090118_CORRESPONDENCE_20171231

CORRESPONDENCE
r
NORTH M
Doparbmnt of EnrlrOamONUI Qual

Type of Visit 6 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Fallow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 0 O Departure Time: i 3 County: 'AaleAn Region:
Farm Name: _�+_,►i_�r► �- 9Y+G_ Owner Email:
Owner Name:._L.c�+—LV ► +� ''►- ' Phone: /-G
Mailing Address: �1�� S i(Th�"r7
Physical Address:�—
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: �(
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No*, 5:2 — ! �
Integrator: z'^
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ❑ 0 = ` = " Longitude: ❑ ° = 1 ❑
Design, Currenti Design Current
.. Design Current
'Cap'acity
Inc .Y�r".*; h. Capy
Popuiaton ' Wet F?*7u- ltry, ca'fy Population
wattle t Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ DaiEX Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -La cr
❑Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
'� �`� .
El Dairy lieife►
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry -
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder r"3
❑ La ers
El
Farrow to Finish'°
Beef❑
❑ Beef Stocket
El Gilts
ElNon-Layers
�!•
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
��'' ❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
0 Turkey Faults
f ❑ Other
NUrnoer of Structures:
}33
ay
Discharges A Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
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 volu►ne that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
R-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
CR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

1 S
.
Facility Number: —
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:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): l7 Grp✓""
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
® 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?
[R] Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
9 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 f3 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 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 Drill ❑ 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
ONE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
J,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
® NE
�✓ G NYv Y✓ rtia a- /%1 �✓ �f�� ��.c �i }'L yli�F-s� /Y� /, �ah/%�ii✓/��
Reviewer/Inspector Name m U ��, r'u,,N Phone: _i /S /
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: — a
12128104 Condnued

Facility Number:a—al Date of Inspectionb
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 CNE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ;K NE
❑ 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
® NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
g 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
9 NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
0 NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
® NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
®,NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
'ZNE
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
PNE
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
14 NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
Oes
[Eh10
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
.. . .. . - w. "!
Addltlonal Commegts and/or Drawitis .. ' d , "g _ ''
o yDce , �n(� IXI"ou
12128104

State of North Carolina
- • Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
May 17, 2000
Currie Long
9714 NC 242 South
Bladenboro NC 28320
41Vk:?X;WAJ
•
IT .2,
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Subject: Rating of Potential Risk
Inactive Waste Lagoons and Storage Ponds
Currie Long Farm
Facility Number 9-118
Bladen County
Dear Currie Long;
During the 1999 session, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a law directing the North
Carolina Department of Environment of Natural Resources (DENR) to develop an inventory and
ranking of all inactive lagoons and storage ponds in the State. In order to meet this directive, a
representative of DENR has recently evaluated the inactive lagoon(s) and/or storage pond(s) on your
property. Inactive lagoons and storage ponds were defined by the Statute as structures which were
previously used to store animal waste but have not received waste for at least one year.
The information collected on your property is contained in the attached field data sheets. Using
this field data, staff ranked your inactive waste structures as high, medium or low according to its
potential risk for polluting surface and/or groundwater. Your waste structure(s) was ranked as
follows:
Structure Number Surface Area (Acres) Rankine;
1 1.13 Medium
This ranking is based in part on the conditions existing on the day of the site visit. Changes in
these conditions or the collection and evaluation of additional data may modify the ranking of your
waste structure(s) in the future.
Information on your facility along with over 1000 others contained in the inventory has been
provided to the General Assembly. During this year's session, the General Assembly will consider
additional requirements for future management of these structures which may include requiring
proper closure of inactive lagoons and storage ponds according to current or alternative standards.
225 Green street, suite 714, Fayetteville, North Carolina 29301 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycledflO% post -consumer paper

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

Facility Number 09 -- 118 Lagoon Number Q1......... Lagoon Identifier I.r.taCfiy..,LgQQ1.A1......................
0 Active 0 Inactive Latitude 34 34 24
Waste Last Added..1.Q-1.-.0 .......................................
Determined by: ® Owner ® Estimated
Surface Area (acres): .11.1.3........................
Embankment Height (feet): 4................................
Longitude 78 44 O8
By GPS or Map? GPS ❑ Map
GPS file number: F021414C
Distance to Stream: 0 <250 feet 0 250 feet - 1000 feet O >1000 feet
By measurement or Map? ❑ Field Measurement 0 Map
Down gradient well within 250 feet? . *Yes O No
Intervening Stream? O Yes *No
Distance to WS or HOW (miles): OQ < 5 0 5 - 10 0 > 10
Overtopping from Outside Waters? O Yes *No O Unknown
Spillway O Yes O No Adequate Marker O Yes 0 No
Freeboard & Storm Storage Requirement (inches):
Inspection date 02-14-200
appearance of O Sludge Near Surface
lagoon Ilquld, 0 Lagoon Liquid Dark, Discolored
0 Lagoon Liquid Clear
0 Lagoon Empty Freeboard (inches): 24
embankment condition 0 Poorly Built, Large Trees, Erosion, Burrows, Slumping, Seepage, Tile Drains, Etc.
*Construction Specification Unknown But Dam Appears in Good Condition
0 Constructed and Maintained to Current NRCS Standards
outside drainage 0 Poorly Maintained Diversions or Large Drainage Area not Addressed in Design
0 Has Drainage Area Which is Addressed in Lagoon Design
0 No Drainage Area or Diversions Well Maintained
liner status 0 High Potential for Leaking, No Liner, Sandy Soil, Rock Outcrops Present, Etc.
0 No Liner, Soil Appears to Have Low Permeability
O Meets NRCS Liner Requirements
cation equipment fail to make contact
and/or Sprayfleld 0 Yes 0 No O Unknown with representative O Yes 0 No
unavailable
comments

;da- gentOtherAQ
L
Visit OCompliance Inspection Q Operation Review) Lagoon Evaluation
for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up p Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 09 118
13Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date of Visit 2-1a-2000
Not Operational Q Below Threshold Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: X Ar.9b,,,,,.....
Farm Name: CIACsL1.e.1 ow.Farm......................................................... .......... .......... County: Bla.drjo ................................................ FH ............
OwnerName: Cu,rrie..................................... Low ............................................................ Phone No: 6.4-44.44 ....................................................................
Facility Contact: Cu,rack.L.Q.ug....................................................Title: OxA1 r..,............................................. Phone No:
....................................................
MailingAddress: 9I1.IY. 4!?uxln............................................................................ Bladclabuo..N.0 .................................................... 28.3zo ..............
Onsite Representative: llo.T.a�c�.t.oTtg.l11><Rkh�.t)..........................................................Integrator:......................................................................................
Location of Farm:
N�. 4 .-..S.a ile.a�n.�ralrhx.uast.iJS..7..0.1.sautf .l>xt�eX ��ti��t....................................................................................................................................................
® Swlne'' ❑ Podltry - ❑ Cattle : `❑ Horse
f Design Desrg
Curriant,, q, Current Design Current.
Swine Capacity Population Poultry , ' Ca . aclt Ro ulation Cattle CApacity Population -
Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
® Farrow to Finish
t00
0
❑ Gilts
❑ Soars
❑ Layer [] Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I Non -Dairy
❑ Other
1..
Total Design 'Ca , el y 100
Tota1SSLW' 141,700
Number ofLagoons Holding Ponds"/;Solid Traps r
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 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 gallmin?
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Waste Collection & Treatment
Please see attached Lagoon Field Data Sheets
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
n/a
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
,tW''i�'lY�r°�k.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Printed on: 5/12/2000

Site Requires Immediate Attention:
Facility No. _ 9 - n 8
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AND AL FFMLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: D , 1995
Time: l:aa_tm_ + .
Farm Name/Owner: Lyrr? t. Loa
Mailing Address: q r L o
County.-- Mai&^_ a
_
Integrator: NIA Phone: (9 ma 6 4 0 — 4 41+ 4 On Site Representative: NlA _ Phone:
Physical Addressil ocation: H —aqZ S. F7o= F— 3 1v►�1rs -_ _ N�.,�dy'a ► -- sj W
i n�r S-e ,.%o n 2 j
Type of Operation: Swine ,' Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: _ . i no Sow Number of Animals on Site: N110% r Mo"& err
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: Longitude: ' _.,.'0
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of I Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately I Foot + T inches) 'es r .No Actual Freeboard: _ -.Ft. _Inches
Was any seepage observed from the agoon(s)?AW
�as any erosion observed? i Nj A
Is adequate land available for spray? o Is the ver crop adequate? 10 Nl A
Crop(s) being utilized: tJtl�- r4!Af
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings? Y3o nyq
100 Feet from Wells? moo, PA/4
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yef;&r-% N lPr,
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: i ,.A/Pr
Is animal waste discharged into water of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? o Alt A If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? eJi Ar
Additional Comments:_t�ijkp Mal c.L121 rcAb(C _
L_
Inspector Name
Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.
N

'A.4s.
m
WHFTE OAK
TO Lu"Ma+
BUTTERS
w
C O L u M a u