240003_INSPECTIONS_20171231

1 IV
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

JUL-14-1995 1 :22 FROM DEM WATER QUALITl SECTIOH TO
1AIRO P.O2/O2
Site Requires Immediatc Attention:
Facility No. —
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: , 1995
Time:
Farm Narne/Own(
Mailing Address:
County:o
integrator. 5 At 3ciZ
On Site Representative: A; %Ut r
Physical Address/Location: 5'r-' 1 s 4 9^, 2 In;. /762A
(� ►►'� IONS -- ---- — -- — — 3
Phone:
Phone:
V-Ile.
?d
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: X 35 A Number of Animals on Site: y��
DEM Certification Number: AC o DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: e Longitude: _:A: J' ,1©OL" Elevation: Feet
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of I Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately I Foot + 7 inches) Gbr No Actual Freeboard:�Ft. 0 Inches
. Was any seepage observed from the Iagoon(s)? Yes or66 Was any erosion observed? Yes or
Is adequate land available for spray?. e or No Is the cover crap adequate? 6�br No
Crop(s) being utilized: CnA<4�nl b� ,. d��. _ r�90 Ate, 5 1--
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings? e or No
100 Feet from Wells? re3w 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 o<R If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with covrl
p)? Yes or No
L Additional Comments: a le c 6 c s f f
Inspector Name i t
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.

Type of Visit: dCompliance Inspection O Operation Revie;"Referral
Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-np 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: i j8 Arrival Time: 2j P^ Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Onsite Representative: C `� S�-r Integrator:
y
Phone:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Design EWurrent
Wet Poultry CYU--acit-vJ0Pop. Cattle
Layer Dairy Cow
INon-Layer I airy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Design C*urrent gry Cow
Qr. Z ultr, Co.a aci. P,o Non -Dairy
Design Current
Capacity -Pop.
Wean to Feeder
I
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Layers
I
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
113eefl3roodCow
urke s
Otherurke Pouets
Other ther
LIC
Discharges and Stream Imaacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes [_
,�Ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes FJ'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: 'Vt - Date of Inspection:
/d
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Spillway?: _
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): z1 t
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., 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?
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑No ❑NA ❑NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes Fes-' " - ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes D ih o ❑ NA ❑ NE
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 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 Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[JNo
❑ NA
EfNE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
N
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
WN
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ 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
�J `V
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 ❑ No ❑ NA M<E
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers [] Weather Code
❑ Rainfall [:]Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and i" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
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 0 NA
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: .
24. L)id the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by thepermit?
❑Yes
No
[DNA
dNE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? if yes, check
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
E-NE
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 provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
WE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No
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? ❑ Yes No
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 ❑ Yes ONo
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
❑ NA ❑ NE
0 NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [—]Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes FNo
6❑ NA
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes ❑ NA
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes❑ NA
ONE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
Comments (refer•to question #)::'Explain any YES answers.and/or any additional. recommendations or. any other comments: ,
Use drawings of facili tobetter ex lain situations use additional a es=�....
g � tY P { Pg...
� as. necessary):'
a te, IL Vk t r-No r I,, LA
�0. C- c r' 5 ,,t,,i Vi o ` --- 5 '�e- Fnr d !l
() 44- e/- L /'M 19 A j Q p O c�.
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
r a r (� 7 9C.7�
G'✓ `"t- l.TUNA FAR/JeW Phone: �
Date: 3 !f f!o
21412015

[j Division of Soil and Water Conservation -Operation Review _
3 _ �.D�vision of Soil and Water Ccsnservation -;Compliance Inspection
CfDlvision of Water Qeiauty Conip liance-Lnspection
. .Other Agency - OperationReview;-:
Q Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up of DWO inspection 'Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number .
Permitted 0 Ce tied ©Co ditionally Certified Registered
c \ �r`, r
FarmName: ....1.... r........................................................................... ..................
Owner Name:
Facility Contact: .............................................................................. Title:
MailingAddress:............................................................................
Onsite Representative: .
wt^�.
......................................................
Certified Operator: ...................................................
Location of Farm:
Date of Inspection I IQ] Dill � f
Time of Inspection EOQ 24 hr. (hh:mm) Ij
10 Not Operational Dat Last Operated.
County: -..... ... -... k .1`-''.....................................
Phone No:
Phone No:......:...-
.................. I ............................ .......................................... ..........................
........... Integrator:........ ram.
.......................................................
Operator Certification Number: ..........................................
A.
... ..................... .............
Latitude 0 ° •1 Longitude • �44
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts,
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons: _ ❑ Subsurface Drains Present In Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding'Ponds / Solid Traps. ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischartyes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field []Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
l b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? If yes, notify DW )
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gaUmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of 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?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): .........................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3123/99
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 6
[:]Yes [:]No
Continued on back

.: acility Number: — Date of Inspection
0
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
(If any 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 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenarice/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Waste Application
I0. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
❑ No
12. Crop type W
13. Do the receiving crap differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c}'Phis facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WIIP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0; �o �yi91"attoris or deficie�c�es •v.�ere no#ec�� ditrtng #his;visit; - Y;oir :will-reeeipe Rio �`urther • ; • ; •
comes orideRce. a�auti this visit. ..... .
Corn- refer to,question #)4 Exphiin-any YES : answers and/or any recommendations orwany other'comments.
Use:drawings of facility t be i'explatn'situatrons' (use additional pages as necessary}
s,
„ w
hrs ,QU li
A
, 4LZ
r � �t�•� � ems' �'t e. ii`
(CO NW W Cx a
Reviewer/Inspector Name �•.—
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. ,. t ���.- 0 Date: k1of 1-; 19
3/23/99

13 Division of Soil and -Water Conseiwataon Operation.Review .°
Division of Soiland_Wate Conservation -_Compliance Ljspect>Eon, ,
'A-M Division -of Watei (Quality -Compliance iaspectian _ = ,
-: ClOtherAgen6y-ppea-
10 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review I® Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection /
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Permitted © Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered [3 Not Operational] Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: S�1c! ratan .........- County:... ..................................................
................. ....................................................-
Owner Name: •„•„•,,,,,,,.!r a `c� r C r Phone No:
...'..........................................................................................----•.........................................---......................................
Facility Contact: .............................................................................. Title:.................
MailingAddress: .............................................................................................................
Onsite Representative:....... .�„�,,,, !Sh�.
Certified Operator
Location of Farm:
Phone No: .......
Integrator:
........ Operator Certification Number:
i
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Latitude '` •1 Longitude • 6 4i
F Design Current Design_ Current. Design Current .`
Swine _ Ca acity Po ulation _ Poultry Capacity Population - Cattle Capacity Population ;
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts,
❑ Boars
- Number of Lagoons ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area JE1 Spray Field Area
-'Holchng Ponds /'Sohd.Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
��—
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated au ❑ 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) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Dcics discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: f
Freeboard(inches): ..........t.I................... .............................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any 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 maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste_Applicativn
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
13. 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 Records & Documents
17. Fail 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 fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
t
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector 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?
0: �'Vo viglaiioris:or• deficiencies were h0 ec. .l Wing �his:visit: • Y:ori will•i-eeeiye do fufther ;
...
a�otit this visit.. ; ; ; . ; ; ; ; ; ;
Comments (refer fo-questr©n #)_Euplain a iy.YES answers and/or`any recommendations or any other com3ments:
Mse,drawings of #acility to better explain situaiions: (use additional -pages as necessary}
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes MNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
�`e.; o k I e -� l�v f �� ;,3 a Lends a q was s ,� a n �s0�•► y la l
TnOfve-ia yrel4� .-4or 4egA to ���'�• f
v .
C r1+i,1Ve 'TO lower IR,90,01 k t j ;» rc.r�por►sjJc Amnner•
Reviewer/Inspector Name _
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: le l A AA
3/23/99

® Routine p Complaint p Follow-up of DWQ inspection p Follow-up of DSVC review p Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
i Time of Inspection F—TOTTV-1 24 hr. (hh:mm)
.:s etaI I ime to fraction of hours
Farm Status: Certified z(es 125for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Re4°ie*,' 0
or'I:ns tion"(incEudes'travel'anii rQcessin)'-"
Farm Name: Fkbrx.F.arms................................................................................................... County: Columbus WIRO
OwnerName: Craig ....................................... F.Dish,er:.......................................................... Phone No: 910=64Z.489.0 ..........................................................
Mailing Address: R:t.S.$jax..473.......................................................................................... W. itexilk-NC...................................................... 2R4.72 ..............
Onsite Representative: Stexe.Register.....................:....................................................... Integrator: Pxestage.Farms.....................................................
Certified Operator: CraigM................................. Fidwx ................................................ Operator Certification Number: lbs.4,2.............................
Location of Farm:
J
T
Latitude ® a Longitude ® C ®' ®°•
pNot Operational Date Last Operated: ............................................................................................................................................................
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? []Yes ® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes ® No
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ® No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) p Yes No
c. if discharge is observed_ what is the estimated flow in gal/ntin?
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 ig No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? p Yes Ig No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require p Yes ®No
maintenance/improvement?
Continued on back

6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria?
p Yes Cl No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge (if inspection after I/l/97)?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (L goons_and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is structural freeboard less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Lagoon I Lagoon 2 Lagoon 3
3.5
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
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 adquate markers to identify start and stop pumping levels?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type
16. Do the active crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the cover crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available irrigation equipment?
For Certified Facilities Only
20. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
21, Does the facility fail to comply with the Animal Waste Management Plan in any way?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
23. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
24. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with owner or operator in charge?
p Yes ® No
[]Yes ® No
© Yes ® No
Lagoon 4
[]Yes Ig No
® Yes p No
Cl Yes p No
H Yes p No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes H No
p Yes ® No
p Yes pq No
p Yes H No
p Yes Ig No
L/12. Bare spots and erosion channels on the inside and outside of the lagoon wall need to be filled and seeded to prevent further
rosion problems that could endanger the integrity of the lagoon wall. Erosion in a storm water drainage area between the hog
ouses and a field needs to be filled and seeded.
3. The lagoon does not have any markers indicating the start/stop pumping levels.
Reviewer/Inspector NameBoom
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ", ; Date: 19 i7
cc. Division of Water Uuality, Water Uuatrty Section. Pacit1ty Assessment Clint i i 11 alQr