430032_Routine_20220509

Facility Number
3g) Division of Water Resources
11 (0 t-
L) 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 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Farm Name:
ga
P-C90
Arrival Time:
011
Departure Time:
Owner Name:
RUSI-Q9e farm6, INC
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
s
Owner Email:
Phone:
County:
Region:
ENTERED TO
LASERFICHE
MAY z 2022
Jcftflt (qrn1
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
s11nd rov
Title:
DEQ/DWR WOROS
FAYETTEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
Phone:
Latitude:
Integrator: PM ge
Certification Number: l399Lp
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Swine
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
moo
ciS
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: kt - 1j,g
Date of Inspection: 0- 1- d-a
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
ND
aD
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 n 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 No ❑ 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 ;1 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. ❑ Yes 4No ❑ 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
❑ Outside of AcceptableCropCrop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
cti12. Crop Type(s): Co 1 ClIal) Gg0
13. Soil Type(s): O tf\-) fl)Qfl 0 •ke
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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 ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes w No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Trans'-rs ❑ 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' No 0 NA ElNE
ma
intain If selected, did the facility fail to install and rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes h No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: - ?-)0-
Date of Inspection: C1 • 1 ',701
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
0 Yes
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge'? If yes, check ] Y• es
the appropriate box(es) below.
U Failure to complete annual sludge survey ri Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
(l Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
No 0 NA El NE
No DNA ENE
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA 0 NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA 0 NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document 0 Yes IS1 No ❑ NA 0 NE
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? 0 Yes No 0 NA 0 NE
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 0 Yes No 0 NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. fl Yes No ❑ NA 0 NE
fl Application Field fl Lagoon/Storage Pond fl Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? fl Y• es [4_Sj No 0 NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes No 0 NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? [1 Y• es kil No 0 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).
FMm os cwronfiN hurvest(ng Dvefc�ed
�Q.41,N+c4q4 had bats.
r2m()ve
uud.s , 0.13' )1
Reviewer/Inspector Name: K� Foniit Gi-eve , g V j-ori
Phone: q q'Aq(n- VIO
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date:
5/12/2020