480016_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NUH I H UAHULINA
Department of Environmental Qual

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O• Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit © Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
=Facility Number 48 16
[3 Permitted 0 Certified [] Conditionally Certified © Registered Date of Visit 3l29/2t100
O Not Operational O Below Threshold I Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: 61119.6 ............
Farm Name: MAraW J.1og.l+a,rm.........
Owner Name: Maridic................................ Alombadl.... ................
County: D,jd:e....................................................Witliivl........
Phone No: 92;S-5131..........................................
Faeilitv Contact:...............................................................................Title:........................... ... Phone No:
MailingAddress: RL_j.B.Qa..44E........................................................................................Engeftard.NC ...................................................... Z7824 .............
OnsiteRepresentative:........................................................................................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Location of Farm:
1.112.nnilea.mes�t. at Engelltar�d.Q�n[I2,.sut�.atirnx..]SQQ.Iit..vxlte.lt�t�t, art.tb.eag�t.i€d�...........................................................................
Y ®.Swine ❑.Poultry: D;Cai#le .:❑'Horse -
Design :P_£accent - -Design -Current. Design-- Curiienty
Number.of Lagoons 3 Holding Poniii / Solid;Traps
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance niau-made'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the Slate? (Ifves, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. if discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gaVutin?
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ® Yes ❑ No
3. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ®No
Waste Collection & Treatment
Please see attached Lagoon Field Data Sheets
Reviewer/Inspector Name Carl Dunn _ — —
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

i
Comments Facility Number 48 16 Date Of Visit 3/29/2t100 Printed on: 4h$I2000
A . itional.Gomments'andlor s: -- swing .- --
T.
.. -
An Old pipe connects the small old lagoon with a ditch. The connection is still there, however the lagoon level is below the inlet level of the
pipe so the lagoon was not discharging at the time. Evidence shows that it has probably been quite some time since the last time the lagoon
was at a level high enough to discharge.

FaciI tyrNumber 48 — 16 Lagoon Number .1............ Lagoon Identifier small .......................................................
O Active OO Inactive
Waste Last Added 51.11.9.5.................................
Determined by: ❑ Owner ® Estimated
Surface Area (acres): 0.25........................
Latitude 35[kj 45
Longitude 76 FI--] 23
By GPS or Map? ® GPS ❑ Map
GPS file number: 1-032914D
Embankment Height (feet): 0.
Distance to Stream: 0 <250 feet O 250 feet - 1000 feet #>1000feet
By measurement or Map? ® Field Measurement ❑ Map
Down gradient well within 250 feet? O Yes *No
Intervening Stream? O Yes *No
Distance to WS or HQW (miles): OQ < 5 0 5 - 10 O > 10
Overtopping from Outside Waters? O Yes O No OO Unknown
inspection date 3/29/2000
appearance of 0 Sludge Near Surface
lagoon liquid O Lagoon Liquid Dark, Discolored
O Lagoon Liquid Clear
0 Lagoon Empty Freeboard (inches): 18
embankment condition 0 poorly Built, Large Trees, Erosion, Burrows, Slumping, Seepage, Tile Drains, Etc.
0 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.
OQ No Liner, Soil Appears to Have Low Permeability
0 Meets NRCS Liner Requirements
ration equipment fail to make contact
and/or Sprayfeld O Ves O No0 Unknown with representative @ Yes 0 No
unavailable
comments See comments on main page.

r.
Faciiity Number 48 — '16 Lagoon Number 2........... Lagoon Identifier big ..................
O Active OO Inactive
Waste Last Added ...........................................
Determined by: ❑ Owner ® Estimated
Surface Area (acres): Q,f..................
Embankment Height (feet): 6.
Latitude 35 30 45
Longitude 76 1] 2�
By GPS or Map? ® GPS ❑ Map
GPS file number: IL032914E
Distance to Stream: O <250 feet O 250 feet - 1000 feet OQ >1000 feet
By measurement or Map? ® Field Measurement ❑ Map
Down gradient well within 250 feet? O Yes *No
Intervening Stream? O Yes *No
Distance to WS or HQW (miles): OQ < 5 O 5 - 10 O > 10
Overtopping from Outside Waters? Oyes O No *Unknown
inspection date 3/29/2000
appearance of O Sludge Near Surface
lagoon liquid O Lagoon Liquid Dario, Discolored
0 Lagoon Liquid Clear
O Lagoon Empty Freeboard (inches): 60
embankment condition O poorly Built, Large Trees, Erosion, Burrows, Slumping, Seepage, Tile Drains, Etc.
O Construction Specification Unknown But Dam Appears in Good Condition
O Constructed and Maintained to Current NRCS Standards
outside drainage O Poorly Maintained Diversions or Large Drainage Area not Addressed in Design
O Has Drainage Area Which is Addressed in Lagoon Design
0 No Drainage Area or Diversions Well Maintained
liner status O High Potential for Leaking, No Liner, Sandy Soil, Rock Outcrops Present, Etc.
0 No Liner, Soil Appears to Have Low Permeability
O Meets NRCS Liner Requirements
cation equipment fail to make contact
and/or Sprayfield O Yes O No *Unknown with representative *Yes Q NO
unavailable
comments

R
r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Washington Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
November 25, 1997
Mr. Martelle Marshall
Marshall Hog Farm
Rt. I, Box 44E
Engelhard, NC 27824
SUBJECT: Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
Marshall Hog Farm
Fac. No. 48-16
Hyde County
Dear Mr. Marshall:
On September 4, 1997, I conducted an Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection at Marshall Hog Farm
in Hyde County. Overall, the operation was found to be in satisfactory condition. A copy of the
inspection report is attached for your review.
In general, this inspection includes verifying that: (1) the farm has a Certified Animal Waste Management
Plan (CAWMP); (2) the farm is complying with requirements of the State Rules 15 NCAC 2H.0217,
Senate Bill 1217, and the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan; (3) the farm operation's waste
management system is being operated properly under the direction of a Certified Operator; (4) the required
records are being kept; (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or runoff.
The recommendations and/or comments regarding your inspection can be found in the comment section of
the attached inspection form. It is veryimportant as the owner and Operator in Charge that you address any
noted concerns, as soon as possible. For assistance, please contact your Technical Specialist and/or
the local Soil & Water Conservation District Office.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance during the inspection. Should you have further questions
or comments regarding this inspection, do not hesitate to call me at [phone], ext. 321.
Sincerely,
q0" 6 - Ln ram_
Daphne B. Cullom
Environmental Specialist II
cc: Hyde County SWCD Office
aRO
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

s-
1* fcoutfne p t.ornpiaint p roliow-up of uwtl inspection p rc
Facility Number
E Registered p Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted
up of uawc review p Vtner
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
IN Not Operattona Date Last Operated: 1-1-96
Farm Name: Marsbafl.Hog.F:arm....................... .............. County: Hyde WaRO
...............................................
OwnerName: Ma..rteller................................ Marshall..-----.............................------.......--- Phone No: 915-51-31 ...................................................................
Facility Contact: .............Title:.............................................................. Phone No:....................................................
MailingAddress: RL.1Baut..4.4E........................................................................................ Engelhard,AC ....................................................... 27824 ..............
Onsite Representative: PermlS.ciau.gratxted.am.xisil.4.Mr .Maxshall............. Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number:
Latitude ©•®' ®" Longitude ®• ®®�
x° Swtife
C a i,r
pty
olation
p p�
—
Poultry
_
CapacityPopuiatton
_Cattle apacfty Po ulahoft
C
_
wean to Feeder
LayerDatry
T
Feeder to Finish
Non -Layer
13 Non -Dairy
-Farrow
to W—ean
pOMer
arrow to Feeder
❑
Eniteai2 V.
To#aI DestECapacity m105 =
Tr
® Farrow to Finish
105
0=
.- -v F
-Total SSLW139,785
❑ GiltsJi
p Boars
u
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes R No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ 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) Yes ❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ENO
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? p Yes ENO
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require p Yes N No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ® No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
7/25/97

h
rlFacility N_U_1nVe_r_. 48_16
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures agoons Holding Ponds. Flush Pits, etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
N Yes p No
p Yes ig No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ............................................................................ ............
Freeboard (ft): 2 ft. 2 ft. 5.5 ft.
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 adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
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 receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (A WMP)?
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?
C! .. o-Via tions.or rtencies-were.note urmg t is visit:. ua wY .receive no further . .
.. .ei'>�eSpUA eRe� a4Qut this-* sit:.
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes ❑ No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes N No
p Yes ® No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ILY
=VDate: el` Gi