710049_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA .�
Department of Environmental W6

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number % 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency f6 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: I Z-AArrival Time: a : OO Departure Time: + Connry: - Region:
Farm Name: if = "/C_ef � �/,1R/YL� Owner Email:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: AZ-22 5 iC%f_'CzGLf
Phone No:
Integrator: ,lT�—
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: = = = Longitude: = ° = 6 =
Design Current h Design Current;'; Design Curren `
Swine CapacityPopulation..Wet Poultry .,Capacity Population:: Cattle ,Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish 1 10 Layer }.
[] Wean to Feeder ❑ Non -Layer
❑ Feeder to Finish
arrow to Wean Dry Poultry
Farrow to Feeder xq
Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other I
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey 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?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ DairyCaw
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
i
Number of Structui
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 �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ?No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection 24
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 I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): Z/3
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(iel 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 El NA ❑ NE
El Yes /❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes /No ❑ 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 XNo ❑ 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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes YNo
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
El NA El NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate.Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Windo ElEvidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12.
Crop type(s) ie5; 4— /{may
13.
`
Soil type(s) Z
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?# " .t
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? '# r `:
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ 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
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application eguipr" ent? i. `
❑Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question # ): Explain any YES answers and/or any -recommendations or any other. comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations A (use. additional"page's as necessary):
].A&
���,D�,D A�f_lZ .lV�G o�; �. �-- ��P.�' C�Or✓s1%%_L`Tror�
Reviewer/inspector Name ! v Phone: V - Z3
Reviewer/inspector Signatur . Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

L
Facility Number: '7Z/ — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
�No
<iii%No
❑ NA
[I NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists El Design El Maps El 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 1"
Rain Inspections
❑
Weather
Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
;alNo
❑ 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
X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
;gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No f ZNA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes �No
El NA
El NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes yNo
❑ 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?
ElYes XNo
ElNA
ElNE
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 ko
❑ 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
/�QVNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Al �
"725�_
�
Page 3 of 3 12128104

_ Division of Water Quality
Facility Number ! t { S 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Type of Visit Co pliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ denied Access
Date of Visit: f� 05� Arrival Time: 3V Departure Time; County: BEn1D+ iZ Region:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative: f..1a,: T uS E+J G ULS H
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone:
Title: Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = f 0 tl Longitude: = ° ❑ A 0 it
Design
Current
Design Current
Design
Current
Swine
Capacity
Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity
Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La ei
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ DI Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
l) Paul
rJ' try
❑ Dry Cow
® Farrow to Feeder.
S0
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑Non -La ers
El Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
L/_I 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
� o
El NA
El NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
El Yes
I-✓J No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

Facility, Number: I — 4 A
Date of Inspection a
aste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
ElYes
0"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: (Ak-01J
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): ,
Observed Freeboard (in): `{
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[(NNo
❑ 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 environmentalth at, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ElYes E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes O No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
4. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes E! No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes dNo ❑ 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 Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) E,5 (_ ( -
13. Soil type(s) L
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
eNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
ONo ❑ NA
❑ 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 facilitylack adequate acreage for land application?
q PP
❑ Yes
❑ NA
L��No
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
�A W LW ICS ~"lUA.P1b
PW � bcLhrvS t 1.A r" OcT, -,o`f �Ca-W►�T—T -to
Reviewer/Inspector Name "=°� Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 0 S

Facility Number: it — Date of Inspection
R4guired
Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
C4
❑ NA
ElNE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
ElYes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design , g El El
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I"
Rain Inspections El
Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
L'7 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[ /No
❑
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
El Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
D NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
ffNo
❑ZA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
El Yes
El No
L
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
BIN o ❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
PC ❑ 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
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
yN'o
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
❑ 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
El NA
❑ NE
ONo
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El Yes
-CJ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings::'
12128104
12128104

0
Type of Visit S%fCompliance Inspection 0 operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine o Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
P D County:
Date of visit: j Arrival Time: � Departure Time: �
Farm Name: G ��J Owner Email:
Owner Name: �iL�L/S �Nz� Phone: _
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: �'�?7 �NG�Zf Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Region: 8z' 9
Location of Farm: Latitude: = c = d = Longitude: [—_1 ° = ' 0
Design
t en 11<1 Des gn $ C r t
� Design CurrenE
� rt
Swine t?apa�c�ity Population � Wet'Poultr},fie Capacity.,�.LLP�°pula�tt�on�c�"��`CapacityPo�pulation
ti
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer I
I � ❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
I I
❑ Dairy Calf
El Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
5-`
PEI Z
Dry Pao u[try
r
El Dai Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
, ak
❑ Layers
.:
El Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
El Gilts
❑ Boars
ElNon-Layers
El Pullets
❑ Beef Stocker
El Beef Feeder
El Beef Brood Co
Turke s
a
©they
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Puults
❑ Other
s Numeber of Structures:
Discharses & Stream impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes )z 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 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

Faciliti Number: — Date of Inspection ! Q
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 0No ❑ 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):
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?
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 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'![] 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
Camments�(refer to gnestton #) Explain any YES -answers and/orrany recommendattansor any other comments.
Usedrawmgs of facilityto'befter.egj►lain situations..(use'additional pages as necessary} Lip j
OV,0 }1-Z1V r As of- Z rJt O fkor4 lo' f` Zvf/t N ,w.
- �✓44 1 rh�A1Cr 14-r AVM AP.'OKIV5 � �� /1�t�� i►1 ALi /1%© J�,sl�f�c
DQOR 0-6Ca69
% ;004t4Y2V �'�6 �/��-,,_Eo DI✓ Ti��.es
Reviewer/inspector Name ,� O Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 Continued
t'_ DPw Au.hPO^11-- Fvrs z;:�

1 - Van Eden Farm -
j
s •
van Eden Y� Facility # 71 11 - e
W
,.. ;.� Hwy 117
iZE
>- I
rX
SIR 131
s
I4 4 r ,4
t
{CUM
°
IL
Nj
t
Lk
51
Ij
{
I
- - ��SR 1347 �/ �' � •`----•,
-fT if •', T ,t I _
1347
.��•„ f iSO= r .ate:`
-N,
x _ - _. ♦ ter—
_�_ - English Farms ,
Facifity # :71-49 �
j
C it i I / , i n y ungy
S A
N
W E
S-
Waitus English Farm and Van Eden Farm, Map created
from 1988 USGS Burgaw Quadrangle.

Ab
3Hmaw E

[Fwd: [Fwd: Odor]l
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Odor]]
From: Charles Stehman <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:56:31 -0500
To: "chester.cobb" <chester. cobb @ncmail. net>
Subject: [Fwd: Odor]
From: Rick Shiver <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:27:11 -0500
To: "Charles F. Stehman, Ph.D., P.G." <[e-mail]>
Hi, Charlie,
For you to handle: I suggest you forward the odor part: to Wayne Cook, and make a
reply to Gale on the other issues. Thanks, Rick
Subject: Odor
From: "gale lewis" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 06:50:07 -0500
To: <rick. shiver@ncmail. net>
CC: " "Gale Lewis" <[e-mail]_corn>
Hey Rick, just wondering if you know of anything happening different at Waitus English operation? On
Sunday the odor was awful, outside and also in our house. Sunday night, and Monday morning also.
Just wondering if something has changed over there recently. Has there been any problems that you are
aware of?
Also, understand that. Jimmy Rivenbark has sold his operation sometime back, do you have any idea
who has that operation now?
Thanks,
Gale Lewis
Burgaw
Charles F. Stel�man <charles.stehman ncmail.net>
Environmental Regional Supervisor I
Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Content -Type: message/rf'c822
[Fwd: Odor]
Content -Encoding: 7bit
1 of 2 3/16/2005 8:56 AM

[Fwd: [Fwd: Odor]]
Content -Type: message/rfc822
Odor
Content -Encoding: 7bit
!" 1:i
2 of 2 3/16/2005 8:56 AM

Odor Complaint - English Farm
Subject: Odor Complaint - English Farm
From: Charles Stehman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:31:32 -0500
To: [e-mail]
CC: rick shiver <[e-mail]>, chester cobb <[e-mail]>, paul sherman
<paul. sherman@ncm ail.nct>
In response to your complaint the Division sent staff to the Waitus English Farm on
Monday, March 14, 2005. Everything appeared to be normal and no significant odor
was noted while walking around the lagoon. During the visit Mr. English mentioned
that poultry litter was being applied to some fields on the other side of the State
road on Thursday and Friday (March 10 & 11), however, your odor complaint was for
Sunday night (March 6) and Monday morning. It is important to note that farm
records reviewed during our visit indicate that the only recorded spray application
at the English farm during March of this year was on Thursday, March loth., 2005.
Apparently the odor you reported was not related to the English Farm and is of
unknown origin.
Charlie Stehman 3
Regional Supervisor
Division of Water Quality
Wilmington Office.
Charles F. Stehman <charles.stehman ncmail.net>
Environmental Regional Supervisor I
Division of Water Quality I
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
E
1of1
3/16/2005 8:5TAM

Re: Odor Complaint - English Farm '.
Subject: Re. Odor Complaint - English Farm
From: "gale lewis" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:18:03 -0500
To: "Charles Stehman" <[e-mail]>
CC: "rick shiver" <[e-mail]>, "chester Cobb" <[e-mail]>, "Paul
sherman" <[e-mail]>
Hi Charles,
I really appreciate your taking the time to check this out, I really do: First off,
I never said that he was spraying, I said that something must have changed, since
there had not been much odor lately. This was an intense odor, and it came into my
house. Secondly, I have lived here since well before the hog operation, and I am
very familiar with the distinct differences between hog odor, and turkey or chicken
liter. I know hog odor when I smell it. Odor can come from different facets of the
operation, flushing, ponding, houses, temperature change, humidity, and of course
spraying. Can't say if they were spraying during that time period or not, course if
their records say that they were not spraying, I guess they must not have been. I
simply noticed a,change and emailed Rick Shiver to see if there was something
different, and he, notified you. Next time I will notify you myself,'if you are who
is suppose to be notified, at the time of the odor problem, so the response time
can be more timely. Is there a special number, cell, beeper, whatever, that the
neighbors should use when problems like this occur, of so please advise? Should
something like this be reported to water quality or air?
You are wrong though, the origin of the odor that invaded my house was not unknown,
it was hogs, maybe it wasn't hogs on the English Operation, but it was hogs.
Again, thanks for taking the time to check this out.
Gale M Lewis
910-259-3279 (home)
910-395-8533 (work)
c)[e-mail]
----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Stehman" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: "rick shiver" <Rick. Shiver@ncmail. net>; "chester cobb"
<[e-mail]>; "paul sherman" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 5:31 PM
Subject: Odor Complaint - English Farm
In response to your complaint the Division sent staff to the Waitus
English Farm on Monday, March 14, 2005. Everything appeared to be
normal and no significant odor was noted while walking around the
lagoon. During the visit Mr. English mentioned that poultry litter was
being applied to some fields on the other side of the State road on
Thursday and Friday (March 10 & 11), however, your odor complaint was
for Sunday night (March 6) and Monday morning. It is important to note
that farm records reviewed during our visit indicate that the only
recorded spray application at the English farm during, March of this
year was on Thursday, March loth., 2005. Apparently the odor you
reported was not related to the English Farm and is of unknown origin.
Charlie Stehman
Regional SuperVisor
Division of Water Quality
Wilmington Office
W
1 of 1 3/16/2005 8:57 AM

(Type of Visit (15 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
for Visit 0 Routine Q Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit:
Permitted Q Cerd//fii�errd 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered
Farm Name:
Owner Name
Bellow
Date Last Opera or Above Threshold:
County: f/JOA
Phone No: -
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: __WW _ _. Title:. . _ ___ Phone No:
Onsite Representative: ,�Z„� ••• Integrator.
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number:
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • 64 Longitude a 4 �u
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 man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
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
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes jffNo
❑ Yes JZf No
❑ Yes Rr-No
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
12112103
Continued

Facility Number: 11 — �e Date of Inspection
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 or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or euvironmental 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 maintenancefimpmvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste APRAcation
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancetimprovement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN E] Hy 'c Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type CJ`"�� Z!�
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those desigruded 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?
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attar 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 0 No
❑ Yes UNo
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes RfNo
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes �Z No
❑ Yes �ZNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes O No
❑ Yes ZNo
❑ Yes ZNo
❑ Yes J3 No
❑ Yes ffNo
❑ Yes ONo
'Conrrm� (t�'!at` t�u�ques�n'��Exgiam:any YES s aad/6r aary.errme�tdatioas or s�ny�utli�a'�cam�ntts. � _- �`=
,
=Use � of fa"i�ty�W�bet#er � srtoatrous.�{tore �tiox� pagss as wry) ❑Field Co Final Notes �'
.;. .R9� � � _ .., � 4 � "�"'ti=3 CfrF'. k&"m"�., �, day .� :.«..-.,✓Y` m • �
n. .. ..........w ..�+¢�..�'.:. hl.�.,-� � wa:ai�.^_a_ .. .. Js'�'r,..�t&��i �_,. ��..i.K�e•.... M.... .... ^..... '.`�w:z�xm�"JL�.:J..""... aw .'��...
/10'e
LdAW 7zc9
y
Reviewer/Iaspector Name r f' k x ;��' - aaz L ._
ReviewerAnspector Signature: Date: fZ
12112103 Continued

' Facility Number: — Date of Inspection O
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23_ Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ 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?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
29. Were any addidonal problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
35. Does record beeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes jo No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes .0 No
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes )ZfNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no farther correspondence about this visit.
a
AA07'e6 .0. 4k�
4ko'(' In4f,)OO ro 06 01
�r�PpG� � I o � � XG,�Gc. /.✓��,��9P�; G.va.�
G�
.12112103

Faciliri Number hate of Visit: �! Time:ro-
i `#
Not O erational I3elow Threshold
© Permitted ❑ Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: E ri� I ►l s k County: ee ►1de r
Owner Name: �� '�'i ? C 4 1-5 L Phone No:
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: j Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: r/" °r'•�'� S C-AAl ';� Integrator: hiv k —Brew,-\
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
[]Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑Horse Latitude 0a r Du Longitude 0 •
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 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: I
❑ Yes zNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes Z No
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes PNo
Structure 6
Freeboard (inches): 3 1
05103101 Continued

Date of Inspection 1/ Z
Facility Number: of I — q q
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 or
closure plan? (If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Aonlication
❑ Yes ZNo
❑ Yes ZNo
❑ Yes 21 No
❑ Yes .E5No
❑ Yes -5No
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ,❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes No
12. Crop type Fes r—,Ie A✓z,-Z-Q
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ff No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes Z No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes Z No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
[2r No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Z No
Re
fired Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[ZNo
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WL"P, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
ONO
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
;a -No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
Z1 No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
JZNo
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
O'No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23_
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
E No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
UNo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
[--]Yes
.RtNo
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Cantiatents (Refeir.to quesknn #): Es lain an _1fE5 answ�e'ismng or.Anyrror anV'oti>ercamments. �.:
Use`drawings of facility to better explsen=situations {use addihaiial pages;e�s n ryj ❑Field Conv❑Final Notes
r�lq pNjejje q�d a1a�ed ve�� Wel!_
TGte Sw;ne �jd�se q�ea q�� lek5OOn /_T welf mct'l; Cured_ The
retards are ke f 7 aX roe +f ':� 9e00( '� ""c-scUe
E'1-'�l`�c, S
j��Sr
-1 "r e _GXCAe p r S G D m : '15 Vl!�' - f1 r'Ge/
are ev;deatno( cyopreriq/,c�.
Reviewer/Inspector Name ^
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: ! g O Z
05103101 Continued

Facility \umber: — Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. 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? V
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads. building structure. and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
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.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanenvtemporary cover?
Additional Couirnents and/or Drawings:
O5103101
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ,allo
❑ Yes 'eNo
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes /fffNo
❑ Yes.X No
❑ Yes ❑ No

t�
i[in of Water Quality �I
io"Wof Soilan&!Wat&; Conservation;'
r Agency s>
(Type of Visit $ECompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit )!§ Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Facility' Number 1
Permitted © Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered
Farm Name:.........y`Zj ..............................
Owner Name: inloi' T✓S El►t % t tl,
.............g.........................................................................
3 fs 01 'rime: 10 ZO Printed on: 7/21/2000
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Countv: R .'d
....................................................`......................
Phone No:._...
Facility Contact: .............................................................................. Title:.................... . Phone No:
MailingAddress: ..................................................... ............................................................... .............................................................
Onsite Representative:..r, vS„h %'�5 Integrator: t11P ��
.......................................... ...... ......
I ....................
....
Certified Operator: ................................................... ......, , .................. Operator Certification Number: ..........................................
Location of Farm:
w
T
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �• �� Longitude �• �° 0°°
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
IZ O
) -Zo o
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Po ulation
❑ Layer I ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons 1 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lar-n Area ID 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? ❑ Yes —25NO
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed; was the conveyance ratan -made? ❑ Yes ONO
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State'' (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes 9 No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the cstimatcd Ilow in gal/min'? Ipj
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ONO
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 �gNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes 9 No
.7Cr OUTC I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:...............,..---..................................................
Freeboard (inches): TZ
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: 1 — Date of Inspection printed on- 1/9/2001
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? ❑ Yes JKNo
(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 ANo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes JXNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes A No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ONo
11. Is there evidence of over application? r❑ fExcessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes A No
12. Crop type � 5 G r e � ►1-1�^e 111!F 6- Z e
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes JS No
14. a) Does thefacility 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 P No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ffl'No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ;ffNo
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 J!fNo
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes E'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 j No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) [I Yes �No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes Q(No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes %9 No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes O No
•�yiblai>Egris'o d�fciencies wire .gted. d ig...v�..Yoe .. >{•eegipe o fug t
Colirisp�deuce: alb6 if this Visits :::....::.....::... . ::... .
Comments (Mer to questidn #):-Explain any YES`answers and/or any: :re-com-mendatrons of-iii otlnat c
Use drawings of facility to better explain Atuations: (use ;iddibk",-pages as`necess ry)• �-
Aes po­,dc,d 4,o rel o '-+ '�'rvrn 4 Cvkt.ccYrlcd G P4:zeH v; 11 : n. J )PV F;,.l y •`
►1a;Se q4 -Fay 43-14 r)o ,--ece-t-j -''lip rccttcle rvpy
a 4 4 11,C s ✓%.Tq k , -I c► w k, � NJ Ong l �' fh �Gi i`p� � �i; s s�,-4ed
abo�3 41.wo w6ekJ qga. Also M,- 0 t,s-4 haai-F,•ee�,�a �� level s 4 �l.ql -
he kkc Mao [-,old -fo qray /n gA)A..1e�
t )
Reviewer/Impector Name ^ "
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ��,p Date: 3 (V 01_ __ SAW

Facility Number: — Lf Date of Inspection d Printed on: 7/21/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below Yes []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 No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes �P" 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 JO No
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 0 No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes EffNo
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? 0 Yes ❑ No
Additional omments and/or rawings:
5100

r;
Q DIYl51On`p��S(I�Iafld�;��
19I Routine Q Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number Date of Iuspection 7 Q6
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted E3 Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered JE3 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
FarmName: ........ .N���5._....................................................... County: ... ...... .3, �►�- ...........................
Owner Name- ------------------------ . Phone No:
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:........................................ ............ Phone No:
Mailing Address:-----------•----•.....---•..............................
Onsite Representative:....."`;.:.`..r �k............................................................. Integrator:......_(
Certified Operator: ............................ 1-.1 ..................... ... I .......................................... I .............. Operator Certification Numberr:..........................................
Location of Farm:
Latitude • 4 « Longitude • 0` &9
Design
F;
$wine -- Ca aeity l
:' ❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
arrow to Feeder U
El Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
i 'Poultry Ca
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
;'Current'
'�.Cdrtrent.-
w Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
_ s
Holding Ponds /=Solid Traps= m r ❑ 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 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) Iess than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes C�No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
M�No
❑ Yes Ef No
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):34.......................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes . To
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

r Facilky- Number: 9 t — Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement?
11. Is there evidenceokf over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type --VP
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes
EgNo
❑ Yes
'4No
❑ Yes
UrNo
❑ Yes
f�No
❑ Yes
AfNo
v
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there -a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17.. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. 'Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20_ Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
•(Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 5fNo
❑ Yes UNo
❑ Yes b No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes WqO
❑ Yes O,No
❑ Yes LTNo
❑ Yes [�(No
❑ Yes 14 No
❑ Yes 9(No
❑ Yes tfNo
0:. violaticjris :or• deficiencies -were 'h6 ed during this'visit' • Y;o wiii •teeVive do fu4-thgr :: .
corresporidei�ct? about this :visit:
Con ment<s (refe 4i question#) °°Explain.any=YES answers andfor any recommendations or any,other c6mtrtents:1
Use dra ,wings of facility to abetter explaan situations (use additional p ges as necessary).
��� �►�®� y ^�,es� �� cte�et•"�, its, `�-►� �«' due
ice) � 1�l a•lh ���J 0 � �J t G � � +-� s� �-.1 oC� to� �'i� I � �C�-�J'.
OL
I&
Reviewer/Inspector Name -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. �•� Date: _c�o

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 13+I `7 I7
Odor Issues '---�C—�
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? x
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes 0 No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes KNo
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 X No
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 KNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes t�No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? o
_ tiona ' -on€unents an or vmngs _ .� x�i
m%'.. r�Y.]Y...:.m^^ t i«.......__v.� MME ...r' �._._..-

Cj Division of Soil and" -Water Conservation -•Operation Review " fi
0 Division of Soil and:Water Consei-�ation°-,Compliance Irispectrfln LV
Division of Water Quality Compliance inspection
1 Other Agency Operation -Review _
l® Routine 0 Complaint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow -tin of DSWC review ID Other
Facility Number
© Permitted © Certified [3 Conditionally Certified (] Registered
Farm Name:hG (► S S ........„+l
�...4.f.......................................
Owner Name:....!!�Ql�'V 5........lq. ..
.
J.............................................I........................
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection
24 hr. (hh:mm)
i0 Not Operational Date Last Operated: .....
j
County: �Pnde✓
PhoneNo:.......................................................................................
Facility Contact:.............................................................................. Title: ..... Phone No:
MailingAddress: ....................................................................... ..........
„ V� �0' Y✓ln ; r
.i�, Integrator
"
Onsite Representative: -...................A...................................................... �.�..................... .
Certified Operator:................................................................................................................ Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
r--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�
Latitude • �° Longitude • C�� �r
Design Current .---- Design. Current`k „ . , Design Current
,Point Cattle ...
Swine „ ,,." Ca ace Po ulation _-__ry' Capacity Population _ Capacity Populatior
P
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts,
❑ Boars
Number- of, Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JE1 Spray Field Area _-
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 roan -made?
h. 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) Iess than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: 1
Freeboard(inches): ...............3..I......... I.- ....................................................... ...................................... ......
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (te/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
,6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ 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
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes ❑ No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ 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 ❑ 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
" o yiolaiigtis:or defcier�cies were noted dtrritig �his;visit: • Yoit 'Will -teceiye fio futftr
corres oridence: ab'*f this :visit :
Cominents ("refer to -'question #) m Ekplaia:any=YES answers -and/or any•recommendatiions or any other comments .77
Use_drawings of facility to better- explain, situations.(use add►tional pages a§ necessary) — -
�.
1+
�„►�.,�;�9 ,,�� v�derlaw � drawn fo rgrl
. A d v-"sed Tel r W e r +o v
A,
c{s-FiP_}ds �9Go$.B dry enatnl� 46 FrevLmi runoff.
Reviewer/Inspector Name _n S R Q [.) ` _ — ! S, ' _ Q
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. A/V® F Date: q 21/14 I
3/23/99

13 Division of Soil and Water Goner?
' [3 Division of S©il and.Water:Conser
'Division of Water Quality` Compt
Other Agency .- Operation Refitw
,tion `Operation Review.
,qon=>Compliance Inspection ,.. ,. ;:
nce inspection -
s
Kaoline Q Complaint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspection _QFollow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection I T--3-9
Time of inspection ! O(JJ 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Xermitted Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered ©Not O erational Date Last Operated P ..........................
L✓ - ��paodv
Farm Name: ...... . ...'..:5 ..... r !•t ........................................................... County:.............I................................--- ....... .... I .................
.
Owner Name: .............................. Phone No:
FacilityContact:.............................................................................. Title:...........................................---.................. Phone No: ..................................---..............
MailingAddress: ......................................................................................... ........................
} � ^�{ GG�Gi
Onsite Representative:...wpr.+...�........?+!_� ........................................ Integrator: ....�.!"..L..f.....
Certified Operator: ................................................... ............................................................. Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ����.�� Longitude
Design Current;_Des
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Cap:
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
j Q
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts,
❑ Boars
i = Current. 2_ Design ' Current,
•y .Population Cattle Capacity Population'--.
�Ngmber4Lagoons. ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 1EJ Spray Field Area
r =Hold*: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 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?
d. Docs discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure; 5
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): ............ ..l. ................................................ ..................................... ...................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
❑ Yes XNO
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes [-]No
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes P(No
❑ Yes XNo
Structure 6
❑ Yes [( No
Continued on/,back
3/23/99

)Facility Number: 3.1 — 4
Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes VNo
XYes ❑ No
❑ Yes JVNo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes _WNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes ANo
12. Crop type 6aC vC,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes WO
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 ONO
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes '�(No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes gNo
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
Yes WNo
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
ElYes XNo
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes XNo
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
Cl Yes XNo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes /qNo
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes XNo
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes VNo
25. , Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes KN o
�o •vib. aii6 is or deficiencies •were noted• d(rririg Ns: visit; • Y64 WH1 •reeeive Rio 0060 •
.
corres o>ncfei ce. a�oitt this :visit: :::: ........ ::
Commtents< refer.to uestton # : Ex lain anyxYE$answers and/or any-recommeudatrons or anyother comments:'
( e }.
Use draw" of facility to better explain siituations. (use additionat, pages as -necessary};
- _ - _
II__ yy.,,,
� (8/[�✓� 011 'JQ.."G Q✓dG5 OiV-0u"/ lVrCa.�..di1�
Reviewer/Inspector Name t } av SSV.I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
3123/99

Facility Number:71 -- L.l 9 Datc of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below Yes ❑ 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 �No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i_e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes V-NG
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 No
30. Were any major maintenance Droblems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts. missing or
3/23/99

I '
Division of Soil and Water Conservation 0 Other Agency
OLDivision of Water Quality
1JO Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWO inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other I
Facility Number
Date of Inspection ii - i
[�
Time of Inspection = D 24 hr. (hh:mm)
[] Registered Certified 0 Applied for Permit �rPernutted 10 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: C 1, S k County:.........PP�dr�...........................
..................r..................--..............----.................._... ���.....
-7
Owner Name: ............... 1.., Phone No .� - ?:, c�
......................... ...
Facility Contact: .......................--............ ,. Title: ...... Phone No:
IVlaiiing Address: [ cW� f ri C z G/ !
........................a.!..J1.8a.�'1....1C.................. ....... ......................... 1. ...... ..... ............
Onsite Representative: ...........►l` .i.... 1 ^ ................ .. Integrator: ............ . ......................................
Certified Operator; ............... ` . ......................................... Operator Certification Number:......................
Location of Farm:
11111iii ii iiiii i iiiii 0
i=11111"i ..... ii ===== illmiiii iiii "o
Latitude Longitude
General
1.
Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
NCNo
2.
Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
�lo
Discharge originated at: El Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
TT
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
ZNo
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
a
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
0
3.
Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
4.
Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
VNo
5.
Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoonsiholding ponds) require
❑ Yes
maintenance/improvement?�(No
11
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
7/25197

f
Facility Number:
Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
. ' Structures fLagoons.HoldinE Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure 1. Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
S................ .... Freeboard (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 WNW, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type �1 6�
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 Reviewerlinspector 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?
0• No.vitalatioits•or deficiencies:were -no ted-during this:visit. You.'wrill receiv_e.no-further : -
:•:•correspQi�depceahoitt�tis:visit:•: ;�:�::•:•. . -.:�.�:-:��.•.•: �•::::-: �.�, .:.•::•. ;-:-;-:-
t 2. C,94i ^+ e (n�is 4v re-v-,gcfe- -l-' bCz/G 4rG¢S &h ASeh tv4 (�
❑ Yes ['No
❑ Yes 4K0
Structure 6
❑ Yes 4No
❑ Yes VNo
Xyes ❑ No
❑ Yes tkf�o
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes T*f�o
❑ Yes 060
*Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes UrNo
❑ Yes IFNo
❑ Yes `f No
❑ Yes INo
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes fNO
o
❑ Yes
7/25197

r..0 Routine 0 Com Taint Follow-u of UW ins ection Follow-u of IDSWC'review 0 Other
Date of Inspection -.i 2 - ZcJ-
Facility dumber � .
Time of Inspection. , 1 pb Use 24 hr. time
Farm Status: C T 2 T
Total Time (in hours) Spent onReAew ©I
or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
Farm Name: C v� ��I� �t! ... �A R.w S ......._....__...._....... _ ... County:.-P.! 0 E (L ................�� ....................
Owner Name: Lel4 i & - -- " /... . �? Phone No:.� _
Mailing Address: Lh'7 �! %� _�??yfii,/�iSL _ ....'4 _ �.... _.. 2-%q-?1._
Onsite Representative: L¢L {� .. �r'.5 _.-... Integrator:..?t!i4P
Certified Operator- -��5 �� _ Operator Certification Number• G q
�eLA,..... _.._ p .
Location of Farm:
Latitude '6 Du Longitude • ` 4°
E3 Not O erationai Date Last Operated:
A
�ti; .rype of Operation and Design Capacity
Svrtne,�<
,vz.. -Y.. '�.T- e1' ._:' r.-
`Number Poultry" Numberwllr Catfi Number "F
f
❑ Wean to Feeder
s ❑ Laver I❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non La er ❑ Beef
Farrow to Wean
Zd"
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
❑ Other Type of
'Livestock
,.....: >.Y�.4
�, Numb of Lag©ai;s lhHolding Ponds / _ ❑ Subsurface Drains Present
❑ Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? 9 Yes ❑ No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ONO
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ONO
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ANo
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
Is there evidence of past discharge from an art of the operation? Yes ❑ No
P g any p
4. Was there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes No
5. Does any pari of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require' Yes ❑ No
maintenance/improvement?
Continued on back

6. Is facility got is compliance with any applicable setback criteria?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge (if inspection after 1/1/97)?
S. Are there Iagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
StructuresAAzoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is structural freeboard less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): La�g0000n 1 Lagoon 2 Lagoon 3
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/unprovement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Da any of the sinidtures lack adgbate markeis to identify start and stop pumping levels?
Waste Anblication
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type---
16. Do the active crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land'application?
18. Does the cover crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available irrigation equipment?
For Certified Facilities Only
20. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
21. Does the facility fail to comply with the Animal. Waste Management Plan in any way?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
23. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
24. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with owner or operator in charge?
❑ Yes Z No
❑ Yes JZ No - .
❑ Yes JgNo
RI Yes ❑ No
—.Lagoon 4 -
❑ Yes J91 No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes 9 No
❑ Yes JRNo
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ,4 No
❑ Yes ,❑ No .
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes fiTNo
❑ Yes JZ No
❑ Yes R1 No
❑ Yes Z No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes Z No
7 v-•n.� r�ali a /�6' A�� �✓no--�S' £C.' . �£N� � .�v `3 �pQA-� �� ! D_ /1Ta
d
!
Reviewer/Inspector Name
OFF 6 s
ReviwerAnspector Signature: 1
_ -
Date:
2 - Zo - 9 V
cc. Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 11/14/96

Site Requires Immediate Attention:
Facility No. 7l7 4
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
. ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: / , 1995
Time: /l i 490
Farm Name/Owner:"�Gsn
Mailing Address: .Ia %! -sa-0 - t•� (`29Q� !{, [,
County=��J,., `
Integrator: t U Phone:
On Site Representative: �a t-fu Ehe , S Phone:
Physical Address/Location:
Type of Operation: Swine. 1,-" Poultry Cattle��a
Design Capacity: .1 a QV 50LO-S 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) (@ or No Actual Freeboard: Ft. Inches
. Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes or6Was any erosion observed? Yes oI
Is adequate land available for spray? f s or No I�,the cover crop adequate? G or No
Crop(s) being utilized: 0&0 _
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings or No
100 Feet from Wells? 0 or No
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 org7
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state by man, -made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes q�9 If &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 ,p n
Additional Comments: 1209 cS o•ck-) . _ r— s a C, D . -to
0, <--v
�
Cal.[[�-
Inspector Name
Signature
e_
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.

•
OPER1111ONS BRANCH - WQ Fax : [phone] Jul 18 ' 95 12 :21 P. 01/04
a Site Requires Immediate Artention
U
Facility Number:
c - STIE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: _ July 14 _ 1995
Owner: W'aitUs lisp III Farm Name: �Engliah Farms —
County: Pander
Agent Visiting Site: see Notes Phone:
Operator Naltila Ewligh, J U Phone: [phone]
On Site Repasentative_ phone: [phone]
Physical Address:
Mailing Address: same
Type of Operation: Swine _ x Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: 1200 sows Number of Animals on Site: 1200 Sows Farrow -Feeder --
Latitude: a Longitude: o `
Type of laspecuon: Ground X Aerial
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) Oor No Actual Freeboard: 4 Feet 0w Inches
For facilities with more than one lagoon, please address the other lagoons' freeboard under the
comments section,
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes o � ° Was there erosion of the dam?: Yes o No
Is adequate land available for land application? &br No Is the cover crop adequate? Yes r No
Additional Comments: Site 3dslted by Ed Hecx and Rick shiever or DEM4,
f soll and Water Conservation, Kenneth Cook of Fender SWCD.
News media tram channel 12 (New Bern) and channel 3 (Wilmington) were present.
English Faxms received a re22rt of good standing.
• .1L ,D• s
Fax to [phone] Signature of Agent