c �d iL : / /Q L a i,4
li5 Orhat\I ' fLuti- g'ad v Mt 22740
Phone: ZJa6 -toWfiy/r
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Backup Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Latitude:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Swine
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Design Current
Poultry Ca ' ac
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
`7- t
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. 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)
c. 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?
❑ Yes 132:1No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ,,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes gZo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number: 'V-0 - O�
Waste Collection & Treatment
(Date of Inspection:
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
, Structurecl Stmcture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: (/qan �aJah_ltl
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
ND
a4
"
No ❑ NA
o ❑ NA
Structure 6
❑ NE
❑ NE
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 I54-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 allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes -No ❑ 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 ytNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application ��++
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes hKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? ```"`YYYYYY ```"`
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes LtNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN> 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window
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?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ID Checklists ❑Design El Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [ .No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on natation equipment? ❑ Yes $. o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/2015 Continued
❑ Yes FiNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes EkNo ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes %No ❑ NA ❑ NE

Date of Inspection: t)76/
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
❑ Yes I'yrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
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 Iyallo ❑ NA
❑ Yes ll:LNo ❑ NA
❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑ Yes lallo ❑ NA
❑ Yes No D NA
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the pennit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
SI. No
V] No
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ 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).
I rgIc pet. 4P.t P wrc /14)6fieered 1fitIa
.�(�ltnt.,t.1 prese24- davl th ri o7L
cas7‘e. 6?nv c. paid is degyvzi to /old 96
dap- O l coc c GJ4$1.WC MPV ` a)v- o, j-e 't»
Sletagi e ads atu-ae ham- n3 Po-.c.L tS /Lvw(cf iJ e. IUeae�»z �d
`fir h$ && ZL#.Ce-- w(Asp, &pp t\ ca6l e.
k) Tt 80rAuvS yro-o c4. "v . /dcp(M t ton eV (
6011 captes t kew Slz-S/z(..
SP6 ae-etad khe(d 1bA Gags/ Ct'ipie, t Itcaer 1 P
Wv- dtrcussecl cet<h'ira V AS Ctlaj (it (ace_
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 82--a-%e&roc
Date:
5/12/2020