240098_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NUH I H UAHULINA
Department of Environmental Qual

3RDivision of Water Quality
Facility Number L �O 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Am —
.:
Type
Type of Visit OLcompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency JVOther ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: i 1 Arrival Time: � Departure Time: County: �u S Region:
Farm Name: ��� iv_
1� 15; LCq- ACZfns, Owner Email:
Owner Name: G -bk1L V)n-MN 141LC Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: � Title:
Onsite Representative: Er��- � � (✓ /41 L L,
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator•
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ❑ o =' ='
Longitude: = o =' =
Design Current Design Current Design :.Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population - Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
Other
❑ La er
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Pouets
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?
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dai Calf
❑ Dai Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
l
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
I
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 X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28/04 Continued

Facility umber: — 41W I Date of Inspection 11 ! a
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?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: Dog
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): W
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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes )4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes )]No El 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 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)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes �&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ADDUCatiOn
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 �NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ElFrozen 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
�ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA A NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
E
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
[IYes
❑ No
❑NA
rNE
Comments (refer to question #)- Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or aby other comments .
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
SO
Reviewer/InspectorName AMANVR /N —g Phone: -Z- 6- - 'W"f
Reviewer/lnspector Signature: Date: i3 )c_-39
12128104 Continued

Facility Number; P— Date of Inspection 11 1
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA JANE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA U�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 V NE
❑ 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?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
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?
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
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did ReviewerlInspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA % NE
❑NA V�NE
❑ NA Z�NE
❑ NA U4
❑ NA Dq NE
❑ NA C§NE
❑ Yes
bo No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
14 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
tANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12129✓04

S
Type of Visit erCo pliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: County: C U Region:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contaet: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: P Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Q o = + = is Longitude: = c ED
�Ywe °tee
• D CurreIIt� 'H" ''''� DeSIgII s Current ¢ �;°� DeSlgn CIIReRt
Somme . Capacity :Population Wet,Poultry : ,.Capacity' .Population Cattle Capacity$ Population
El Wean to Finish ❑ Layer '� El Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder N ❑ Non -Layer El Dairy Calf
[gFeeder to Finish 41 a6 ❑ Dairy, Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean > `" ^ �,.x. El Dry Cow
Dry Ponitry - r
❑ Farrow to Feeder 4
"` ` ❑ Non -Da'
ElFarrow to Finish} ElLayers ❑ Beef Stocker
❑Gilts « ❑Non -Layers a ❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars ~+ ❑ Pullets ❑ Beef Brood Co
❑ Turke s
�Uther
El ZyLkej Poalts u _
❑ Other " Other
El1' Hluml�eraOf Structures•
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
[I Yes
,�
IJ No
❑ 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 DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
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)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
WZo
[I NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
Yes
El Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

4�
Facdlity Number: d = 8 Date of Inspection $ a
•
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes LJ 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: L&CRwi
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 2.3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 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 2fNo ❑ 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 t eat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? El Yes No
No ❑ NA ❑8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 2 ❑ NA ❑ N
(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 ENo ❑ NA ❑ N
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes dN�
El NA ❑
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ElNA [11,
ElExcessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ElPAN > 10% or 10 lbs ElTotal Phosphorus ElFailure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
E
E
E
NE
E
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
0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
ENo ❑ NA ❑ NE
o❑ NA❑ NE
Wo ❑NA El NE
o El NA ❑NE
Comments (refer to question 1): 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):
f,recpS AO .I14WGn wo TQ cur 4-.mrL T w,�E Aj vs-e.
ReviewerlInspector Name � /� Phone: T
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: O
I
Continued

Ftility Number: Aq— Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents ,�(
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes El No ❑ NA FJ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ;tNE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Designs ❑Map ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA eNE
❑ 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 WNE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ENE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
�VE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
dNE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
I/NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
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?
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
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA UNE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 51�E
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA UNE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA E NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA VNE
❑ Yes El No ❑ NA
121?9104

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: 'time:
Q Not 2perational Q Below Threshold
Permitted © Certified L. '!
�© !' Conditionally Certified 13 RDaft Last t or Above Threshold: . �.». .
Farm Name: ... _L.. f .,%.�? .a!1 ..... ..» . County:L'�
OwnerName:... __.. _--- ___._.._....._.........»............_�___ ._.. _ ......_. Phone No: ,,..». _.....____.
Mailing Address: .
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No: �k�r
Onsite Representative: ?� / �' Integrator•.
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • " Longitude •
�����WAMJ
Discharges & Stream ts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes gNo
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) ❑ 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) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ;TNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes j2rNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes �No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: __�__-----------
Freeboard (inches):
12112103 Con inued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes f j No
seepage, etc.)
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 '9No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? [I Yes X No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes I�No
elevation markings? T
Waste A��lication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenanceJunprovement?
I 1 _ Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Excessii
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with
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?
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional
Air Quality representative immediately.
❑ Yes X,No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes PNO
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
�No
❑ Yes ,ONo
❑ Yes )eNo
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes �No
❑ yes
No
{der to otr % a"answers and/or or any othereommentL
Use dMWhW of &Cft to brdter =01018 sitaatIOM (we ad" paw as 9)-* ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
e) e4n9m,,*FND AWrl-XA4c rv� 4AW41,0�kAVr
•
T,orr_
c£S, �sR ss &4,2iewxy 1,44y ,cgs Aoo . -,a4o 7P & .
Ooq
--� Jq s 7R G� occj �iS.sS��C
r¢�J,Gb AC
ReviewerAnspector Name
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:
MUM Condaued

• Faefflty Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? gYes ❑ No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes V(No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes Vf No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ONo
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes VNo
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes Pf No
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes gNo
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (if no, skip questions 3I-35) Oyes ❑ No
3 L If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes JgNo
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes PfNo
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? ❑ Yes O No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes Jallo
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Qf No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
❑ No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
1) A&eO 0o C AOJa ,5;-2In Z 7 M5-W IV4�4O:%
AVEa ��P�6BpARO AfeOA,0 S `o n �03 0 /9�00
l�zr.y !Q�'CoR 5
L SQL ✓� ������ J�,�cvED ��,� / 7a ��� &45
ReCOrn �,,v ,,�,0 �,2�7� Fz- T a� oJ�D ®i
3Sg - goo
12112103

i '•
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Z Date orvisit: ►7 a3 Time: Z Q 4
Not Overafignal Below Threshold
E3 Permitted Q Certified [3 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: — - r '^q T � �C.r" /' rtit� County. C e V ^'` 6 ✓ S
/e� �e
S4e.P_ Qeg
Owner Name: V� � s �e f Phone No:
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: ,�J 1 Title: Phone No:
In ✓ Onsite Representative: f' "� l L _ i ST e `Integtetof•
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • 6 " Longitude Q• 6
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Sprav Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
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 I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: 1
Freeboard (inches): 13
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
10Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
,,El 'Yes ❑ No
Structure b
05IV3101 Continued

•
r
{ Facility Number: Zy — 9 Date of Inspection `-=f 4
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
❑ No
seepage, etc.)
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
❑ Yes
[--]No
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures nerd maintenancetimprovement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑Excessive Ponding ❑PAN XHydraulic Overload
Yes
❑ No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops 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) This 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
Rtguired Reords & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, desi®, 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?
(it'discharge. freeboard problems. over application)
❑ Yes
23. Did ReNriewergnspector fail to discuss re-,riewiinspection with on -site representative?
,❑�No
❑ Yes .LI 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
Q No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit You will receive no further correspondence about this visit
Conmenta (refeir to gnes6ori #W ' EijAii1e �+Vi§ an -pin -ha Wbia y NwAtemoranyodurecaulicift
Use drawings of huMq to better explain sihrstimm (use additiamil pages as necessw7): ❑Field Copy ❑Final Notes
-r->�.3 ,'.ts� c.�;e•. twgs aCe•,e ;m--4espomre 4a 4 riy over w1..'G►,
v"fro L.. ets o (,5e -✓E err . A n; A,% -A w a_s 4,9 ao�
-� W d,,j��SQ�-Ixp �-�@ j 3 eS�;a.Fd Q-� 254 ��l�orts • �; C-lvtes
Reviewer/inspector Name 0 oleoVo —
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �' Date: V !�/ � O 3
0"3101 Cowed

13 Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Operation Review
© Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Compliance Inspection
Division of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
13 Other Agency - Operation Review
10 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review ® Other
�. Date of Inspection $ P
Facility Number 2 p
^_ .- = r_ _ _ _ _ - • -. _ _ _: _ Time of Inspection JqSO 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Permitted © Certified Q Conditionally Certified 0 Registered 113 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ......................... �* ....- .... .�'._..... � f r County d j v 11 U S
e s �r 4S -
......................................... • ....................-•-------.........
OwnerName: ...................Phone No:............... ....................................... ...........................
Facility Contact:
'Mailing Address:
Title:
Onsite Representative: .... ���. .�.. If -'O)-%
.................................................
Certified Operator: .............................................. .........
..... ....................................................
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
...............................Q................................................. .... I....................
Integrator: V dos.✓ rs 3 01 �z /d f.yla..........
........... ................. .... .....
Operator Certification Number:
............................................................ ......................... ..............I............
Latitude 0 6 •4 Longitude • 6 64
Design Current
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
Wean to Feeder
JEI Layer
I
I
Dairy
Feeder to Finish
JE1 Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
El Boars
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons 10 Subsurface Drains Present j[1 Lagoon Area i❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & 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 tnan-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ 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 Structurc 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: l
Freeboard(inches): 1 �..............................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
3123/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: :24-41 Date of ]nspection Q-S
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 maintenance improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Waste Application
10. 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
13. Do the receiving crops 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) This 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
Re uired 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/ WUP, 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
KNo
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
0.0 ViOrAtio it s �ot- dof clejif ia, &L- )1o". . • dtikCi . g ,(his*Adt! ... . I teetrlVe #0 tibit
tirrespozideiice a�aFu this visit::..::.: :..:..::.............. ......
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comnents.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Nurr 4NNC lQ`J4 J �oOr1 Tn-`'G�jr iTy -Ln5rec� .
S ,JJ
- Ftood4v��¢i' 9 P + o f rot6aLif 314, oln 6&Ck jr, gobin w,.%��
tkpf CA1S_ +0 64e q Doi.
Reviewer/Inspector Name S4 h ctv'q 3 v Q , 203
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: _ Date: 109gey
3123/99

[3 DSWC Animal ,Feedlot Operation Review
E§DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWO inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number
Date of Inspection
2
Time of Inspection = L 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: ❑ Registered [I Applied for Permit (ez:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
Certified ❑ Permitted I or Inspection includes travel and rocessin
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated:__r_____�.� ._. _ ...� .. ...„.�. .
Farm Name: -a-IC 4 e-..+r County: Cc o by1 J&.L&.D
Land Owner Name: .�i�:...... , _s..e.s�soe _....w...».. Phone No: 3
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone No:
Mailing Address: 1 L L I 1A a,._ 1 I .0 6 a -YM-.L d - So 0 t ly E6 11 S inn xM If ,-21„-142—
Onsite Representative: --- &ra.,a..
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Integrator: R M AA a K - I
Operator Certification Number:
NN
w M - w. , r 141
LatitudeLongitude•
-type of Uperanon and Design [:a achy
Design Current Design £urrea# D� Current
Swine CapacityPopulation poultrg. Ca adtv Ponulation : Cattle a afteltv Ponulation
Wean to Feeder ❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish Non -La ❑ Non-
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder Total Design Capacity
F w to Finish
El Other
To SSLW
Numb or 1.4soons I nolding Ponds Subsurface Drains Present
11 Lagoon Area j LO Spray Field Area
raneml
I. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. 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?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
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
4/30/97 maintenance improvement?
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes El No
❑ Yes 2jNo
❑ Yes 14 No
b11.
❑ Yes IR No
❑ Yes allo
❑ Yes JKNo
IN Yes ❑ No
Condmued on bock

Fstility Number:.,,.
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes JRNo
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
I
-.I - .— -- — -
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
Structure 4
1 I. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes BNo
❑ Yes IgNo
❑ Yes CgNo
Structure 5 Structure 6
12. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
(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?
AR to nlic� ation
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of IW)VIP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type _ira sir u ..__....__�.. _....._ .._.... S t^^-.R .�...� i _.._._...... __
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
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/mspection with on -site representative?
For Certified l'acilr�ties Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes IffNo
❑ Yes KNo
19 Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes IS No
❑ Yes WNo
❑ Yes KNo
K Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ff No
❑ Yes J[ No
❑ Yes ]% No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes E,NO
1BYes IgNo
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):
5. B v i l AL G- )a e or VV'% a► "v wd yn `I d r--K t %AJ a t el -A- f fo e td d i t c k-
4
12• 9-eSae.t baet, area-� on to- a v% wail. Fi I u." ,resee-d rV ILLov►
Wa1I. 1r. a ofi i0ri) C-0 rec, p,ro b(eW"ts W t Y✓ kLWalt e
d r i ,rt.Q F i f e K c v ,j e a r e-a- -
P b r GLo�
i g. o �E a� f e bar@. a r e_vt i r• s t'Q w4 k e wt v
t�ure
kAake �ee-vx-
. .....
Reviewer/Inspector Name : " . 3
..:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: � �e^ - AZ J _ Q Date:
cc. Division of Water Ouality. Water Oualitv Section. Facilitp Assessment Unit 4/30/97

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
September 30, 1997
Vester Register
Vester Register Farms
1661 Hallsboro Road
Hallsboro NC 28442
MIKWA
a
••
tlll��
FE
Subject: Farm No. 24-98
Additional Information Request
Columbus County
Dear Vester Register -
The Non -Discharge Permitting Unit has completed a preliminary engineering review of the subject
application. Additional information is required before we can continue our review. The first two pages of
the permit application that were sent by a certified mail to your farm are missing with your application
package. Please complete, sign, and submit by October 30, 1997, two copies of your permit
application.
Please reference the subject farm number when providing the requested information. All
information should be signed and submitted to my attention at the address below. Please note that failure
to provide this additional information on or before the above requested date can result in your application
being returned as incomplete.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please call me at [phone], extension 363.
Sincerely,
J.R. Joshi
Soil Scientist
Non -Discharge Permitting Unit
cc: Wilmington Regional Office, Water Quality
Permit File
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled110% post -consumer paper