710048_INSPECTIONS_20171231

E
f Visit Corhpliance Inspection Operation Review 0 5tructure Evaluation Technical Assistance
n for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: �_J County: + _ DE Region:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Phone:
Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: - ds �� 00,310
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: [= o = & = N Longitude: = ° = 4 =
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
I! I❑ La er
LI Non -La et - — -----
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
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 E/o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes b No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes L,YNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility.Number: — Date of inspection p
Waste Collection & Treatment �,/
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ElO 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: tJ
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
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 ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ 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/improvement?
It. 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 Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination i ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
1 S. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a-m qA,5
Aar
ov
3 y4g_S
L &S to
A4)q
Reviewer/InspectorName Q f �.�";�F Phone• yro 6
,.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:UZw Date:
12128104 Continued

Facility. Number: — Date of Inspection
Ra4uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ 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?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ 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
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments,andlor Drawings: ;:
'.
12128104

. DrV " of Water Quality
..` O Division of Soil and Water,ConservatioA
O OtherAgency
Type of Visit 3kCompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit xRoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number IDateurvisit: r�j0 Tune: ®Printed on: 10/26/2000
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Q Permitted 0Certified [] Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
..... ...�.............. .Farm Name: ".I ...1� .............................................................County:........P
Owner Name:...... ................................................
Facility Contact: ................................................
;Mailing Address: ..............................................
Onsite Representative:..„G•W�.;,
Certified Operator: ....... ...........................................
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Title: ...... ......................................................... Phone No:.................... ...............................
........................................................................................................................... ..........................
Integrator: .... t...................................................
........ Operator Certification Nu[mber:..........................................
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • 6 'i Longitude �� • �� �44
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer I 1 ro
Dairy
Weeder to Finish pf . j ❑ Non -Layer Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
El Boars Total 5SLW
LEE
Number of Lagoons L_! J ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps JE1 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharp_es & 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. II' discharee is observed• what is the estimated now in galhnin?
d. Dees 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
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
P<No
❑ Yes
ONO
❑ Yes gNo
Structure 6
Identifier: ...........................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches):
5100
Continued on back

Facility Number: q L— 'l y Date of Inspection Printed on:
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management of
closure plan?
10/26/2000
(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 maintenancelimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type 'r-4 1tii l SG
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?
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes �(No
❑ Yes O(No
❑ Yes t<No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes XNo
[]Yes ONo
J�ryes
XNow
[IYes
No
'Yes
❑ No
ayes
❑ No
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes OJINo
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) Ayes ❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes KNo
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ONo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes )4 No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes (7rNo
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 'NY No
Rio •vialatidris or deficiencies were hated• during �his;visit: • Y;ob will •r. ee6K Rio rurther • : -
orres�oncte.nce... agouti this visit:... .
Connnllents (Eelier.tO ques�on #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recon" mendations:or any other corrunents
Use.drawings"of facility to better explain situations. (use additional:pages as necessary)
�;�' k Al�\
'
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ( I N_ "�� Date: j � X—_U 5100

Facility Number: r' — L(p Date of Inspection a GO Printed on: 10/26/2000
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
P�"s
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
9No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
4 No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
ONO
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
No
31,
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
t&No
tion omments and/or rawings:: -
GSSt.�wv W��-•ct �,.� �r�'li�d a7�GC)�t
t(A- CG V\A ck�'�
C4 K-'L�' -C-
t s -
�W�Lr 9- A- L4
:5 - 0\�
1 t � J et'ht
5 .
s - -"S i-- Sao — 3 Cl Lt S5y �SS�
5100

Rzvut3 January 23, 19
JUSTIFICATION & DOCUMENTATION FOR MANDATORY WA DETERMINATION
Facility Number- Operation is flagged for a wettable
Farm Name: acre determination due to failure of
On -Site Representative:Part 11 eligibility items) F9 F2 F3 F4
Inspector/Reviewer's Name: "asz_
Date of site visit: `
Date of most recent %PVUP:
Operation not required to secure WA
determination at this time based on
epemp "on E1 E2 E3 E4
Annual farm PAN deficit:pounds
Irrigation System(s) - circle -#: 1. hard -hose traveler, 2. center pivot system; 3. linear -move system;
4. stationary sprinkler system w/permanent pi e;Mstationary sprinkler system w/portable pipe;
6. stationary gun system w/permanent pipe;tationary gun system wlportable pipe
PART I. WA Determination Exemptions (Eligibility failure, Part 11, overrides Part I exemption.)
E1 Adequate irrigation design, including map depicting wettable acres; is complete
and signed by an I or PE.
E2 Adequate D, and DJD3 irrigation operating parameter sheets, including map
depicting wettable acres, is complete and signed by an 1 or PE.
E3 Adequate D, irrigation operating parameter sheet, including map depicting
wettable acres, is complete and signed by a WUP.
E4 75% rule exemption as veriiied in Part 111. (NOTE: 75 % exemption cannot be
applied to farms that fail the eligibility checklist in Part 11. Complete eligibility
checklist, Part 11- F1 F2 F3, before completing computational table in Part 111).
PART 11. 75% Rule Eligibility Checklist and Documentation of WA Determination
Requirements. WA Determination required because operation fails one of the eligibility
requirements listed below:
F1 Lack of acreage which resulted in over application of wastewater (PAN) on spray
field(s) according to farm's last two years of irrigation records.
F2 Unclear, illegible, or lack of information/map.
F3 Obvious field limitations (numerous flitches; failure to' deduct required
buf;erlsetback acreage; or 25% of total acreage identified in CAWMP includes
small, irregularly shaped fields - fields less than 5 acres for travelers or less than
2 acres for stationary sprinklers).
F4 WA determination required because CAWMP credits field(s)'s acreage in excess
of 75% of the respective field's total acreage as noted in table in Part Ill.

Rtvistd Januz-,%, 22, ;
Facility Number_-
Part 1I1. Field by Field Determination of 75% Exemption Rule for WA Determination
TRACT
NUMBER
FIELD
NUMBER'S
TYPE OF
IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
TOTAL
ACRES
CAWMP
ACRES
FIELD
%
COMMENTS3
!
�I
!
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
€
IF- I
I
I
I
I
i
FIELD NUMBER'
- hydrant, pull zone or point numbers may be used in place of field numbers depending on CAWP
1 ,
and type of irrigation system. If pulls, etc. cross more than one field, inspector/reviewer will have to combine fields to
calculate 75% field by field determination for exempfion if possible; otherwise operation will be subject to WA
determination.
FIELD NUMBERx - must be clearly delineated on map.
COMMENTS= - back-up fields with CAWMP acreage exceeding 75% of its total acres and having received less than 50%
of its annual PAN as documented in the farm's previous two years' (1997 & 1998) of irrigation records, cannot serve as the
sole basis for requiring a WA Determination_ 'Jack -up fields must be noted in the comment section and must be accessible
by irrigation system.

0`;DNiAon of Soil and Water'Conservathon Operation Revaew
EI Dlvrsion of Soil and Water Conservation - 'Complianee Inspection
�Diyision ofTWater Quality -Cornpliance Inspection
Other' Operation Itev►ew,
Routine O Com Taint Q Follow -tip of DWQ inspection Q Folio w-up of DSWC review- 0 Other
F"
Facility Number Date of inspection Q
nme of inspection (5 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Permitted ,".s
fiCeertied © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered 13 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name:... .. s...... County:..�V`� .....................:....
Owner Name:
Phone No:
Facility Contact: ............... .............---..----... Title:................ .. Phone No:.............. .
MailingAddress: ................................................................................................................
.. ..................................................................................... ...
Onsite Representative: ,,��
- �............................. Integrator....... .. ......... ......... .................
Certified Operator: ..................................................................................................... Operator Certification Number: ..........................................
Location of Farm: k t n ti
lS....a..L ..
Latitude a 4 Longitude 0 9 49
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder -
Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ElNon-Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains .Present 110 Lagoon Area ID Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
DischaEges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation (If yes, notify DWQ)?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance plan -made`'
h. If discharge is observed. did it reach: ❑ Surface Waters ❑ Waters of the State
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min'!
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system?
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation!
3- Were there any 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?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
identifier:
Freeboard (inches): ............3.3.........-...................................................................
❑ Yes
)0 No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ Yes
ONO
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ Yes
NINO
Structure 6
1 /6/99 Continued on back

Favjlitf Number: { — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑yes D(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 0 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 D{No
8. Does any pact of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes WNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required top of dike, maximum and minimum
liquid level elevation markings? ❑ Yes VNo
Waste Application_
10_ Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes O No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Ponding ❑ Nitrogen Yes ""No
12. Crop type�.?Cr.........5�? .I W.....................................................
...................................................................................................................
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those desiYonated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? Yes ❑ No
14. Does the facility lack wettable acreage for land application? (footprint) ❑ Yes XNo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes XNo
16. Is there a lack of adequatc,waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ONo
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 9 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.) DAYes ❑ No
19. Does record keeping need improvement'? (ie/ irrigation, Freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) 91 Yes El No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes R No
21. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible 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 aggency? ❑ Yes No
�. N.o.vio]ations.or. def ci.e
ricie's.were' noted during.this:visit:. Y-ou will receive nor further ...:.
• eorrespoiidence' about: this visit.:. ' . ' . ' .:.:..:.............. ...
Comments (refer to question #):.Explain any YES answers andlor°any recommendations'or airy other. -comments.-- _
Use draw�rigs of facility {o better explain situations. (use additianal.pages as necessary).
ha a l t 321'Q
c
r
Reviewer/inspector Name - �-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
1 /6/99

Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency
M Division of Water Quality
O Routine 10 Complaint O Follow-uR of DWQ inspection O Foflow-ue of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection ®'
Facility Number 1 S Time of Inspection D: Zv 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Registered I$ Certified [3 Applied four. Permit © Permitted E3 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
FarmName:............... ecsJ.i.s........�ys..... qL h�:........................:........................... County:......._7 a.RRr.................................. .......................
OwnerName:...........................i....ekes................1 wKs ................................................. Phone No:.... 5-73 7.......................................
FacilityContact; .............................................................................. Title:
Mailing Address: .....16-11......... L'ift ............ s............................
Onsite Representative:.............1^i9r........»-........................ .............
.
Certified Operator;
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
...........�o ----P Q•;At.,Nc ..............................2 `f 7.....
Integrator: ....... MS1.X??t ............................................................
Operator Certification Number, .........................................
C?11...lhle .....�.i� ...4 .... l�.iC!. . �.►ri......... l:xa... •- .as.....3m.u. `
..----•...................... r
Latitude • 0' " Longitude �• r_�` .'
General
1. 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 lagoon s/holding.ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No

Facility Number: - —
8.
Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Structures(LaaoonsAoldine Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9.
Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
1W No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (ft):...........s.!�i..........................................
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
❑ No
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
❑ No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
® No
(If in excess of 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 (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
JzYes
❑ No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22,
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities On[
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0• No.violations-or' deficiencies were noted-dtiring this:visit. Yoii:wiil r6cei've-iroIfiirttier'
:: • correspandence shout this:visit.:.:::::
14- 5�•[� vaa�S�x o� -oe-%k Wei Ascvvc3 z­- 4�, sprayN%. No z:A,,ce o�
Na. �isC4.ry -6 Wf-6A 61 `4C.t S-�W
R�KS �Lms -Vo � t&J oais � cr Mntr.Y► . lw se o&� h-wl -6
� U Wt4.in SO Oki 5 0- vvt1 Wo,S °��+ 1`ca�►'o� l�g�� 4'��.
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name':Gri �lnLh_Y rj� Reviewer/Inspector Signature:���, Date: Z

C1 DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Reviev
as Animal Feedlof Operation Site Inspection..- h
EIDWQy
,
6 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-ut7 of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection p : Use 24 hr. time
Farm Status:., C' e_-Y-- �i_.k
Total Time (in hours) Spent oaRe%iew
or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
5
Farm Natne: ,..j, P _ ,,. t , .s r 0 r,
Owner Name- Ln.Q. ti-,i,., .. Phone No: A Z- ems? I.,
Mailing Address: 2 i R1 R i�>� P.
Onsite Representative:.(.�.�—
Certified Operator: Z_. Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
: fL . .. .f
Latitude �•��®�= Longitude
E3 N-ot Operational Date Last Operated:
1-vpe of Operation and Design Capacity
Srvthe Nmbe= ultry lumber Cattle i�uatber;°
Latitude �•��®�= Longitude
E3 N-ot Operational Date Last Operated:
1-vpe of Operation and Design Capacity
Srvthe Nmbe= ultry lumber Cattle i�uatber;°
❑ Wean to Feeder
, .
S;M r ❑ Dairy
4 E$Feeder to Finish
1 Y ❑ Beef
EEQI�N-Z-Laver
Farrow to Wean
4x
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
❑ Oth6r Type of Livestock
Zl�umb r of Lagoaas'f i3oldingPoids
❑Subsurface Drains Present
❑ La;oon area ,tA? ❑ Sprav )Field Area K
General
1. Are there anv buffers that need maintenance/improvement? El Yes MNo
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes MNo
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 .Q No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmia?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? {If yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes 0 No
t. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 9 No
4. Was there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes t-No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes RNo
maintenanc climprovemca?
Continued on back

6. Is facility iiot in compliance with any applicable setback criteria?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge (if inspection after 1/l/97)?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Latroons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is structural freeboard less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Lagoon I lagoon 2 Lagoon 3
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
I L Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12_ Do any of the structures need Ynaintenance/isnprovement?
(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 - C-0-1 r .set W
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?
Fnr 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 Reviewer4wector fail to discuss reviewfimspection with owner or operator in charge?
❑ Yes
PSNo
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ Yes
& No
❑ Yes
N No
Lagoon 4
❑ Yes
E§ No
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ Yes
it No
❑ Yes
R No
❑ Yes
O No
❑ Yes
1K No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes MNo
❑ Yes N No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes RNo
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes C9 No
❑ Yes a No
Camruents (refer to question Ir} Explain any YFS ansR ers and/or any recoFriinendahons or anv other comments
'aa. •rw in a': .e...
n
Use drawingss of.faciitty�#� o�;better e"..lx sltuatie additional pages as necessary), ���„���£
2.0. typarn-toc cAvta Ko# �i �ia-X o+n t1Ke �c�.� a c,n�per�f-i0►�1 j 4
ho.Ni: -fe-- 1,e �,rvugvt i� �r .ih uiiRO a��t s-IQ1�81#ow
ZZ• rY-e e, i✓� jLe ,.�.
Fac `Evok—Q•� aed
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviwer/Inspector Signature:
r
Date:
Z
cc. Urvisron of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, F-acithy+Assessment Unit 11/14/96

OPEPATIDI ERAh!:H - t,Ji7 Jul l 20 ' 91- t> :49 F. 111 -6
Site Rcquires biimediatc Attcntio❑ , ✓-
Facility Numbtr: --7_1-4
8-
SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: �,11Y l�_ 1995
Owner: _T f pw1 zz Fum Nara : _
County. _Feted �-
A er3E Visiting Site; Phone: 91Q 259m 235
Operator:- Lewis Rooks _ � Phone: (9I0) 259-9735
t
On Site Represcatative: Not Avai j ahle - phone: -
Physical Address: Little -Kelly Road_- 1� th t�f 4 Jon of
SR 1411 and rR 1409. Farm road is on the right.
Mailing Address: 5R 1409 E22 P�h..C. 26457�_
Type of Operation: -Swine xPoultry _ Cane .—___._
Design Capacity: unknown Numbc, of Animals on Site: iiSU f inif�hinr
� - -- - -
Latitude.• ,• Longitude:
• Type of Inspection: Ground _ x Aerial _
•
Circic Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboardof l Foot + 25 year 24 hour s',c r.'L event
(ap proxima rely I Foot + 7 inches) Yes or Actual Freeboard: I Feet 5 _ Tnches
For facilities with more than one lagoon, please addre,s the other Iagcwnts' freeboard under the
cE7mmentS SCction.
Was, any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes or&1 Was there erosion of the aanz?: Yes `1 N)
Is adequate land available for land application? `tom' or No 1s the cover crap adequate? 9 or No
Additional Corurnents: vegetatioR stabilization of cwm Well established as
a result of hem vegetation- outlet pfrx- not able' to 'tom _loc:at;ed. - �-
Fax to (919) 7 I -3559 Signamlre of Agent

r�
Site Requires Immediate Attention:
Facility No. 7�
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERA N VISITATION RECORD
DATE: f7,1995
Time:. 30
Farm Name/Owner:
Mailing Address:
County:
Integrator: _ U
9
On Site Representative: Phone: _
Physical Address/Location:USA9 Ive
r a ��
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: Number of Animals on Site:
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: Longitude: " Elevation: Feet
Circle Yes or No
Does'the Animal Waste Lagoon hag efficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) or No A ualWFreeboard: Ft. Inches
• . Was any seepage observed from the laa n(s)? Yes o as any erosion observed? Yes ore
Is adequate land available for spray? a or o IsVecover crop adequate? Yes or
Crop(s) being utilized: r v
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellin e or No '
100 Feet from Wells? e o o
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line? Yes o No
Is animal waste discharged into waters re state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes or If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific
Additional Comments: 9,1
ff
Ji
Inspector Name
S
1-1
een
cc: Facility Assessment Unit
Use Attachments if Needed.

Site Requires Immedzate Attention:
Facility No. 7/
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
• ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATION SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: , 1995
- Time:
Farm Name/Owner: U)t
Mailing Address: L/ C-�_6� 1 LLi D . �l'�C'L� �1A0_ O_ z� l
County:�
Integrator: /Vi[,iQP! Phone:
On Site Representative: Phone:
Physical Address/Location: /�O� �• /ail! //✓r SAC Q1 j
40
AUT rt
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: #�_a H�� p Number of Animals on Site:
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude:.,` 27 Longitude: 77 Elevation: Feet
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches Yes r No Actual Freeboard. X Ft. Inches
' Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes . as any erosion observed? Yes No
Is adequate land available for spray? Yes or No . Is the cover crop adequate? Yes or No
Crop(s) being utilized: 'n CQ�SP�S
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings? Yes or No
100 Feet from Wells. es r No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream Ye r 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 tthiestate by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes gr'No% If Yes, Please Explain_
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on
Additional
Inspector Name
acreage with cover crop)? Yes or No
rJ_
go
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.

�67/1911995 16:'?5 9102591'?91 F'E!-IDEF' BOOR E"�T SEF'
PAGE 05
•
Site Requires Immediate Attention ✓
Facility Number: 4 1 P
SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: g 1995
Owner: _ r,pw ks •„_ Farm Name:
County: Peroar
Agent Visiting Site: _.9H I CES Phone: [phone]
Operator" Lewis Rooks phone: [phone]
On Site Representative: Not. nva; I able Phone:
Physical Address- Little Kelly Road = 1
SR 1411 and SR 1409. Farm road is on the right.
Mailing Address: SR 1409 Rocky Point, N.C. 26457
Type of Operation: ''Swine ax Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: unknomn Number of Animals on Site: 1150 finishing
Latitude: ° " Longitude: "
Type of Inspection: Ground x Aerial
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of I Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) Yes or N Actual Freeboard: 1 Feet 5 Inches
For facilities with more than one lagoon, please address the other lagoons' freeboard under the
comments section.
Was any seepage observed from the liagoon(s)? Yes or(6b Was there erosion of the dam?: Yes da
Is adequate land available for land application? 0or No Is the cover crop adequate? 9 or No
Additional Comments: vegetative stabilization of dam well established as
a result of heavy vegetation- outlet pipe not able to be located.
Fax to [phone] Signature of Agent

Site Requires Immediate Attention: iv v
Q }
FacilityNo. �
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: D , 1995 '
Time. 1: d'}
Farm Name/Owner:
Mailing Address:
County:
Integrator: MaX, 1 - Phone:
On Site Representative:. �Ptivi IPdoKS _ _ Phone:
Physical Address/Location: C,(' SR 1 yD 9 �,e4ea
A C -1/0
Type of Operation: Swine.- ✓ Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity:
Number of Animals on Site:
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: Longitude: Elevation:- Feet
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) r No Actual Freeboard: _jFt. '7 Inches
• Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes or To Was any erosion observed? Yes or�
Is adequate land available for spray? 61or No Is the cover crop adequate? des r No
•
Crop(s) being utilized:
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? '100 Feet from Dwellings? (Yi�s or No
100 Feet from Wells? t2or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes ar No
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line? Yes or No
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes or 19 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)? Yes or No
Additional Comments:
u fly"
Inspector Name Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.