250027_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NUH I H UAHULINA
Department of Environmental Qual

INSPECTIONS.
INSPECTIONS
INSPECTIONS

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
May 17, 2000
Dr. James Peoples
3108 Hwy 55 East
Kinston NC 28501
1 � �
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Subject: Rating of Potential Risk
Inactive Waste Lagoons and Storage Ponds
Tommy Daughety Farm
Facility Number 25-27
Craven County
Dear Dr. James Peoples;
During the 1999 session, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a law directing the North
Carolina Department of Environment of Natural Resources (DENR) to develop an inventory and
ranking of all inactive lagoons and storage ponds in the State. In order to meet this directive, a
representative of DENR has recently evaluated the inactive lagoon(s) and/or storage pond(s) on your
property. Inactive lagoons and storage ponds were defined by the Statute as structures which were
previously used to store animal waste but have not received waste for at least one year.
The information collected on your property is contained in the attached field data sheets. Using
this field data, staff ranked your inactive waste structures as high, medium or low according to its
potential risk for polluting surface and/or groundwater. Your waste structure(s) was ranked as
follows:
Structure Number Surface Area (Acres} Rankin
1 1.13 Medium
2 0.18 Medium
This ranking is based in part on the conditions existing on the day of the site visit. Changes in
these conditions or the collection and evaluation of additional data may modify the ranking of your
waste structure(s) in the future.
Information on your facility along with over 1000 others contained in the inventory has been
provided to the General Assembly. During this year's session, the General Assembly will consider
additional requirements for future management of these structures which may include requiring
proper closure of inactive lagoons and storage ponds according to current or alternative standards.
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27989 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Atrn-mativ a Action Employer 50% recycleMO% post -consumer paper

Rating of Potential Risk
Inactive Waste Lagoons and Storage Ponds
Animal Waste Management System
Page 2
Regardless of their ranking, owners of all waste lagoons and storage ponds have certain
management responsibilities. These include taking appropriate actions to eliminate current
discharges, prevent future discharges and to insure the stability of their structures. Staff of the
Division of Water Quality will be in contact with owners of all inactive structures that have been
determined to pose a serious environmental risk, based on its ranking and/or additional field data
collected by the Department.
All liquids and waste removed from these structures must be land applied at a rate not to exceed
the agronomic needs of the receiving crops. Any major modifications made to the dike walls or
structure must be done in accordance with current standards and under the direction of a technical
specialist designated for structural design. Your local Soil and Water Conservation District is an
excellent source for information and guidance related to proper waste application practices, structure
operation and maintenance, and other related animal waste management standards and/or
requirements.
Nothing in this letter should be taken as removing from you the responsibility and liability for
any past or future discharges from your lagoon(s) and/or storage pond(s) or for any violations of
surface water or groundwater quality standards.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this process. If you have questions concerning
your inactive structures, please contact the staff of either in the Division of Water Quality or the
Division of Soil and Water Conservation in the Washington Regional Office at [phone].
Sincerely,
ROGER THORPE FOR
JIM MULLIGAN
Jim Mulligan
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
cc: Craven County Soil and Water Conservation District Office
Facility File

of Visit Q Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit & Routine 0 Complaint Q Follow up Q Emergency Notification ❑ Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
0 Permitted ® Certified E3 Conditionally Certified M Registered Date of Visit
Not ❑ erational O Below Threshold Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: InII _„•••.._
Farm Name- .1amu y-D.aMgbe Y.Xarmot................. ................................................. County: Craycm.............. ........ ............ ............. ..WARO........
Owner Name: 1).F damtes ............................. Pei?Rte&............. ............... ....... ............. ___ Phone No: Z5Z:523:291Q.. ...... ....................... ..
Facility Contact: ...........Title:............................................................... Phone No: ................ .............................
....._.
MailingAddress: 10 .Hkly.. . F.ast............................................................................... K.11]tstA U_xC........................................................... 2$.50 ..............
Onsite Representative:
Integrator:
Location of Farm:
.I , Iti.1.m lie.lf�I;�t. xmr.�n�.Ga..lisa............................................................•--.....................................---•-•--•.......----....................................................----
®Swine ❑ Poultry [].Cattle []:Horse
Design Current
Swine Capacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
800
0
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design :Current
Poultry Capacity population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I 1E1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 800
Total SSLW 108,004
Number of Lagoons 1 Holding Ponds 1 Solid1raps
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. 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. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No
c. It' discharge is observed- what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ SpiIlway ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
Please see attached Lagoon Field Data Sheets
Reviewer/Inspector Name Martin Melawborn - - _ . _ - - _ - _ - - _ - - "-
Reviewerllnspector Signature: Date:
Printed on: 5/12/2000

Facility Number 25 — 27 Lagoon Number 1...... Lagoon Identifier lar_qe ...........
O Active Q Inactive Latitude 155 Fl-8-1 33
Waste Last Added 1-.1.-.8.......................................... Longitude F77-1 ® 16
Determined by: ® Owner ❑ Estimated
By GPS or Map? RAPS:-- ❑ Map
GPS file number: IL022817A
Surface Area (acres): 1.13........................
Embankment Height (feet): 4...... .....................
Distance to Stream: ❑ <250 feet Q 250 feet - 1000 feet O >1000 feet
By measurement or Map? ❑ Field Measurement ® Map
Down gradient well within 250 feet? O Yes Q Na
Intervening Stream? O Yes ■O No
Distance to WS or HQW (miles): O < 5 O 5 - 10 O > 10
Overtopping from Outside Waters? O Yes *No O Unknown
Spillway O Yes ❑ No Adequate Marker O Yes O No
Freeboard & Storm Storage Requirement (inches):
inspection date 2-28-2000
appearance of Q Sludge Near Surface
lagoon liquid 0 Lagoon Liquid Dark, Discolored
O Lagoon Liquid Clear
O Lagoon Empty Freeboard (inches): 45.0
embankment condition O Poorly Built, Large Trees, Erosion, Burrows, Slumping, Seepage, Tile Drains, Etc.
Q Construction Specification Unknown But Dam Appears in Good Condition
O Constructed and Maintained to Current NRCS Standards
outside drainage O Poorly Maintained Diversions or Large Drainage Area not Addressed in Design
# Has Drainage Area Which is Addressed in Lagoon Design
O No Drainage Area or Diversions Well Maintained
liner status O High Potential for Leaking, No Liner, Sandy Soil, Rock Outcrops Present, Etc.
(9 No Liner, Soil Appears to Have Low Permeability
O Meets NRCS Liner Requirements
cation equipment fail to make contact
and/or 5prayfield O Yes Q No O Unknown with representative 0 Yes Q No
unavailable
comments Lagoon #1 well maintained
j'VI

Facility Number 25 -- 27 Lagoon Number 2........... Lagoon Identifier small........................ .......................
D Active Q Inactive Latitude F357 18 33
Waste Last Added..:1.-&.............................
Determined by: ® Owner ❑ Estimated
Surface Area (acres): Q.J.8........................
Embankment Height (feet): �................................
Longitude F777 26 16
By GPS or Map? ® GPS ❑Map
GPS file number: IL022817A
Distance to Stream: 0 <250 feet p 250 feet - 1000 feet Q >1000 feet
By measurement or Map? ❑ Field Measurement ® Map
Down gradient well within 250 feet? p Yes D No
Intervening Stream? Q Yes *No
Distance to WS or HOW (miles): Q < 5 Q 5 - 10 Q > 10
Overtopping from Outside Waters? 0 Yes Q No Q Unknown
Spillway 0 Yes Q No Adequate Marker D Yes Q No
Freeboard & Storm Storage Requirement (inches):
inspection date 2-28-2000
appearance of 0 Sludge Near Surface
lagoon liquid Q Lagoon Liquid Dark, Discolored
0 Lagoon Liquid Clear
Q Lagoon Empty Freeboard (inches): 24.0
embankment condition 0 Poorly Built, Large Trees, Erosion, Burrows, Slumping, Seepage, Tile Drains, Etc.
Q Construction Specification Unknown But Dam Appears in Good Condition
❑ Constructed and Maintained to Current NRCS Standards
outside drainage © Poorly Maintained Diversions or Large Drainage Area not Addressed in Design
Q Has Drainage Area Which is Addressed in Lagoon Design
0 No Drainage Area or Diversions Well Maintained
liner status 0 High Potential for Leaking, No Liner, Sandy Soil, Rock Outcrops Present, Etc.
Q No Liner, Soil Appears to Have Low Permeability
Q Meets NRCS Liner Requirements
cation equipment fail to make contact
andfor Sprayfield Q Yes Q No Q Unknown with representative 0 Yes Q No
unavailable
comments Heavy vegetation with trees > 6" diameter. Rain water runoff from buildings.

E
Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit s Routine O Complaint p Follow up p Emergency Notification p Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 25 27
© Permitted N Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date of Visit
* Not Operational Q Below Threshold I Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: X- ,...........
Farm Nance: T-Qu[1wy..DAmghg1y.>:.arjm............................ -.••••.................•.•••... .... County: crurm................ -........ ......... ............ .WAR0........
Owner Name: DrJuautes .............................Emplea.................. .................. ............. ...... Phone No: ...................................... •........ ............
Facility Contact: ..Title: .......................... Phone No:....................................................
MailingAddress: '1f1 3.5.5. ast.........•••......................•.•••......••-•..••......................... WUtQU..Nr................................... ......••........ ......... 28,5Ol..............
Onsite Representative: ..................................... ....... ............... ............ ....... ................ Integrator: Cargill....-- ....... ........................................ ..................
Location of Farm:
S. t.t.itulill ly sX. xaYela. a..limy.any.lefi.........................................................................................................................................................••..••.•.•••....•••....
N Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
Swine CSDacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
N Feeder to Finish
800
0
❑ Farrow to 'Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Soars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity S00
Total SSLW 108,000
Number of Lagoons X ...Holding Ponds / Solid Traps
Discharges & Stream Inipacis
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? [I Yes [I No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes [I No
c- If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N No
3. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes N No
Waste Collection & Treatment
Please see attached Lagoon Field Data Sheets
Reviewer/Inspector Name Martin Mclawhorn' -
ReviewerAnspector Signature: Date:
Printed on: 511212000

-Facility Number 25 -- 27 Lagoon Number -..... ...... Lagoon Identifier large
................................ ......................
= O Active Q Inactive Latitude F 1$ 33
Waste Last Added..:.1.-....................................... Longitude 77 26 16
Determined by: ® Owner ❑ Estimated By GPS or Map? IN GPS ❑ Map
GPS file number: IL022817A
Surface Area (acres): :1..�a ........................
Embankment Height (feet): 4................. ........
Distance to Stream: O <250 feet D 250 feet - 1000 feet O >1000 feet
By measurement or Map? ❑ Field Measurement ® Map
Down gradient well within 250 feet? Q Yes D No
Intervening Stream? O Yes *No
Distance to WS or HOW {miles}: Q < 5 ❑ 5 - 10 * > 10
Overtopping from Outside Waters? O Yes Q No O Unknown
Spillway O Yes O No Adequate Marker O Yes O No
Freeboard & Storm Storage Requirement (inches):
inspection date 2-28-2000
appearance of 4 Sludge Near Surface
lagoon liquid (*Lagoon Liquid Dark, Discolored
O Lagoon Liquid Clear
O Lagoon Empty Freeboard (inches): 45.0
embankment condition O Poorly Built, Large Trees, Erosion, Burrows, Slumping, Seepage, Tile Drains, Etc.
*Construction Specification Unknown But Dam Appears in Good Condition
O Constructed and Maintained to Current NRCS Standards
outside drainage O Poorly Maintained Diversions or Large Drainage Area not Addressed in Design
Q Has Drainage Area Which is Addressed in Lagoon Design
O No Drainage Area or Diversions Well Maintained
liner status O High Potential for Leaking, No Liner, Sandy Soil, Rock Outcrops Present, Etc.
0 No Liner, Soil Appears to Have Low Permeability
O Meets NRCS Liner Requirements
cation equipment fail to make contact
and/or 5prayfield O Yes Q No O Unknown with representative 0 Yes Q No
unavailable
comments Lagoon #1 well maintained

Facility Number 25 — 27 Lagoon Number 2........... Lagoon Identifier s.m.aIl..........................................................
❑ Active Q Inactive Latitude 35 1$
Waste Last Added 1..=1.-$.................................
Determined by: ® Owner ❑ Estimated
Surface Area (acres): p, ........................
Embankment Height (feet): a.
Longitude 77 > 16
By GPS or Map? IN GPS f ❑ Map
GPS file number: IL022817A
Distance to Stream: Q <250 feet # 250 feet - 1000 feet ❑ >1000 feet
By measurement or Map? [_-]Field Measurement ® Map
Down gradient well within 250 feet? ❑ Yes *No
Intervening Stream? ❑ Yes *No
Distance to WS or HOW (miles): ❑ < 5 ❑ 5 - 10 Q > 10
Overtopping from Outside Waters? ❑ Yes ❑Q No ❑ Unknown
Spillway Q Yes O No Adequate Marker ❑ Yes ❑ No
Freeboard & Storm Storage Requirement (inches):
inspection date 2-28-2000
appearance of 0 Sludge Near Surface
lagoon liquid a Lagoon Liquid Dark, Discolored
❑ Lagoon Liquid Clear
❑ Lagoon Empty Freeboard (inches): 24.0
embankment condition 0 Poorly Built, Large Trees, Erosion, Burrows, Slumping, Seepage, Tile Drains, Etc.
❑ Construction Specification Unknown But Dam Appears in Good Condition
❑ Constructed and Maintained to Current NRCS Standards
outside drainage Q Poorly Maintained Diversions or Large Drainage Area not Addressed in Design
❑ Has Drainage Area Which is Addressed in Lagoon Design
❑ No Drainage Area or Diversions Well Maintained
liner status ❑ High Potential for Leaking, No Liner, Sandy Soil, Rock Outcrops Present, Etc.
❑Q No Liner, Soil Appears to Have Low Permeability
❑ Meets NRCS Liner Requirements
cation equipment fail to make contact
andlor aprayfield p Yes ❑Q No ❑ Unknown with representative D Yes Q No
unavailable
comments Heavy vegetation with trees > 5" diameter. Rain water runoff from buildings.

❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Operation Review
M Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Compliance Inspection
® Division of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
❑Other Agency- Operation Review
Facility Number 25 27 -- I D:ur o: Inspection 3-30-99
l'imr of ln,epretion 12J5 24 hr.
Permitted Certified L, Condili erodle Certified �= Registered Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: 1omxw.Dad%ACq:.EarAu......................................................................... Counly: Craccn........ .......................... WaRO........
Owncr Name: Dr_.damps............. ....... ......... Peoples .............................. ............. ........... Phone No: 252-513320.63.................................._.....................
Facility Contact:......................_..................................................... Title: Phone No:..
Mailing Address: 31U&.Hn'J-SS.EasL........._._................_.............................................. Kids[un..!YC_._..._......._...................................._. 265U1.............
Onsile Reprefentilthc .[QmmJ:_.Miehael.DaY.4hCh.................. Inte.�rutOr: C.a[^.-ID.........._...............__._._..............._.............._.
Certified Operator:..Tluawn-L............................ jimxinty ........ Operator Certification Number: 1ZU27.........................._..
Location of Farm:
Latitude 35 IB 33
Swine
Umgitudc 77 is i 26 17
Po uI tion Poul n-
❑ Wean to Feeder
IN Feeder to Finish 1 800 1 792
10 Farrow'tow.
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ GdLs
013oars
Cattle
0 Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Numberof Lagoons 0 ❑Suburfacc Drains Present ❑Lagoon Aren [
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps E:= J0 No Liquid Waste Management System
!?i cinves & Stream ln:nam,
L Is any discharee observed from any pall of the operation?
Di:cits�_:nininul_d ac Olaeoon 0 Spray Field ❑Other
a. if di-..charve is ob.en':el. was the convyv ante man-made"
b. It dicha±rc is oMy;Y cd d1d h mach lPatu of We Sta1c" (lfyes. notifi DAN'Q)
c If dic;narac is nvsen e 1. tyhm is the estuumcd host in V1,boun
d. Uuc� dischar^_c btpass a Inennn scaem' Ilf yes. nntii� DiPQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from env part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or polential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
F \ast, CTdlectimr & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity' (fieeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? 0 Spillwav
Swomre 1 Slractnre 2 Sunclum3 Structure 4 Stmcune s
ldeutiBer'. ................................................................................................................................................................................... .
Freebo.rd (inched : .............. .UIL_........... .._.............................. .... -.............................. ................................ ..................................... .
5. Are there any immediate threats to the mtelone of any of the slrncmres observed? (e/trees- severe erosion.
:nvYo
seepage, etc_)
800
❑ Yes Z No
0 Yes g No
0 Yes Z No
n/a
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes 9 No
0 Yes2, No
0 Yea $ No
Structure 6
❑ Yes $ No
fnminurd no hack

Fatilit► Number. 2:5-27 Ilan• Of in•nr:':i<<rz
6- Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If anv 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 maintenaucelimproveraLni?
8. Does any part of the waste management st•siem other than waste structures require maintctrancclimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate_ gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
NVaslr Ann icatinn
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponduig ❑ PAN
12- Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Small Grain CKerseed
11 Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal 'Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Rrcordi & Doeunrrnts
17. Nail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP. checklists. design. maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation_ freeboard, Waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fait to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge. freeboard problems. over application)
23. Did Reviewer/lnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
E •No Violations or-defiCien66 were noted during this Visit: You will'receive no further'.
correspondence about this Visit.
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): .
Records available for review. The facility meets the wettable acreage requirements.
Hadn't irrigated in two years therefore no ERR 2 available for review.
Lagoon level is iow.
?,waiting soil and waste analysis.
D]d laeoon on site_ plan to close out eventually.
g 7 - Continue your efforts to establish vegetation on dike wall.
Ifyou have any questions. please contact me at 252-946-648 L ext. 31 &
❑ Yes X- No
[K Yes [j No
❑ Yes Z No
❑ Yes [K No
❑ Yes 1j No
E] Yes X No
El Yes EK! No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes Z No
❑ Yes O No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes X, No
❑ Yes Z No
[:)Yes ® No
❑ Yes Z No
Yes Z No
❑ Yes No
L{ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
w
Reviewer/Inspector Name L►ti B. Hardison- -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: _3D_ G� Cj

PoW��
DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review }
rc.
w.
DW Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection w _ �� P Q p 10
..:..::..:
. -.: .......
Routine 0 Complaint Q Follow-up of DIVQ ins action Q Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number Z 5 Z
Time of Inspection f :3v 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Registered JaCertified © Applied for Permit © Permitted JOINotOperational I Date Last Operated:...._ „-
Farm Dame: r .....Pt'.t?�.. ................. CrkeC..
-. Count► ...............................
Owner Name: a °`•'�� pcs les Phone No:
........ r......................F........................................................... .........
Facility- Contact: ...........T..... .... Title .... Phone No:
Mailing Address: ..................... . z............ �..........
Onsite Rep resentati►e:7P..-...f -n �,i Integrator:,-, ........... ..........................................
Certified ^y-.---...----.. H.�e'I .--.................. Operator Certification umber:-,....--- ................. .......
Location of Farm:
Latitude Longitude
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity .Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer r ❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish p D ❑Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
[I Boars Tofa155LW
Number of Lagoons 1 Holding Ponds I0 Subsurface Drains PresenE ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
❑ \o Liquid WasteManagement S►'stem
General
1. Are there any buffers that need inaintenancel':mprovement?
2. Is anv discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Di:charLre originated at: ❑ I,agoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed. was the coil eGance nian-inade`°
b, if dischanve is obscnicd, did it reach Surface Wafer'? 01 yes. nutifv DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in imlhnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (It -yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoonslholding ponds) require
mai ntenancelimprovement?
b. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes 70 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes IR No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7125/97
A- ❑ Yes 19 No
Cordinued on hack

Facility Number: 15 — Z-7
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Yes
❑ No
Structures (l,a2oons.lioldine Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
Structure 1 Structure ? Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure
0
Identifier: +1�N r11
.......................................................................................................................................................................
...................................
Freeboard(ff.): ................ ... :7� ...............................
... ................ ...............
.............. ......................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
[%No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
O No
12, Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
%Yes
❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered ves, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
0No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
Cl Yes
O'No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ..........�?`•..J.► r e................................
lb. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
PJ No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
jp No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
Nf No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes No
22. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes qNo
For Certified or Permitted Facilities
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No
[j No.violations or derLeiencie-s.were nt'oted•during this:visiC- Yo'u4.il1 receive•izo ftiril_ier
Correspondehee about this Visit: :
_... _ . _.
ornmertts'(refet;to que bon #) �Explatn'any YF S. anis wens"2T or, any4ecomme6"tiow or =y ottier`irarxuttenis u
_- .Qa. i
HIS»
t c: i ,i �M q
Clse d wtn s f fac�ht :to be to ex fain: t bons:` use add tid►rtal< a' es as ece ra g a , y fi st ua (-- P.. g n scary,,. ate.. pu:
•�,�;.:r..»...:-
x s
......., t',...,..t.-..,...»,....,-=i:.s..a..... .._... ,.. .•: �:....sue..
a� A- pL ,,'A 4V
12.
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
p Aly ` : ' f
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: � �ee..cr Rate:

A ..
DSV'VC A nimal Feedlot � eration a ew-�=
Review
3
1.
1 Feedlot Operation ite DV'V AnimaS Inspection
V' Q
1
.e
12 Routine 0 Complaint ❑ Follow-up of DW2 inspection 0 Follow-u of DSWC review 0 Other
Date [of Inspection 7- 3
Fac�-Number 2
I imr of luspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: 1� Registered ❑ Applied for Permit €ex:1.25 for I hr 15 min)) Spent ern Review
❑ Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
0 Not Operational
Date Last Operated: .. .......
_ ......... ...........................................
Farm Name: ............
....... .......................... ....... ..................
County Owe "'
...............----.......................,,.............................
Owner tiaanc: a'.�.
................0- . J......... .. ....- e'� 3
'
... Phone No:...................................................................................
r.
Facility Contact: .............! n!- 4...............
7-- ....Title:................................................................
Phone No:.......--........................................
MaifingAddress:................................................................................................................
..................................... ........ .,........................ .... ........ ..........................
Onsite Representative: rlic�t�...,
�e'�,!
�l.sa.�..........................................................................
Integrator "r r..'....................................
Certified Operator:..........:? .1-ny...
A' 4rl— ...................:...
.........----.... Operator Certification 1umt�er:..................... ...................
Location of Farm:
A
............. ........... ,,.r�.�,.................... . C......... ..�.. 3r............................................ F......................
Latitude • t r��=i Longitude ' 4 :4
Type of Operation
Swine-,::
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population- Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
817� �� ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non Dairy
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ! Holding Ponds ❑ Subsurface' Drains Present ❑ I.agpon Ares ❑ Spray Field Area
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovetnent'?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation`'
1 }i;charge on gi nated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made.'!
b. It dischargc is observed, did it reach Surface Water! (If yes. notify DWQ)
c. If dischari e is observed. what is the estimarcd f7o�+� in gal/min?
d. Dots discharge bypass a la�,ncin system:' (If yes. notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any pare of the operation`?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge'!
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than Iagoons/ho€ding ponds) require
mai ntenanceli mpro ve ment'?
-I13Q197
❑ Yes XN o
❑ Yes 'W No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ ,No
❑ Yes W.No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes XNo
Continued on back

i
Facility Number: j — 1!7
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes KNo
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes No
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? Yes ❑ No
IN
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding fonds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No
Freeboard (ft): Stture 1 Structure Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure G
................................... "----- '
Ic--........ `.. '-...................... ................ .................................... ............................... ............. .... ...............
IQ.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
9No
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
14'No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
19No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
14 No
Waste AAnlieatio
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
1KNo
(If in excess of WMP, orrunoffentering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crap type ........... g n`.'k............................ ..... ............ .....................................................................................................
Ib.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
] Na
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
X Yes
❑ No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
X. Yes
❑ No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
ATNo
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
�UNo
For Certified Facilities On[
22.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No
24. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes A No
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: 7-31- 97
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4130197