240066_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Facility Number
9 Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit �OlCompllance Inspection d Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 4 Routine 4 Complaint 'qQFollow up ® Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Dale of visit: L2,772-6 :Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: <f6wm &A S
Farm Name: Lo-c Cfil` [L C`-`aQ-kA- Owner Email:
Owner Name: LC L 11(u) e1— Phone:
Mailing :address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 'Title:
nnsite Representative: C,_.
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Darns:
Swine
❑ Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
I❑ Feeder to Finish
El Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gifts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Region:
Latitude: 1:10
❑1 ❑11 longitude: =o ❑` ❑
11
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
I I JEI Non -Layer I I El
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Imams
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Co
Humber of Structures: ❑
b. Did the 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 DWiQ)
2. Is there evidenoe of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes x No ❑ NA ❑ NE
1-0
12..28104 Gondnteed

Facility Number: -
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Stricture 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard [in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure i Structure 6
❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
El Yes XNo ❑ NA El 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA XNE
maintenance/implrnvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA X 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 Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift [:]Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ,14 NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA XNE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination, ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA kNE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
19. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
Comments (refer to question #): 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):
5Al51TE w / S4V- -'5 70 &QALLxWiE ISULgUAL 31?E — ✓rit
Reviewer/Inspector Name Pj Phone: ` 1 ICE ' `f`j(o —'t S oI -f
Reviewer/Impector Signature: Date:
IZ/2M4 Continued
NE
NE

Facility Number:,Q— Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have 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
❑ NAXNE
the appropiate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA VNE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1"
Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA V NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA )I NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
X No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA XNE
Other issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ N£
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yam]
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (ie(discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
12128104

O(Division of Water Quality
=Facifityer © Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit Xcompliance
inspection
0 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation
O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
0 Routine Q Complaint
*ollow up O Referral O Emergency
O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: jQ Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: GCgU.�f'nQ0AS
Farm Name: T�2 . LC C4Q _ _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: L-c- c1p(Ll Eg__ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: LC CO(Ll e �L Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
10 Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
01 Feeder to Finish rj o&C)
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Region
Latitude: [= c = S Q f� Longitude: = n =, = {f
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & 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 DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
El Dairy Calf
❑ Daily Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
0 Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: p
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 adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

FacilitN Number: (p Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes] 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: 6AG02vV_- -
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): J
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 'V�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes 34 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a 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 DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes %] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes nl 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA �NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA PQNE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
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 acre determination ?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
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
RNE
Comments (refer to question #): 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):
,SoNht (a)c t roc pm' r 1VE>a� S��A AmANpA 6Arr+t-S CDtJ-E7LActnr9 1j ivA.
GALL RQ S l T l& To CµECK (2N �(ZOGCLESS 0X FINr314 /At 6 THE PIT C-A.-IER'O'f G,
HC FuNAL CC_)UG[tAGE wHg ^- 91 pQWC- AIATt4ML GRWUNU LEuCt.. 4 wAS CornpAe-rEn t.� f
NlrAUL�Eguapin t "% 'THC Bt_,WAC PVT wE(Z.G comp(-Er>`1� I ACcCOZOP14CE uJ/
- E_94GrIG 2UgLIA C `ZQCEDu RC--S 6566 A7rPct+nnEN7)4 OAv '�4 /:4Ib Lf-c rlcvu KE ?T)
+
Reviewer/Inspector Name Ja IN _ S Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:�g1,�Q
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

1 3-5•
Facility Number: —& jt I Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have 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 ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA JVNE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ SoiI Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
[:]Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
VNE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
JXNE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
O(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
[ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
X Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
�wQ1�U- S+W S7aFF wILL_CANV.uCT 19 FoLLoLAi-kQ //y5Qf-::cTICW_ aF-T14E t3ALIALSI iC
Dwa21� A-u►S 6C0CJAfA&L5 Cowl+ru, $q> L.-%L _ moNiTo(L (ju V_tAC 5i i(E /N 7HC nv
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of water Quality
Fad ity Number O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit XCompliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Q Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral A Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: �} %Q Arrival Time: Departure Time: r<g o0 County: 62CUMN LS Region:
Farm Name: L CASE �z_ Owner Email:
Owner Name: LC C(a9ZTE7, Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative: LC co EQ-
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Title:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ❑ o F--I ❑ Longitude: = ° ❑ 1 = u
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layer's
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharizes & 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?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dai Cow
❑ Dahy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
E]Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow,
Number of Structures:
b. Did the 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 adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
�,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 1
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ yes"*Y
No ❑ 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: CX]N
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): of
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes *ANo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes 4No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a 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 DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
4. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes � 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/improvement?
,
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA [XNE
❑ 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 Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of 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?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA NE
❑ No ❑ NA I NE
❑ No ❑ NA NE
❑ No ❑ NA 5NE
No ❑ NA b� NE
Comments (refer to question #): 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):
Sp"m Cext_e-GE IFQ6rn S1U_�o wASNO"liEIEr-10:00prn 0A1-4AP110IHAT TWE2E wRS A
AL
MASS DEATH IN ONE o F Z l+E- Ha(S HOuSf-S 406Sy, IRe CcaRTAfwIS j)lb No i bltop at THE
-TF_MPE(LANCFE 667'K-X> tIc;�T INGkAlLNA16. d "QLCk4AttLES !37"f"") 'AAS AtORFtEb0 A-(9:30AAA.
C'�N���irl0. �1mAn1DA CaAIJ�IES�I) 14�01eT SamN CoLcEFE(S*L'�)ICXT-1WE S3L44 PL stTE@-q:3p
{ HE S71OTa v6_T(bf CM QASE-NCbA v671) wAS cmNTAC'7epCiu g�w �wq. EMctzG n►Cu�Q�►a�a�
_Ct: )L'gi~s wC-RE A fLc�uE f3 b� Ra E. � pTracNM�NT
Reviewer/Inspector Name 901 ves - Phone: %-�j jo-�3Q4
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: -:41-4 J f n
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — (dj Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19_ Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA VNE
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 El Checklists ❑Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA VNE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall [:]Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 64 NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA K7 NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
14 NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
El yes
ElNo
❑ NA
NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
ONE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
ONE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
'0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
�kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
'WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
X Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
DwR�� OAU1S CQrouuM?(AS CCY.kivTL� S4L'J� �oi-1nt Ca���c;C�S�W H€LPEls I�'1�2.C,oiz%ER
F1)V1�) A S iTE FO V QuQt AL. 1q F I ELb _�WS T poLury Ffaam I H [l 140C V AV ty) i NAr I x owrr � d
.gV9.765pm� .�Ac�►
BL BIiG�Q
g� A Sp1L 50(UA1C e+ NE Ci�l:�Kf<b ��SZ1o5�1CAt-L�Cr�1ll -E-T0e Pt7 wAg DUC 7pENSt,RE �3
lyl jid1mueA of E � A4ou� S HE SEA AL NtC-1H wP'VEJZ A4L-C L C CRC c+��3c�R�AL
SHN �_'o+..-scG[Swt � Noi Ifr1Eb 7tlWa t.t �jputS (Cc.3'4) 1 HE CO(-( M L�5 Co4N7L,HSAGH
AZi MENT wA5 N07IF1C > %L fnit•bAu�S
1 I FE IbEAA Ma QqOL&G 14T ia'i H[- V>UR-tAL S tiF IN "-�•� h�r'"p i cLt�C>F, LoaDS -1 gPRI<A�
i 1 17' - 190j x . -4 A SrAAcLM?Cr " 4rOx 40', rHr F)HAL ccawt i 13 � 450 ANIM.4LS
N A'rsi;u+n++ yr a [*rd)
C^155 t� w AwQ LeF- s L T C- Yna. CAS; cit I Dwa,
(ILL AmmAuswGczli c ER�L� 1"1N'b
�� LCS.tcJ,t ��Ir Eq„cA.Qi��icnrroRAK �i�cu�sSE�t.utAfn�G��h=c,43�tkwE 'r+2exfrx7�RT7o
ccmQLt_TE S%A(L%(4' .
wILLCnCEF(b C-LS,t-4L51TE C -9:304-, XGY-Tpgc3,
Page 3 of 3 12128104

(4-n iCJJr*&NT A
. k .
Burial Standards
1. The bottom of the hole where dead animals are to be buried should be 3 feet above the
seasonal high water table wherever possible and at least 12 inches above the seasonal
high water table. (Farm owners may contact the local MRCS agency or the local health
department for assistance in determining the seasonal high water table.)
2. Standing water in the hole does not preclude animal burial as long as the bottom of the
hole is at least 12 inches above the seasonal high water table, not in an area of standing
water, and the other conditions for proper burial are met.
3. There must be at least 3 feet of soil covering any buried animal. This can be interpreted to
mean soil mounded over the animals above the adjacent ground Ievel.
4. The burial site must be at least 300 feet from any existing stream or public body of water.
5. The burial site must be at least 300 feet from any existing public water supply well.
b. The burial site must be at least 100 feet from any other type of existing well.
7. The burial site cannot include any portion of a waste lagoon or lagoon wall.
S. In the case where the burial site is in a waste disposal spray field, the burial site is not
available for subsequent waste spraying until a new viable crop is established on the site.
9. The burial site shall be located so as to minimize the effect of stormwater runoff.
I0. Burial is not permitted in the tiled area of an underdrained field.
11. A record of the location of the approved site (GPS latitude and longitude coordinates if
available), the burial history of each burial site to include the date, species, head count
and age must be kept by the owner and reported to the Local Health Director who will in
turn report this information to the appropriate State agency - DENR Division of Water
Quality, Groundwater Section.
12. Farm owners and operators are encouraged to consider measures that could be taken prior
to an imminent emergency that could reduce the impact on the farm and the environment.

34' 25' 25"
34' 24' 5L1'
Soil Map --Columbus County, North Carolina
(Emergency Burial Area)
Map Scads: 1:7,720 if printed ort A size (8.5" x 11 ") sfteel.. �
0
Meters +�
ti A 0 100 200 400 800 m
Feel
0 400 800 1,600 2,400
--1
�
--44
C"�
34' 25' 24" :
34' 24' 49"
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Sail Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
7/7/2010
Page 1 of 3

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Sells
Soil Map Units
Special
Point Features
�.�
Blowout
Borrow Pit
x
Clay Spot
4
Closed Depression
X
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
IR
Mine or Quarry
(D
Miscellaneous Water
O
Perennial Water
v
Rock Outcrop
+
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
0
Sinkhole
3>
Slide or Slip
)o
Sodic Spot
?
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Soil Map —Columbus County, North Carolina
(Emergency Burial Area)
Very Stony Spot
f Wet Spot
i Other
Special Line Features
Gully
Short Steep Slope
.. Other
Potttical Features
0 Cibes
Water Features
Oceans
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
MAP INFORMATION
Map Scale: 1:7,720 if printed on A size (B.5" x 11 ") sheet.
The soil surveys that comprise your AO were mapped at 1;24,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Surrey URL: hftp://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N NAD83
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Columbus County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Jul 16, 2009
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 6/21/2006
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
Imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/7/2010
aim— Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3

�oil Map —Columbus County, North Carolina Emergency Burial Area
Map Unit Legend
Columbus County, North Carolina (NC047)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
GOA
Goldsboro fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
80.3
31.3%
LY
Lynchburg fine sandy loam
30.7
12.0%
NoA
Norfolk loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
5.3
2.1%
Ra
Rains fine sandy loam
132.7
51.8%
St
Stallings sandy loam
7.3
2.8%
TO
Torhunta fine sandy loam
0.0
0.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
2S6.3
100.0%
41.
j z
4L
"77
;k
7
0
71- A
f
LISDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 71712010
2m— Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

L.C. Carter's Swine Loss of July 06 2010
On Wednesday, July 7, 2010 at 7:05 AM i got a call from Ms. Phyllis Greene with Cooperative Extension
Service. She said that John College of the Division of Soil and Water Conservation called her trying to get
up with me. She said that Mr. L.C. Carter had from 3 to 4 hundred swine to die on his hog farm the day
before from heat exhaustion and John was going to try to help him find a place for emergency burial and
needed my assistance.
At 7:10 AM John called me and gave more specifics on the swine loss. He said that burial would be the
best method of disposal and asked if I could meet him at the operation with maps to decide the best
place for burial. He also asked me to notify Mr. Neil Floyd with Environmental Health. I left a message
on Mr. Floyd's voice mail around 7:20 AM and headed to the site.
I arrived at the site around 7:35 AM. Mr. L.C., John, and I discussed where to bury the animals. John
and I went to a field that Mr. L.C. owns about a quarter mile east of the farm to check Seasonal High
Water Tables (SHWT) and found it to be at 32 inches. Under a catastrophic event, we determined that
the animals could be buried 1 foot above the SHWT. John confirmed this with the State Veterinary's
Office. (Mr. Tom Raye)
Around 8:40 AM Ms. Amanda Gaines with the Division of Water Quality arrived at the site. We all
agreed that this method of handling this amount of dead animals was best. John, Amanda, and I stayed
with the contractor during the burial process.
I called Mr. Floyd again around 9:00 AM and he said that he may try to get by the site and to keep him
informed of the number and size of the animals.
Mr. Larry Hinson of Evergreen, NC was the contractor for the burial. Mr. Hinson dug the burial pit 20
inches deep and laid the dead animals in a single layer. He then covered them with 3 feet of soil.
Two (2) pits were dug on the site. Pit number 1 was approximately 40 feet wide and 120 feet long. It
held 455 animals. Pit number 2 was 40 feet by 40 feet and 25 animals were buried in it. The total
number of animals buried was 480. These animals weighed between 175 to 200 pounds.
The Latitude of the burial site is 34° 25' 07" or 34.418611 in decimal. The Longitude of the burial site is
78°51' 27" or in decimal 78.8575.
Recorded by;
Edward E. Davis, Director/Engineering Technician
Columbus Soil and Water Conservation District
45 B Government Complex Road
Whiteville, NC 28472
Phone: [phone] Ext. 3
Email: [e-mail]

.... ...........
[3Division of Soil and Water Conservation [3Other Agency
ts
Division of Water Quality
F71-2 J,
10 Routine 0 Complaint e Follow-up of DWQ inspeTtion 0 1,ollow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number Time of InspLct ion Et2K] 24 hr. (hh:ram)
Registered H Certified 0 Applied for Permit 13 Permitted 10 Not O =erational Date Last Operated: _ ... . ..................
Farm Name: .... ..... County: ...............
........................................................
Owner Name: ............... . .... ........ C4'.'fi ... .................................... Phone No:..1 ...............
FacilityContact: ....................... . ................ . ........ ........................ Title: ................................................................ Phone No: ............................... . ..................
Mailing Addr. . .............. ..2-9.9ZI
ess: ........ Lv-.:!�Is.-'r Dx-, ... . ..........................................
Onsite Representative: L-Axt.ko . . ...... ............................................ ..................... ... . ...................
Certified Operator—l-wa.. . . . ........ C., .. ...... C.j&.'(..A-Qey ............................. Operator Certification Number, ..... ............
Location of Farm:
....... L -K,15-3 A) .................... A
. ........... .............................................................. ........................................................ .................................................... . ............. ............................
Latitude Longitude
Design Current Design.Current Design Cutrent
1
apacity Peputati6n'
Capacit.y.,�Population PoOltry Capacity a C Swine" - Population Cattle
0 Wean to Feeder
2 Feeder to Finish
52 $?o
0 Farrow to Wean
EJ Farrow to Feeder
El Farrow to Finish
El Gilts
[I Boars
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
Non-Dai
Design Cal
Total S
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: 0 Lagoon 0 Spray Field [I Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge
ge is observed, what is the estimated flow in -aymin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if 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 lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
D Yes 0 No
El Yes 0 No
El Yes 0 No
0 Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
0 Yes El No
D Yes [I No
[I Yes 0 No
0 Yes El No
Continued on back

Facility Number:
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structures (Lagootts.Holding Ponds, Flush Pits, -etch
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? EK Yes ❑ No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: I S
Freeboard(ft): .................... . .............. ................................... .......................... . ....... .................................... ........ ............ ............. .................... . .............
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? El Yes 0 No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No
12, Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? Yes ❑ No
(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 ❑ No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
(If in excess of WW, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ................................................................ .............. . . ............... _ ............... . ..... . .................. ............ . .................. ....... ........................ . .....................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? El Yes El No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
No.violitions or dericieficies4ere' noted during this.visiL-Yo'u.w'illreceive ,'no further..
correspondence about this visit:
IM
0 Yes 0 No
0 Yes 0 No
0 Yes El No
0 Yes [I No
0 Yes 0 No
El Yes 0 No
[I Yes [I No
Yes 0 No
Yes 0 No
s 41 CL

Division of Soil and Water Conservation p Other Agency
- 4p DIVLSiOn of Water Quality
R
'ore
IS Routine p Complaint O Follow -tip of DWQ inspection O o
ow -up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time ol'tnspectinn
24 hr. (hh:mm)
p Registered N Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted
in Not Operatiana Date Last Operated.
Farm Name: L.0,Carter,1arm---------------------- ...... .........------............. County: Columbus
WIRO
OwnerName: L,andaa---------------------------------- Carter......................................................... Phone No: 04-30S3............................... ................................ .....
Facility Contact: ....................... ....................................................... Title: ........ Phone No:
MailingAddress: 11fi.Carch-Ur........... ............................................................................. ExexgirmaN.C....................................................... 28.438 ..............
Onsite Representative: LwWon.Car.ter.......................................................................... Integrator: Ca.rxoll's.Famd&J=.............................................
Certified Operator: Lomdo C............................ Caxtea:....... ........................ ....,........... Operator Certification Number:2d411................. ............
Location of Farm:
Latitude 0 4 ®" Longitude 0 ° 41
design uurrent
Swine Capacity Population
(3 Wean to Feeder
Ili Feeder to Finish
13 Farrow to Wean
p Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finish
p Gilts
p Boars
eslgu Uurrent Design current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle < . Capacity Population
C3 Layer ❑ Dairy
Non -Layer 1 1 113 on- awry
p er
Total Design Capacity 5,28
Total SSLW 712,8
Numberof Lagoons I Holding Ponds ;
pSubsurface
rams
resent
p
Lagoon Area
p pray ie Area
p
No
Liquid Waste
Management
System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? p Yes ® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes M No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes ® No
b_ If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ® No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) p Yes ®No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p Yes a No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? p Yes M No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require p Yes ® No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? p Yes ® No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? p Yes ® No
7125/97

aci i Number: 24_66
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons,Holding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier:
.....................
Freeboard (ft): 24"
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
Structure 4
11. is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(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?
Waste Application
14, Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WNW, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
p Yes N No
p Yes ® No
Structure 5 Structure 6
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
M Yes p No
p Yes B No
p Yes N No
15. Crop type ......CoA9a1Bemiuda.Grass............................ . Emcur ...................... 5mall.Craia.(Xbeat,.Barley,.......... .................................................
Milo pat )
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan s(AWMP)? p Yes H No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
2I. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22, Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
Cr , o_vto tions-or erencies-wer.e.note . unng this -visit.. You .rereive nc further . .
....
es�ioA+deae� bout X�jis v�s� : - ............. :::: ::: ..... .
p Yes H No
p Yes U No
I7 Yes ®No
13 Yes ®No
E3 Yes H No
® Yes [3 No
p Yes H No
p Yes N No
p Yes ■ No
m.,
Comments (referto quest<tsn #): Exp lain an Y $ answers and/or an recommendations or�-:a,, ny'other niments F }
Use`drawings offacility tvbetter explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):_ 112. Few bare areas on inside slopes and top of dam. Need to seed for winter to prevent erosion. A.
Use lrr-2 forms to compute nitrogen balance for fields. Designate pulls on ASCS map and keep records by pulls/fields.
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name Audrey U. Oxendin
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

JUL-14-1995 15:22 FROM DEM WATER QUALITY SECTION TO
WIRO F.02/02
Sitc Requires Immediate Attention:
Facility No. -Z
• DIVISION OF ENVIRONI1 ENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD �UU
DATE:. �f a�_ 1995
iqo
Time: 14 3y V 7?i
Farm Name/Own(
Mailing Address:
County: G61ki ix &t S
Integrator: ,PAR f� i r S Phone: —
On Site Representative: L C c AYb Phone: q_ U S� S
Physical Address/Location: fir+- ear -cam- AJA- rl-o
Type of Operation: e ✓ Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: " Number of Animals on Site: y 6 a U
DEM Certification Number. ACE � µ` ' DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: ° �' _ -7 " Longitude: % °} ' S Elevation: Feet
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 }tour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) Yes or No Actual Freeboard: __�_Ft. 0 Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes or& Was any erosion observed? Year No
Is adequate land available for spray? a or No is the cover crop adequate? Yes or No
Crop(s) being utilized: b,, Y' P.A_ Pf a-14r-1 c-c AVrYi
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings? Vlbr No
100 Feet from Wells? 15br No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or No
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line? Yes or No
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes or 096 If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of ruanure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? Yes or No f y� r)
v , 1
2))
Additional COIIlIilBnts: ll D ,., 7
i
�✓
Inspector Name Si at
cc: Faciliry Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.