070061_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA .�
Department of Environmental Quai

INSPECTIONS.
INSPECTIONS
INSPECTIONS
1
�l

O
Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up 0 Referral Q Emergency Q Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: ,�� � `: 74_,Jw� -,Z_d4A,.,jOwner Email:
1
Owner Name: L Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
el
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
,,; 2.7K d
Phone: 5�(�-- azz
Integrator: _ ^
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Finish
rPF-eeder
Wet Pouitry
La er
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Da' Cow
Feeder
Non -La er
EEI
Dairy Calf
o Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
DulPoultry
Layers
Design
Ca aci
Current
Plop.
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Dischar es and Stream Impact
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 DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ER/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [] a ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ['NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

9acility Slumber: Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 2�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I 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 dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes &No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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 DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes dNo ❑ 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 R(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 or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes dNo ❑ 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 Approved Area
12. Crap Type(s): ZV=
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes �o [DNA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
1 S. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ YesYNo
o ❑ NA ❑ 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 ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 56 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I " Rainfall Inspectio�jNo
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

f
cili Number: LQ 7 - Date of Inspection:
—
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �No [DNA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes E]�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. z9-d1`f
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. 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.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tiIc drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes [dNo ❑ NA [] NE
❑ Yes [�No ❑ NA D NE
[:]Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
dNo
Yes
[] NA ❑ NE
Yes
Yes
❑
❑
❑
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other. comments:
Use ]drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
�iJ.� f��t-jC.� :1� � �` G f �� • T 11 oZ���
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date: LTz e
21412014

Type of Visit: ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review a Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up Q Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: LLL Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: _r1�Lt.r,�-' T��t�iy�J Owner Email:
Owner Name: ¢,I , �L J /WWj - Phone: d.3 ?_ �—.s% j
Mailing Address: 3 F`
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �=,rpy itle:
Onsite Representative: �J
J- jzj�14 A,
- -- -
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: Z2!E
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
F
Design Gurrent
Resign
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity
Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop,
Cattle CapacityANN
Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
es].
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
❑ P,oult •
Ea achy
l'o
Non-Dai
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharaes and 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)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the 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 observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
[:]Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes tNo [3 NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 214120] 1 Continued

JY
Facility Number: jDate of Inspection; � S
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA D 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): l _ / j� 2z A&V 41
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a [:]Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmen l threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Ycs 2No
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 dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Amilication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
t t7
main enance or rmprovemen .
I I. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes dNo ❑ 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 Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): _G UZ d S= '5X - /S-C�--
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑Yes
��o
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Re uired Records & Documents
I9. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
TNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑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 ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ElSludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes �yNo
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

FscilO Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ElYes i;No
o
the appropriate box(es) below. 9',;4/3
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ONE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
[] Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
d No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or -any other comments...
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
1Y
2-3D -13 -:-- , 3 J—
,P-0-/ 3 :--
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Phone: 6zV - 9,'e1;Et
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date:
21412011

Dl�isian of Water Resources
Facility Number - ® a Divn o isiof Sod Wa il anter Const atian
Q Other Agency r
Type of Visit: * Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review p Structure Evaluation D Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine Q Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral Q Emergency Q Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: -a Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:; Region:
Farm Name: --e zz azza--- ]� ryL� feel PI'- Owner Email:
Owner Name: �� ,�vcG. Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone:�fj
Onsite Representative: �� _ Integrator:
Certified Operator:.. Certification Number:V74 Ile
f
^�
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
to Finish
Wet Poultry
Layer
Design
Capacity
Eurrent
Pop.
Resign
Cattle Eapacity
Dai Cow
Current
Pop.
to Feeder
Non -La er
Dai Calf
er to Finish
Dai Heifer
w to Wean
E
d
D . P,oul
La ers
Design
Ca aei
Current
Po
Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
w to Feeder
w to Finish
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turke s
TurkeX Poults
Other
Discharees and 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 DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑ Yes ixo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes ❑No [DNA ONE
❑ Yes [::]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ YesfN ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes [—]No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?: A/`
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., 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?
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes �NoE] ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environment threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ YesV
❑ 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 dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes C�J/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 Approved Area
12. Crop Types): 1_,57
13. Soil Type(s):
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yeso
FNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres dctennination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes [ 6 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes rNNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
dNNVNo
❑ NA
❑ 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 ❑ Design [] Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
]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
❑ Weat er Code
cr6ev
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections El Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
Sludge
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
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility ]Number: - Date of inspection:,_
A Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? Ye No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with ermit onditions related to sludge? If yes, check Yes ❑ No
the appropriate box(es) below. r
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
0 NA [] NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes LoNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes LL'J No [] NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. 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.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
31 Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
EV:('�4o ❑ NA ❑ NE
rN❑ NA ❑ NE
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional ages as necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Phone: I �4r ,3
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: _'L—d 7
Page 3 of 3 1% 21412015

4
Division of Water Quality
n Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 070061 Facility Status: Active _ Permit: AWS070OQ1 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine ._ County: Beaufort Region: Washington _
Date of Visit: 03/06/2014 Entry Time: 11:20 AM^ Exit Time: 12:25 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: L.H. Allen & Son. Inc. Sow Farm - Owner Email: angedlemsn,com
Owner: Leam4n HS411en III Phone: [phone]
Physical Address: 2047 Beech Rdg Rd Belhaygn NC 27810
Facility Status: 0 Compliant n Not Compliant Integrator: Maxwell Foods Inc
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 355' $t 2" _ Longitude: 76'37'04"
Pantego North on Hwy. 99 5 miles to Indian Run Rd. Take left & go 112 mile to farm on left.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat © Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: James E. Wagaman
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 18854
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name James Wagaman Phone:
On -site representative James Wagaman Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste Analysis:
1-18-13 = .84 soil tested: 112013
5-11-13 = .84
7-30-13 = .38
12-17-13 = 1.13
IRR records are complete & balanced out. Reviewed freebaord, rainfall, stockinglcrop yield.
SS. #4 LTZ = 3.2 #5 = 1.9
Page: 1

Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III Facility Number: 070061
Inspection Date: 03/06/2014 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 1,350 1,226
Total Design Capacity: 1,350
Total SSLW: 584,550
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
agoon
1
19.00
12.00
agoon
2
19.00
12.00
agoon
3
19.00
12-00
agoon
4
19.00
12.00
agoon
5
19.00
24.00
agoon
6
19.00
42.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility, Leamon H Allen Ill Facility Number : 07DO61
Inspection Date: 03/06/2014 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit, Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge Observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■
❑
❑
b. Did 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 observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
❑
■
❑
❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (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 maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III Facility Number: 070061
Inspection Date: 03106/2014 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
PAN?
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
Total Phosphorus?
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Evidence of wind drift?
Application outside of application area?
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Solt Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Yes No NA NE
n
n
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
❑■nr0
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑■nil
Cl ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Q ■ ❑ Cl
n
Page: 4

Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen Ill Facility Number: 070061
Inspection Date: 0310612014 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Checklists?
Design?
Maps?
Lease Agreements?
Other?
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Yes No NA NE
n
11
n
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
n
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
n
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
Q
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑ Q
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
n
■ ❑ ❑
box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
Q
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ Q ❑
Page: 5

Permit: AW5070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III Facility Number : 070061
Inspection Date: 03/06/2014 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. 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,
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge, (3 ■ ❑ ❑
freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
Other
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 6

I
0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Sail and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number., P70065 Facility Status: Active •„ - Permit: AWS070065 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: li nce In tin Inactive or Closed Hate:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Beaufort Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 03(0612013 Entry Time: 09:45 AM Exit Time: 10:55 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: LH. Allen & Son. Inc. - Finishing _ Owner Email: angedl&msn.ccm
Owner: Leamon H Allen ul .. ..,---• Phone: [phone]
Ak- - 6 :r47M7: • • - : O . r
Physical Address: 2007 Beech R Belhaven NC 27810
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murihy-Brown LLC • „
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°39'60" Longitude: 26'39'06"
2.5 miles north of Pantego on NC 99. Take a left after the second bridge onto private farm road and go 4 miles.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other issues
Certified Operator: Roger V Klaassen
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 19747
On -Site Representative[s]: Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Roger Klaassen Phone:
On -site representative Roger Klaassen Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analysis: soil tested.1012012
1-18-13 = 1.93
9-24-12 = 1.08
5-14-12 = 2.02
1-12-12 = 1.80 Sludge = 11.4 6.2 5.1 8.2 on com
IRR records are complete & balanced out. Crop yields are recorded. New WUP dated Nov. 2012!
Siufge done Oct. 2012#2 = 545' #1 = 4B.5" #4 = 15' #5 = 24"
SS & Calibration due in 2013
Page: 1

Permit: AWS070065 owner -Facility. Leamon H Allen III
Facility Number : 070065
Inspection Date: 03/06/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current Population
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 12,000 7,000
Total Design Capacity: 12,000
Total SSLW: 1,620.000
Waste Structures
Desi ned Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Stark Date Freeboard Freeboard
agoon
FINAL
20.00
agoon
PRIMARY
30.00
agoon
SECONDARY 1
12.00
agoon
SECONDARY 2
12.00
Page: 2

r
X
Permit: AW5070065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 03/06/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ Cl
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did 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)
❑
■
Cl
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
❑
■
❑
❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.eI large trees, severe ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (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 maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance altematives that need maintenance or
❑
■
Cl
Cl
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? Cl
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AW5070065 Owner • Facility: Leaman H Allen III
Inspection date: 03/0612013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number:
Reason for Visit:
070065
Routine
Waste Application
Yes No
NA
NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN a 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manuretsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Corn, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Cotton
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop andlor land application site need improvement?
UNO
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ ■
❑
Cl
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA
NE
18. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ■
❑
❑
20, Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■
❑
❑
tf yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

4
Permit: AW5070065 Owner • Facility: Leamon H Allen III
Inspection pate: 0310612013 Inspection type: Compliance Inspection
Records and Documents
Facility Number: 070065
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Lease Agreements? ❑
Other? ❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? if yes, check the appropriate
❑
■ ❑ ❑
box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS070065 Owner • Facility: Learron H Allen III Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 03/06/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ ■ Q ❑
Otherlssues Yes No NA NE
28. Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Air [duality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge, ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tite drains exist at the facility? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
Other
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewe rllnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
Q
Q
Page: 6

Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review D Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: r Routine O Complaint D Follow-up Q Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other Q Denied Access
Bate of Visit: j - 3 Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone: — �3 —�/,
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: '="L {
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Region:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pap.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Layer
I INon-Layer_
Dai Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean Id 251]esign
Farrow to Feeder
Dr. Poutt .
Ca aci
Current
Po
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Boars
Non -Layers
Pullets
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Turke s
Other
urke Poults
Other E
L 10ther
Discharzes and 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)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the 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 observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
[—]Yes [Z/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[] Yes ❑ o
❑ Yes ❑YesVN0o
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility umber_ _ g22 _ - [Date of inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes dNo ❑ 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?:
d—'FICUr
Observed Freeboard (in):_
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environment threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes FdNo ❑ 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 E(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Ayplicstion
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ZNo ❑ 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 Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s) C / � b6l 2�L , — ��
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ From those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
® a
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
[3 NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
:No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
ElYesJN
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes d No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis 0 Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/20I1 Continued

Facility umber: D - Date of Inspection: - —
24. Did the facilityfail to calibrate waste application equipment as re required b the ermit. /� �0k�-' Yesi.No NA NE
PPq Y P ry I ❑❑ ❑25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. GTZ r 3 d- 174"(0
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [] Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
[] Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the Facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. 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.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow. -up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
[�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
U(No
[DNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[j8No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
dNo
(DNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
07171190 /3
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: FY�����
Date: L ±e �-z-4 13
21412011

i ype or visit: i L ompnance inspection L.J uperariun xevrew LJ structure nvaivanon V i ecnnrcat Assrstance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other Q Denied Access
. 0
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: .' Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: , Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:�rJ_-
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Sack -up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Region: 04 1fj
Phone: 9#f. - -/g11
Integrator: AZZ77--
Certification Number: z 2r/2; /lz-
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Pop.
We# Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
HNon-La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
Q
Design
Current
❑ Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D . 1'oult •
Ca ci
Po
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turke s
Other
Turke Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and 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)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the 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 observable 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 VNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: Q2 - 471 jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes Q3 No
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural Freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 15
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
[�'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
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 structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
CdNo
❑ 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
U?(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land 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 Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): G =
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 dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes [VrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes U(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes 02(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the 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 appropriate box.
❑WUP [I]Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below, ❑ Yes dNo
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall []Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge'' [:]Yes [�No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes igNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA []NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: 7 jDate of Inspection: - —
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? r / ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes �rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. '
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
25. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. 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.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? if yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ I.agoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes [►�] Na ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes U�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes d No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes
Y�T
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
o ❑NA ❑ NE
o❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question#): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any: other:comments:`k .=y
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).`,_ «r =a
go ll _
Lif c.7Z-19
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewed]nspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 6 "✓O` -
Date: r p �-
2/412011

t"' Jili ----- / �i I �-' ! '7 � 4 � �� ! I•,I';I- �'3��,1'' r rj�
i• � ' � '� � I ��� , � , � I ,_�r� � � �, f � ,'�.,�'� >� �i�� �•�... j �I ' .� i ! � �'° �.! 1�3E .� r jir.. — � x�
�'��.1.,j ?i'`�''yl�:il.;f A� i" �'JIE� �'� ! 'Y.., � �f,�r I�,�:� � ��'�R'� ■l T• ;�,�.'ti. >�
�r [ , `v�►, -�. • � *�� �'�'�� � � , � � .+,�! :�� ►�` � f, � T II 4 � �� � I � I , t 'L , ,•'r � '� l 1�`� -�
�--��- ;•i � ,' -^-�i II [ i ..yam
�- � III �� �'�� � � �f � ,�� �'`e, �� � � i� � •� ��`
WA 414
+ rl IL pIU
�� h i � IljjII s.� �•; • JiA � � - I�- i r
1 1 i�E 1
)JI �� / �•
r ii. l' Jl s i r U �I I
E •- -- , SIR#I ---�, �,� # I '� , r' �% ,�` � �-. I '�
u

-EiE 3 .2
HOLDIN PONDS
SOLIDS
TRAP
I�
Sow F--arr,,
( off— Cn,I)
SOLIDS TRAP SOLIDS TRAP
pFFICE
1:6 F2 F3 F4
NURSER
SOLIDS TRAP
L
-Yr iay, • L
�s ,lQF7MM�E

Of
Type of Visit *Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit � Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑Denied Access
Date of Visit 'p� �Ayrrrii►•al "Time: ` d 0 Departure Time. �� County: Legion: rL
Farm Name: e�pp G�.Gt 9� �dS.�T. Owner Email:
Owner Dame: .L - - Phone:
Mailing Address:
�T
Physical Address: /J
Facility Contact: Zvd��Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: -
Back-up Operator:
Phone No: SILL-1,;L11
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: E__1 o E=I' =" Longitude: E= o =1' = "
I]esign Current
esign Current
wtc.
Current
"Gap�city
ine
Cap^ity PopuatonWet
Popamity Population
Cattle opulation
❑
Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -La er
❑ Dai Calf
HW
Feeder to Finish
❑ DairyHeifer
Farr
Dry Poultry
❑ D Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑
❑ Beef Stocker
Non -Lavers
❑ Non -Lavers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
❑ TurkeyPoults
❑Other
Number of Structures:
ow to Wean
❑
Farrow to Feeder
❑
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
PE113oars
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed From any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: El Structure ❑ Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
h. 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. Dees discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
?. 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 L✓JNo ❑NA ❑NE
❑Yes
El No
❑NA
El NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
[I No
[I NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
E�j o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
LI No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12I18/04 Continued

t I Facility Number: f — Date of Inspection - (-
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, cheek the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stacking ❑ 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?
[I Yes
Ll No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑�No
El NA
Z NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
Q(f ❑ Yes
R I -No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?4�_4
❑ Yes
ZNNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
LJ<NN
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility Fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
El 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
dNo
❑ 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
dNo
❑ 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
EO 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
dN o
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
LY No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
/V/v" J, 4 r ./
Page 3 oj3 12/28/44

Facility Number: Q - Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
r�
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
2"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(iel large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
��
5 ] 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
U✓ 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
LJ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers. setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
mainten anc eli mpro v ement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 53"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) = 1'4_� 9&:
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
do
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
R(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
�Io
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments refer to nestioit #}:. Ex Iain anv.YES answers:andlor an . recommendations ur.an
( q p .... y. y
Use drawings a# facility to better, explain situatians:..(use:additional pages as:necessary):
A4 �� 11
Reviewerllns ector Name = `" „„=" "
:s ',;z:... Phone: p _
H ice`." �. . , :':�.
Reviewerllnspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3
12128104 Continued

0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: QZQ061 _ Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS070061 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Gornoliance Ins2ection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Rout9ne County: Beaufort Region: Washinaton
Date of Visit: 0313112Q11 Entry Time:03:00 PM Exit Time: Incident M.
Farm Name: L.H. Allen I Son, Inc. Sow Farm _ Owner Email:
Owner 'Leamon H Allen Ill „ _ _ Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 2007 Beect Ejand _ _ Belhaven NQ 278_1_13
Physical Address: 2007 BeCc Rdg Rd „ Belhaven NC ZU10 ^�
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant integrator. Maxwell Foods Inc
Location of Farm: Latitude: 55*3812" Longitude: 76'37'04",
Pantego North on Hwy. 99 5 miges to Indian Run Rd. Take left & go 112 mile to farm on left.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream impacts
Records and Documents
Certified Operator: James E. Wagaman
Secondary OIC(s):
Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Other Issues
Operator Certification Number: 18864
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name James Wagaman Phone:
On -site representative James Wagaman Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste anatysis: soil tested Fall 2010
2-48-11 = .23
3-24-10 = .32
7-10-10 = .16
No irrigation yet in 2011 IRRs complete and balanced out for fall spraying
Calibration due in 2011 SS done July 2010 due in 2011
Page: 1

Permit: AWS070061 Owner -Facility: Leamon H Allen III
Inspection Date: 03/31/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 070061
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
O Swine - Farrow to Wean 1,350 1,015
Total Design Capacity: 1,350
Total SSLW: 584,550
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
1
19.00
19.00
agoon
2
19.00
19.00
agoon
3
19.00
agoon
4
19.00
agoon
5
19.00
19.00
agoon
6
19.00
49.00
Page: 2

I
Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III Facility Number: 070061
Inspection Date: 03/31/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■
❑
❑
b, aid discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
Q
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
I Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
Cl
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (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 maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance altematives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III
Inspection Data: 03/31/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 070061
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN a 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type i
Corn,
Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Sail Type 6
14. Do the reoeiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fait to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑
■
❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA NE
19, aid the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑ ❑
20. does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AW5070061 Owner -Facility. Leamon H Allen III
Facility Number: 074081
Inspection Date: 03/31/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
Cl
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES
only)? ❑
■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment {PLAT} certification?
❑
■
❑
Cl
.-.ate--'--•--_
V..
IJ„
we
uc
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those 00011
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III
Inspection Date: 03/31/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
31. Did the faciffty fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss rev iew/i nspe cti 0 n with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
34. Are subsurface drains present on this farm?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Spray Field
Lagoon / Storage Pond
Other
Facility Number: 070061
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
Page: 6

Type of Visit +0 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine Q Complaint Q Fallow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region: &LAO
Farm Name: 5,04 aJ _ �� _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: _San _ Lilt• Phone: _/�'S-9— 57— �
Mailing Address: 2 2 e
Physical Address:
Facility, Contact: itie: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: .
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Sack -up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: o [� f [� « Longitude: [� ° 0 i = fl
Design Eurrent
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
10 Layer
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer I
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean a
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
ElN Layers
El Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ ers
ElBeef Feeder
El
❑ Boars
Nets
❑ pullets
El Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other
Afumher of Structures:
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)
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 lit No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ o
El Yes
LY3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes dN- o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

I
Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection`/UI~
Waste Collection & Treatment ,�,/
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate`? El Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 2
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes Ld 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 LYE 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 [j� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
S. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes V 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 ElYes 2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes k" No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? /
1 l • Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. El Yes 2 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
�f
Na
❑ 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
U/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
2(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #) Explain any YES answers•and/or:any. recommendations or. any other,
Use drawings of factliry. to better explain.situat�vns. (use addlttonat pages as necessar►)i
AL
d -27
Reviewer/Inspector ector Dame r"
�y ILL -
Phone:
3
P
ReviewerfInspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Pennit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
❑ Yes COIN ElNA ElNE
ElYes Nc, ❑ NA ❑ NE
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?
❑ Ycs
Lip No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
ENE
24.
❑id the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? �� ��
El Yes
VN o
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? � 007
❑ Yes
LI No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
UNo
❑ 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
d No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
6/� o
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
ElYes
7No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

11
Division of Water Quality
El Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 1370061 Facility Status: Active Permit AWSID71DO61 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliano Insoection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Bmufort Region: Washington
Date of Visit: Q313012009 Entry Time:10 30 AM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: L.H. Allen & Son. Inq, 5gw Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Leamon H Allen III
Phone: 252, e35-5151
Mailing Address: , 85 4nd4an Run Rd _ Pantego NC 27860 _
Physical Address:
Facility Status: N Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: L H Allen & Son Inc
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35'XIT' Longitude: 76°37'04"
Pantego North on Hwy. 99 5 miles to Indian Run Rd. Take left & go 112 mile to farm on left.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream impacts
Records and Documents
Certified Operator: James E. Wagaman
Secondary OIC(s):
Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Otherlssues
Operator Certification Number: 18864
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name James Wagaman Phone:
On -site representative James Wagaman Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis.
2-13-09 = 9.7 sludge
7-22-08 = .35 .07
2-27-09 = .10
Page: 1

Permit: AWS070D61 Owner • Facility: Leamon H Allen tll
Inspection Date: 03/30/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 070061
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
O Swine - Farrow to Wean 1,350 861
Total Design Capacity: 1,350
Total SSLW: 584,550
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
1
19.00
13.00
agoon
2
19.00
13.00
agoon
3
19.00
13.00
agoon
4
19.00
13.00
agoon
5
19.00
20.00
agoon
6
19.00
37.00
Page: 2

A
Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III Facility Number: 070061
Inspection Date: 03/30/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
Cl
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
0110
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
Cl
■
❑
❑
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 Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0110
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
Cl
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
Cl
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
14. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance altematives that need maintenance or
Cl
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
Cl
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu. Zn, etc)?
❑
Page. 3

I
Permit: AWS070D61 owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III Facility Number : 070061
Inspection Hate: 03130/2409 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN? ❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.? ❑
Total P205? ❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil? ❑
Outside of acceptable crop window? ❑
Evidence of wind drift? ❑
Application outside of application area? ❑
Crop Type 1 Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWM P)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
Cl
■
❑
Cl
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WlJ P?
❑
Page: 4

permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III
Facility Number. 070061
Inspection Date: 0313012009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record Keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
Q
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after n 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES
only)? ❑
■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
ti
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
Cl
■
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
IF,
■
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■
❑
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andlor document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

J
Permit: AWS070061 Owner- Facility: Leamon H Allen ill
Inspection pate: 0313012009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Other Issues
31, Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Rev iewerllnspector fail to discuss rev iewlinspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 070061
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

0,
W Division of Wafer Quality..
Facility Number: Q Division ofSoil and Water: Conservation '
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit / Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation ❑ Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ■ Routine Q Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral Q Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: _= l� Q l Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: Y_�. 7-5.-� Owner Email:
Owner Name:-� ---- Phone:
Mailing Address: � -e-e - , :t-,&.Z
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No: T!�-7 6";��p
Onsite Representative: Integrator: G 7y/__ _
Certified Operator: _ _ Operator Certification Number: _
Sack -up Operator:
Sack -up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = 6 = s6 Longitude: [= o 0 g = «
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
_ ❑ Layer
1E] Non -Laver
Dry Poultry
❑ Lavers
❑ Non -La crs
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impact
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
Cl
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: EJ
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 53 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes
❑No
El NA
El NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
� ❑
El NA
El NE
El Yes
7NO
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 0 9
Date of Inspection
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; F S
Spillway'?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in);
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes 2(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes P<O ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Q'*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? El Yes L1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ERNo ❑ 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 9/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Apnlication
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 E3 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 ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) a�cYln.�• �1j d IS'S __-1Jr"�! QS�
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
o El NA
El NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement`?
El Yes
Zo❑ NA
❑ N-E
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[:]
Yes
ZNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
El Yes
RY — [INA
ElNE
1 S. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
IYJ 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. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewerfinspector Name Aladen e 1, e71V f �•- _ Phone:
Reviewer/inspector Signature: bate: �— --Q

Facility Number: Q rf — Date of Inspection
Required
Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
El Yes
,-,�
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
2'�qo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Yes
El Yes
�
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ t20 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I"
Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Cade
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
ElYes
E No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑��No
❑ NA
B(NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
02'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
Yes
El No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
Lid No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
dNA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
o
6 61rN
El NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
El Yes
�❑
❑ 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?
El Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
by
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
ElNE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
YIX
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with an on -site representative?
ElYes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency'?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
aeon- .
12128/04

ti
I
M Division of Water Quality
n Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 070061 Facility Status: Active Permit: AW1 Q70Q61 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Beaufort Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 01/16/2008 Entry Time:07750 AM Exit Time:
Farm Name: L.H Alen & Son. Inc. Sow Farm
Owner: Leamon H AllenIll
Incident M.
Owner Email:
Mailing Address: 385 Indian Run Rd Pantego NC 27860
Physical Address:
Phone: [phone]
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: L H Allen & Son Inc
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35'3812" Longitude: 76'37'04"
Pantego North on Hwy. 99 5 miles to Indian Run Rd. Take left & go 112 mile to farm on left.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Certified Operator: Anthony T North
Secondary OIC(s):
Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Other issues
Operator Certification Number: 18848
On -Site Representative(s): Name. Title Phone
24 hour contact name Todd North Phone:
On -site representative Todd North Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspectorjsj:
Inspection Summary:
Waste analysis: 1 2 Soil test 2-21-07 and samples pulled fall 2007 not back yet
9-15-07 .29 .08 IRR records complete and balanced out
2-27-07 .75 .15
6-8-07 .09 .05
Facility hasn't had any animals since October 2007, will be bringing gilts in under GHF contract this Friday.
#25 No sludge survey on site- 2006 survey sent to Raleigh and no copy kept at farm. 2007 survey was done and lost when moving
the office. Raleigh sent a copy of 2006 to WaRO and I forwarded a copy to Todd North on 1-17-08.
Stage 4 has big wash out area should be putting stone and soil to repair immediately. Stone is on site
Page: 1

Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III
Inspection Date: 01/16/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 070061
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 1,350 0
Total Design Capacity: 1,350
Total SSLW: 584.550
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
1
19.00
agoon
2
19.00
agoon
3
19.00
agoon
4
19.00
agoon
5
4 19.00
24,00
agoon
6
19.00
56.00
Page: 2

0
Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III Facility Number : 07DO61
Inspection Date: 01/16/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? n ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? n ■ n n
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) n ■ D ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
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?
n
■
❑
n
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
n
n
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
n
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
n
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e.l large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
fi. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
■
❑
❑
n
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks andlor wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
n
■
n
n
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
n
■
00
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
if yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? n
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? n
Page: 3

Permit: AWS070061 Owner • Facility: Leaman H Allen III Facility Number : 070061
Inspection Date: 01/16/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN? in
Is PAN > 10%/10 Ibs.? n
Total P2O5? ❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
n
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Corn,
Wheat,
Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
n
■
n
n
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop andlor land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
❑
n
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
n
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
n
■
❑
n
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
n
Page 4

Permit: AW5070061 Owner • Facility: Leamon H Allen III Facility Number : 070061
Inspection Date: 011/6/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
Tl
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
■
❑
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
n
n
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
... ..
❑
V..
■
K1_
❑
AIA
❑
Rip
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those 0 ■ ❑ I]
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑l ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leaman H Allen III
Inspection Date: 01/16/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Otherlssues
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
33. floes facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number : 070061
Reason for Visit.- Routine
Yes No NA NE
❑■❑n
■
❑■nn
Page. 6

if
Type of Visit ! Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review ❑ Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up O Referral 0 Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: a ~d Arrival Time: /0. d Q 1 Departure Time: County: Region: ",eo
Farm Dame: � [.L_ j 'Z Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone: AT9 - &� S7
Mailing Address: Z:d.� 42Z dd
Physical Address:f
Facility Contact: �fIJiL� Title:
Phone No: }. —_a27%
Onsite Representative: �/ ®� y� Integrator:
Certified Operator: �� /■AL Operator Certification Number: Lg �
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = f 0" Longitude: 0 ° = g 0 4g
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Resign Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
DesignrpCurrent
Cattle Capacitopulation
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
❑Dai Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Dry Pauitry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
FoGilts
Soars
❑ Beef Brood Cowl I
her
El Turkey
Puults
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'? El Yes � No ❑ NA El NE
Discharge originated at: El Structure [I Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made? El Yes ❑ No ❑ NA El NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State`? (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No ❑ NA El 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 El NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State ❑ Yes �rN ❑ NA ❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

w
acility Number:
Date of Inspection rD 7
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?
ructure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes VINo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental th eat, 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? ElYes 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 dNo ❑ 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 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop !Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) C.�Lg6I��
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Jo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Jo ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
4o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question 4): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations orany other comments::.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations: {use additional pages aspecessary};
4�3
Reviewer/inspector Name I �. ro— Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: ( L"D -J 7
Pine 2 of3
12128104 Continued

{J
Facility Number: 07 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ WLTP ❑Checklists ❑Design El Maps ❑ Other
N21. Does record keeping need improvement'? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application 0 Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
❑ Yes
li' No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
6No
❑ NA
❑ NE
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes VN
L� NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes VNo
[I NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? El Yes ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No � ZA ❑ NE
Other lssues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Comments and/or Drawings:
❑ Yes
❑ NA
El NE
El Yes
VN❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
tvj No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
EJ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Cl Yes
� ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ NA
7No
El NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

U
N Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 07QODI Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS070061 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliange Inspgntion Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 05/0212007_ _ Entry Time:10:00 AM Exit Time:
Incident #:
Farm Name: L.H. Allenn in w Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Leaman H Allen M
Mailing Address: 385 Indian Run Rd Panteao NC 27860
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°38'12"
Pantego North on Hwy. 99 5 miles to Indian Run Rd. Take left & go 112 mile to farm on left.
Phone: [phone]
Longitude: 7 7' '
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Retards and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Anthony T North
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 18848
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Todd North Phone:
24 hour contact name Todd North Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analyses:
2-27-07 = .78 .15
10-31-06 = .45 .14
6-23-06 = .43 .10
Page: 1

Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leaman H Allen III
Facility Number: 070061
Inspection Date: 05/02/2007 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current Population
Swine
G Swine - Farrow to Wean 1,350 1,298
Total Design Capacity: 1,350
Total SSLW: 584,550
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
1
19.00
agoon
2
19.00
agoon
3
19.00
agoon
4
19.00
agoon
5
19.00
agaan
6
19.00
36.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leaman H Allen III Facility Number: 070061
Inspection Date: 05/O2f2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? 0000
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
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 Waters of the State other than from a ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits.
❑
01111
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

Permit: AW5070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III
Facility Number : 070061
Inspection Date: 0510212007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type e 1
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Sail Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop andlor land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage far land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

permit: AW5070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H AAen Ili Facility Number. 070061
Inspection Date: 05/0212007 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ■ Cl ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after n 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑
❑
Yarc
Net
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AW5070D61 Owner - Facility: Leaman H Allen III
Inspection pate: 05/0212007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Other issues
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewrinspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 070061
Reason for Visit: Routine
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

Type of Visit / Compliance Inspection C) Operation Review D Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 49 Routine ❑ Complaint ❑ Follow up ❑ Referral ❑ Emergency ❑ Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ®A�Arrival Time: ®
Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: d.._pp Gf J 4w--Z.
jer-L't Owner Email:
Owner Name: r1-
Phone: 9`7
Mailing Address:/i�7~
�� e9 ZZ-642�
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: %� �
Title: Phone No: �� —_ Af
Onsite Representative:
integrator:
Certified Operator: 42�u
Operator Certification Number: lZE;�iL
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = ❑ = , =,, Longitude: ❑ o ❑ 4
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ DairyCow
❑
Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La er
❑ DairyCalf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ D Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑Non -La
El Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
Pullets
El Pullets
❑ Beef Brood CoN.
❑ Turkeys
Uther
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑ Other
Dumber of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NH
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
ElNE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
El,,��,,__,, Yes
L�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12128104
Continued

r
I Facility Number: `] — Date of Inspection J
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes R(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I 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 E,'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 PNo ❑ 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 L✓J 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 ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes E3/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 > l0% 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) � � fir`/s �a��`/d �` r��i eb _S /v0 �Dr�7 1,76
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
NNo El NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
Elt+ Yes
,
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
N El NA
El NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. "'.':.,'_x : z•
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary)
ass �-, i �-
Of
ReviewerJlnspector Name f -- — -- - -- Phone:
Reviewerflnspector Signature: Date: [o —( — Q6,
➢....o I _'r 7 1912R/BQ d'n"fi"Siod

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the Facility fail to have Certi& Permit readily available? ❑ Yes R<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ Wi]1' ❑Checklists El Design El Maps ❑ Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If es, check the appropriate box below.
P Y
❑ Yes
ilk No
❑ 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 Inspectioni�No
Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge`?
❑ Yes
❑�NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
6 N
ElNE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NE
25.
Did the facilityfail to conduct a sludge survey as required b the permit?
g Y 9 Y P❑
❑ Yes
❑
�NA
NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge'?
❑ Yes
rmo
❑ NE
27,
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
El Yes
El No
7NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes YNo
o ❑NA ❑NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑yes ❑ NA El 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
M 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
ElYes
U/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
1No
ElNA
ElNE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
AL
d4C�
Page 3 of 3 12128104

E Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number. 070061 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS070061 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance In Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Beaufort Region: Washinutgn
Date of Visit: 06/1912006 Entry Time:11:00 AM Exit Time:
Farm Name: L.H. Allen & Son. Inc. Sow Farm
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 385 Indian- Run Rd _ _ EgnteQo NC 27860
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: x95°3V2" Longitude: 76°37'04"
Pantego North on Hwy. 99 5 miles to Indian Run Rd. Take left & go 112 mile to farm on left.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number. -
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representativetsj: Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Todd North Phone -
On -site representative Todd North Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analyses:
2-24-06 = .05 sludge17.0
12-1-05 = .15
Irrigation records are complete and balanced out.
Soil test 11-9-05
Remember to get sludge survey and caliberation by the end of Sept. 2006
Page: 1

Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Aden Facility Number: 070061
Inspection Date: 06119/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
W Swine - Farrow to Wean 1,350 1,366
Total Design Capacity: 1,350
Total SSLW: 584,550
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
1
19.00
agoon
2
19M
agoon
3
19,00
agoon
4
19.00
agoon
5
19M
�7agoon
6
19,00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Alien Facility Number : 070061
Inspection Date: OW1912006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
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 Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection Stora a & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
* Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
* Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (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 maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

r
Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen
Inspection Date: 06119/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number. 070061
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No
NA
NE
PAN?
Cl
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
El
Application outside of application area?
Cl
Crop Type 1
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Cotton
Crop Type 3
other
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Sail Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■
Cl
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ ■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AW5070061 owner - Facility: Lea mon H Alien Facility Number :
070061
Inspection Date: 06/1912006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after n 1 inch rainfail & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑
■
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
■
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑
■
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
■
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■
Cl
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑
■
❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑
■
❑
❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AW5070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen
Inspection Date: 0611912006 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Other Issues
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number : 070061
Reason for Visit: Routine
Page: 6

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation a Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit • Routine 0 Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Q: Departure Time: County: _ Region: 4-4-184
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:+
Facility Contact: � A Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: If
Certified Operator: _ter Operator Certification Number:
Sack -up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 0 e = 1 = Longitude: = ° = 1 = ff
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
.Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
i❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑
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)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Ifcifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co►v
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons):'
Number of Structures:
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 U/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes ❑No
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ 'o
❑ NA
El NE
❑ Yes
❑ NA
ElNE
❑ Yes ;7No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of inspection _ aZ _4
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
❑ Yes P<o�❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 1_Q j 1�4 . (�•'
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes EKo' ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes &<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-5 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 E 1 0 < El NA ❑ NE
S. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? El�► `No Yes ❑ 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 2 o ❑ 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, i?n, 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)
- I6- !,96 "
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[I NA
El NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
El Yes
,krNo
I1�d, N/c El NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination',[]
Yes
� o ❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
l4 El NA
ElNE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
ElB Yes
o []NA
❑ NE
;.���,�;;
Comments (refer<.to'.question #) Eiplaiii any';YES."answers!and/oraanyirecam'meadahons or any other comments.
Use drawings uf�Isciilifyxl tietter ezplaiti situations: {use7�adtiitional:pages` a`s+necessary):
Reviewerllns ectar Name �h-�
r�
[� II �% Phone:
'•�? 4=IJ�►�'��F'R::�•..,i.:..;�,��=',�s6�A � 9 .�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of CoyeTa g c & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes Ekf,14o ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes Udivo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design
g El Maps ❑ ether
21. Does record keeping need improvement'! if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes G3 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
N NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
,❑
22N
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit`!
❑ Yes
5: No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge'?
❑ Yes
L1dN
❑ NA
El NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
El
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
N
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
IVo
❑ 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
!YJ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air {duality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El Yes
�❑
#d No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments.and/or Drawings:
W264
OV, ff

r
a
_ ,- �+isioniofxWater, ual
Q. .
::s..
3.:
Drvi§ion of Soil and?Water.•:.Canser atton .' =:4.
_
e
.
a
11
Other -,�.. �-:: :~ _
.....::.... ..... ❑ Aenc....:
:._
z gz
i:.
of Visit ® Compliance Inspection 4 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Tech. Assistance ❑ Confirmation for Ren
Reason far visit *Routine D Complaint Q Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
slate of Visit: 9/29/21104 Time: 11:311
7 61
❑ Not ❑ erational ❑ Below Threshold
® Permitted N Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ---.--
Farm Name: ....................................................... County: Oval jo.rt........................................... WA,R�?.......
Owner Name: L c;xmQm-- ............... ARC11.-.......................................................... Phone No: -� S-S1S.1...............................................
Mailing Address: .�tl izlx. RA1.k sL.....---•................................................................... hatmo... N.C.......................................................... 2:I.840....
..........
FacilityContact:..........................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: , 8M.C,,$.W..ggli>u A1j..&...lTalid.Nuirtkt.................................... Integrator: laJL.A1lfix1.-5Q]u,..I7tl9__.............. -........... ........
Certified Operator:.Tadd....................................... N.Qrib,................................................ Operator Certification Number:.1&8.4#.............................
Location of Farm:
Pantego North on Hwy. 99 5 miles to Indian Run Rd. Take left & go 112 mile to farm on left. +
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Home Latitude 35 38 ' 12.U7 u Longitude 76 37 4.58 '
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
10 Non -Dairy
N Farrow to Wean
1350
1350
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
1,350
❑ Gifts
Total SSLW
584,550
❑ Soars
A
Number of Lagoons 2
DischarEes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d, Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes N No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
....--....tecycle.......... solids.middle..........solida.soiuth...........mlids..narih...... ........Sccndary Identifier: .... .......... ...Final .............
Freeboard (inclies): 12 12 12 19 34 59
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 7-•61 Date of Inspection 91I91ZD04
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes OR No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ yes ® No
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? ❑ 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 ❑ Yes ® No
elevation markings?
Waste Aunlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No
[]Excessive Ponding []PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc > 30(
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat Cotton
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
Odor Issues
17. 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?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
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 ❑ Yes ® No
Air Quality representative immediately.
NT"w'_-'• -1e.":"FA) •."+a.'...:'--t: �`'.�'..°hs`= ..m'.�S-.': ,:Y"'- •.:ui;?asr:.� _>: aaa�:Mom "'s!?"'R": !�Y',f...•�eg+5 raav�-•. �'�.,. ' �4mcf.•: �Ct�•a�l'. " •:
Comm*ents (re%r tquestion,#piny YEnsoay rece atosor,any acomments:;;
Use drawings afifacility toybetter explain: situattons.:(use additiotiral_pages as•;necessary).�; ❑Field Copy ❑ Final Notes .
*Waste sample dated 9/28/04 that was sent off on 8/18/04 with HFI(sec.)=0.48 & HF2(final)=0.11. Report W01613. Problem with �
Raliegh lab entering Farm name.
Waste 5/11/04 w/ HF5=0.44, HF6=0.04
2/17/04 w/ HF5=1.1, HF6=0.12
12/5/03 w/ HF5=0.67, 111`6=0.08
Soils dated 10/28/03 for Tract 4040 field 1-6, with up to 1T/ac lime required.
* A new WUP was written by Jack Long for farm dated 9/2/04.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
12112103 Continued

Facility -Number: 7-61 pate of Inspection 412912U04
Re
uired Records & Documents 1
21.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24.
1s facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
27,
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
IN No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
®No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33.
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
35.
Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 124 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
[,]
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
[Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
12112103

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 070061 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS070061 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: CoMplliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Beaufort Region: Washington
Date of Visit: G412$12005 . Entry Time:10:30 AM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: L.H. Alien & Son. Inc- Sow -Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Leamon H Alien Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 385 Indian Run Rd Prntpoo NC 27860
Physical Address:
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: IN Aden& SQn Inc
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°38'12" Longitude: 76°37'04"
Pantego North on Hwy. 99 5 miles to Indian Run Rd. Take left & go 112 mile to farm on left.
Question Areas:
0 Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
0 Records and Documents 0 Other Issues
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Todd North Phone:
24 hour contact name Todd North Phone:
Primary Inspector: Madene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
inspection Summary:
Waste Analysis:
HF1 HF2 HW
3-15-05 = .78 0.01 6.9
9-28-04 = .48 0.11
5-11-04 = 0.44 0.04
2-17-04 = 1.1 0.12
Soil Test - Nov 04 - lime has been applied. Weekly freeboard and rain events are recorded. The irrigaflon records are complete and
balanced out.
Everything looks goad - keep up the good work!
Page: 1

Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Xlen
Inspection Date: 04/28/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 070061
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 1,350 1,344
Total Design Capacity: 1,350
Total SSLW: 584,550
Waste Structures
Tine Identifier Closed bate Start Date Desloned Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.00
19.00
Lagoon
2
19.00
19.00
Lagoon
3
19.00
19.00
Lagoon
4
19.00
1900.
Lagoon
5
19.00
24.00
Lagoon
6
19.00
66.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS07D061 Owner - Facility: Leaman H Allen
Facility Number: 070061
Inspection Date: 04/28/2005 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & 5treaa] impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ ❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
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?
❑
K ❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑
Yes
■ ❑
No NA
❑
NF
Waste Coliection_ Storage & Treatment
4. is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe erosion,
❑
❑
❑
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property addressed andlor managed through a waste management or
❑
❑
❑
closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? {Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks DBOO
andlor wet stacks}
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■ ❑ ❑
improvement?
Yes
No NA NE
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance attematives that need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN n 10%l10 lbs.?
❑
Total P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1 Gam, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Alien
Facility Number : 070061
Inspection Date: 04/28/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste aalication
Crop Type 6
Yes
No NA
NF
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan(CAWMP)? ❑
E ❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crop andlor land application site need improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
0 ❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
M ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
■ ❑
No NA
❑
NE
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
[IN
Cl
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
MP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑
■
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
0
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0
❑
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS070061 Owner - Facility: Leaman H Allen
Inspection Date: 04/28/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 070061
Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andfor document and report those mortality
rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss reviewrinspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Yes No NA 1VE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ M ❑ ❑
❑■❑❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 5

Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Tech. Assistance O Confirmation for Ren
far Visit *Routine O Complaint O Follow up a Emergency Notification p Dther ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 7 61 Date of visit: 9129120Q4 Time: 11:30
— - Q Not O erational • Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: ....................................................... County: Uliauf Ilk........................................... W.t Q.......
OwnerName: G!~=Qxt.................................. Alka .................................. ............... .... ....... Phone No: S�c� S-S1 1................................ ...........................
Mailing Address: #5.�111d1,�R.) ii)A.Rd............................................................................ Egifti gR...NC.......................................................... 2780 .............
FacilityContact: ... ........................................................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No:..........................
.........................
Onsite Representative: Names. Wa&ajfflA l..&...11).dd.NQxtb .................................... Integrator: L..H,,.A1lRxt.&..5.Q7u.. m.......................
Certified Operator: lQdd....................................... Nuth.............................. ................... Operator Certification Number:188.4,& .............................
Location of Farm:
Pantego North on Hwy, 99 5 miles to Indian Run Rd. Take left & go 112 mile to farm on left. A.
® Swine [I Poultry [3 Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 3S 38 12.07 Longitude 76 37 4.58
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
L
I[]
Non -Dairy
® Farrow to Wean
1350
1350
El Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
1,350
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
5$4,558
El Boars
Number of Lagoons 2
LbIdong Ponds Lsohd Traps
Discharges & Stream Imacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min"
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ®No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ..........zccycla.......... ....solida.middk.... ...... solids.sauth ...... ..... .salidszor$t...... ........ Secsadary......... .............
Freeboard (inches): t2 12 12 19 34 59
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 7-61 Date of inspection I 9/29/2004
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes N No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes N No
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? ❑ Yes N No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes N No
elevation markings?
Waste Annlieation
10, Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes N No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc > 30(
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat Cotton
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes N 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
N No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
Odor Issues
17.
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?
19.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
N No
19.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
N No
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
❑ Yes
N No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Com rieats{refer io question #):..`Explain any YES answers and/or.. any. recommendations.or any other com_ meats.
Use "drawings of facility to better explain situations, (use additional -pages as necessary):. 0 field Copy El Final Notes
*Waste sample dated 9/28/04 that was sent off on 8/18/04 with HF1(sec.)=0.48 & HF2(final)=0. i 1. Report W01613. Problem with +
Raliegh lab entering Farm name.
Waste 5/11/04 w/ HF5=0.44, HF6=0.04
2/17/04 w/ HF5=1.1, HF6=0.12
12/5/03 w/ HF•5=0.67, HIF6=0.08
Soils dated 10/28/03 for Tract 4040 field 1-6, with up to IVac lime required.
* A new WIIP was written by Jack Long for farm dated 9/2/04.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Scott
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
12/121V3
Date:
Continued

Facility Number: 7-61 Date of Inspection 9/7912004
' Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & GeneraI Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
ONO
22.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
Del WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
N No
23.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
N No
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
N No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
N No
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
N No
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
N No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
34.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
N No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33.
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
35.
Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
12112103

Technical Assistance Site Visit Report
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number L� - fit Date: 130104 Time: 1 830 Time On Farm: 6U WARD
Farm Name L.H. Allen & Son, Inc. Sow Farm County Beaufort
Mailing Address 385 Indian Run Rd
Phone: [phone]
Pantego NC 27860
❑nsite
Representative B an Davis Integrator LH Allen & Sons
Type Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
Purpose Of Visit
Q Routine
0 Response to DWQIDENR referral
p Response to DSWCISWCD referral
Q Response to complaint/local referral
Q Requested by producer/integrator
D Follow-up
0 Emergency
o Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Canaeltv Po ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
1350
1350
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands?
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
requiring DWQ notification?
b- Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
Identifier
Level (inches)
CROP TYPES
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
Structure) Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
recycle solids middle solids south solids north sec/final
14 161 F 16 19 27131
Corn Soybeans Wheat lCotton
Ap To
Pt
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
I1167iG7I1193

Facility Number 7 - 61 Date:
4/30/04
PARAMETER
® No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
El
El❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
El
12. Waste structure integrity compromised
28. Forms Need in
❑
❑
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
(list comment section)
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
[115. Over application < 10% or ¢ 10 lbs.
30. 21-11.0200 re -certification
❑
❑
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
[117. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Latelmissing waste analysis
33. Organizelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallciosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker checklcalibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date;
43. Irrigation design/installation
❑
El
El Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage workievaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
El❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
63. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5'
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
16.
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number - 61 Date: 1 4130/04
COMMENTS:
Naste analysis dated 2/17104 nitrogen is HF5=1.1 Ibs, HF6=0.12 Ibs
1215103 nitrogen is HF5=0.67lbs, HF6=0.08lbs
Soil test dated 9/25/03 Cu, Zn and ph within guidelines.
rrigation reel calibrated 211104 including honey wagon.
Veed to complete IRR2 balances for wheat during Nov. 03 using waste analysis 0.67 Ibs. No over application noted.
RR2 records were reviewed.
_aaoon level is recorded weekly with drops in lagoon consistent with irrigation events.
Vew waste analysis taken 4/23/04 no results.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST IMartin McLawhorn
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 513104 Entered By: artin McLawhorn
3 03/10/03

r
Type of Visit i-Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up 0 Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date ofVisit. 1 ❑ Time:
Not ❑ er tional 0 Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Register bate Last Operated or Ahbye T reshold: %
Farm Name: +'wy County:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
❑nsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Phone No:
Integrator: I " AL f�- f*
Operator Certification Number:
bo Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude a 4 " longitude a
Design. Current
nwme Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean 0 j
Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Ca aci Po ulation
❑ Layer FC1
DaiNon-La er Non-Dai
❑ 0ther
Total Design Capacity
Total SS11W
Number of Lagoons ❑ Suhsurface Drains Present ❑ La onn Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System : V
Discharees & 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) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes lrN❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes 11�`No
Waste Collection $i Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes lyso
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 j Structure 4 Structure 5 S ture
identifier: S)1J,ls A- � ��f�j��v V' 9 I
Freeboard (inches);
05/03 41,� 1 �Co►rtrnued
d 7

Facility Number: — hate of Inspections 0�
r 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel 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
❑ Yes
allo
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?
❑ Yes
JYNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
Lk No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes
W No
elevation markings?
Waste Apgh:cation
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
'0
NrNo
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Gr nd ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type y) S o
13. Do the receiving craps t er with those destg ted in the Certified 16UAVaste Manage t tip Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
VNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facilityneed 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
If. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below _E3-*=--EjNo
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes No
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 ❑ Yes 4No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Comments (refer. to ueshnn #):= Iaua =YES aa�ers and/or
� , - _.. _: Y ..._{ .: any ;. - .__ rruaoiendatao�iis oraa
;Use drawtngx of.factiity.to better..expla sitaatjons: (use-additaon l pales _ wry):.:` .; FieidtCopy li ;c Final Notes
-..
AL
Y74- . Pro 141
16
Oq
)0�#-/05
40
�! +�►� Y�A+I��d r
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: y— �t Date of Inspection
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?
Oel Wi]P, 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?
(iel 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 additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
NP`DES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
3I. 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?
■ t_
❑ Yes WNo
❑ Yes lb No
❑ Yes Eb No -
❑ Yes EiNo
❑ Yes GANo
[:]Yes ONo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? o
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. Ekyn--e
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
12112103

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine ❑ Complaint D Follow up 0 Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit:
L I
Permitted Ep Ce
rtified
© Conddiition�ally Certified f 0 Register
Farm Name: �i ]� /5f:� ]two Lirrc. �7✓i�rR
)d
Owner Nance:
Mailing Address:
Time: �
10 Not ❑ erational 0 Below Threshold
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
County: L o
Phone No:
Facility Contact: Title: I Phone No:
Onsite Representative: 6". Integrator: !�
417
Certified Operator: a4ad3�� T __ Operator Certification Number: ISM
Location of Farm: if
,Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' ' K Longitude a '
Design Current
swine
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Design Current Design: Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I ❑ a ry
❑ Non -Layer ❑ DNan-Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ©, ❑ subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps JEJ No Liq uid Waste Mana ement 5vstem
Diseharoes — Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Laizoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is ohsen ed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) [] Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (Ifycs, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation:' ❑ Yes No
1 Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ] No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate:' ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes J0 No
structurc.t SjrUcture 0 ]�tr'uctur �1 Stru. turep Structur 5tructur
Identifier: t' - 4 1
Freeboard (inches): _ 1 /$7 /? ^� r?
05103101 11 2 , = 3 `I `I Continued

Facility Number: -- Date of Inspection LGdL M
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel 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 a n v of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do anv of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
S. Does any pan 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 maintenanceiimprovement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes ,E No
❑ Yes IoNo
El Yes � No
❑Yes rim
❑ Yes Z No
❑ Yes XNo
W lam
13. Do the receiving crops differ i9 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
�rNo
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? iip� S
El Yes
No
1 K
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP. checklists, design. maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19,
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie' irrigation. freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
Z No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
q No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
M No
??.
Fail to notify regional D%VQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
] No
(ie' discharge. freeboard problems. over application)
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
E© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments {refer to question : Eipisifi aiey YES answers atedlar any rceammentiatioas or: airy. �ierpcvmments: '. _�:;,
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necemn, Field Copy ❑Final Notes
M..
p... _.,.;.
.. .. ..y=�.p.:r: mat:.:; _ ';. �"";'', -...... �".,�z3:.m-�i �.L•:i,;✓'......ss�;ti :a'�:!a�::.:�i'.,:.,_ �•Xv
rss 0 li'*'IJ
,,. r••- - W-3 5—
OF �: c��t�� � �: � =>17
F6yo,gX = r
Alp)
Re vtewer/Inspector Name : . = ::. s >,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Condnued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection '�-
Odor LjLuea
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?
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 permanent/temporary cover?
PAdditional Comments and/or: Drawings:; ::;_ ,:.: ': - .1
fpc
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes .qNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes 4 No
❑ Yes Na
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
J
05103101

1f�EA.T� Mtchaei F. Easleq..
v.
Governor
? Wiiilam G, Roes, Jr., Secretary
7. Department of Ertvironment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
To: Producer
From: Scott Vinson
Emrironmental ngineer
Washington Regional Office
Subject: Animal Compliance Inspection
Year 2003
Enclosed please find a copy of the Compliance Site inspection (as viewed in the DWQ database) conducted at the referenced
facility by the Division of Water Quality from the Washington Regional Office. Please read this inspection and keep it
with all other documents pertaining to your animal operation for future inspections.
In general, these inspections included verifying that: (1) the farm has a Ccrtifred Animal Waste Managemcnt Plan (CAVavw),
(2) the farm is complying with requirements of the State Rules 15 NCAC 2H.0217, Senate Bill 1217, and the Certified Animal
Waste Management Plan; (3) the farm operation's waste management system is being operated properly under the direction of a
Certified Operator, (4) the required records are being kept; and (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, andlor nutoff.
As a reminder, please note the following comments, which are conditions of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan and
the General Permit; therefore, these items must be implemented:
cp The maximum waste level in lagoons/storage ponds shall not exceed that specified in the CAWMP. At a n inin my,
ma.m urn waste level for waste for lagoons/storage ponds must not exceed the level that provides adequate storage to
contain 25 year, 24 hour storm event plus an additional foot of structural freeboard
cp An analysis of the Liquid animal waste from the lagoon shall be conducted as close to the time of application as practical and
at least within 60 days (before or after) of the date of application.. This analysis shall include the following parameters:
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Zinc and Copper. - - -- -
(p Soil analysis is required annually. Lime is to be applied to each receiving crop as recommended by the sod analysis.
(p The following records are required: off -site solids removal, maintenance, repair, wastelsoil analysis and land irrigation
records. These records should be maintained by the facility owner/manager in chronological and legible form for a
minimum of three years.
cp Land application rates shall be in accordance with the CAWMP. In no case shall land mlication rates ex -peed the Plant
Available Nitrogen (PAN) rate for the receiving crop or result in runoff during anv givven apphcatim
(p All grassed waterways shall have a stable outlet with adequate capacity to prevent ponding or flooding; damages. The outlet
can be another vegetated channel, an earth ditch, stabilization structure, or other suitable outlets. -
q) It is sugaeste�j nut a reauiremen� to keep crop yield information for future use to update your waste management plan.
You will need three years of crop yield data before your plan can be updated
q) The CIC has the duties to ensure that waste is applied in accordance with the CAWMP and General Permit by properly
managing, supervising, and documenting daily operation and maintenance. The 01C also has the responsibility to certify
monitoring and reporting information. The failure of an OIC to perform hislher duties can result in a letter of reprimand.
suspension, of certification, or revocation of certificates.
For your information, any swine facility that has a discharge to surface waters of the State will have to apply for a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) peraut with the Division of Water Quality, effective January 1, 2001.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation during the inspection. If you have any questions, please contact me at 252-946-
6481, ext. 208 or your Technical Specialist.
Cc: tWaRO Files
SAV Files
943 Washington Square Mall Washington, NC 27889 252-946-6451 (Telephone) 2524�46-9215 (Fax)

Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit D Routine 0 Complaint D Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 7 G1 Date of Visit: D812812t}D3 Time: 4:3D
O Not O rational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified. 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
FarmName: ....................................................... County: ftlufoxi ........................................... W.A►RQ.......
OwnerName: Tmmon...................................PAllca................................................. ........... Phone No: 252-US-,51,51............................ ...............................
Mailing Address: ''� S..1tl�ll Al. ►lm. s1............................................................................ 1'amiw...NC.......................................................... 2.7.8.60.............
FacilityContact: ........... ........................ ............................... I........... Title :................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: 1.rSAa.Djavjs............................................................................... Integrator: LJ[, AJk.UA.S.QA.1ar,n.....................................
Certified ❑perator:Rrya K................................ Dayll ................................................. Operator Certification Number:l$.83Q.................. ...........
Location of Farm:
Pantego North on Hwy. 99 5 miles to Indian Run Rd. Take left & go 112 mile to farm on left.
R Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ` 38 12.07 Longitude 75 • 3i 4.58 L6
Design Current
Swine Capacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean_
1350
1350
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Pa ulation
❑ Layer 1 1[3 Dairy
❑ Non -Layer 1 1[3 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 1,350
Total SSLW 5$4,550
Number of Lagoons 2 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present jFff Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps E== 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes R 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) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flaw in gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes R No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes R No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes R No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b
Identifier: ...... Recycle.A].........Sa}ads .:.Middie......S'QlJ 5..:.5QUth.......Soluls...N-Qrth..........Secondary....................F.inai............
Freeboard (inches): 17 10 17 17 20 53
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 7-61 Date of Inspection 08/28/2003
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
®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
N 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 ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
OR No
12, Crop type Com, Soybeans, Wheat Cotton
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 detemnination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes N No
18, Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP; checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes N No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes N No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes 0 No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes N No
22. fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
Oel discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ®No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes N 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
j] No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
- --
tn n refer:;ta" ue tion # := E - isiitt"sill 'YE -'rs andlor:a Co me tg { q s ).. , xp y . S:answe
..nY, recommendations or. any:: other;;eain eats ::'::: " _:.
, -
Use drawings of fsicsli to: better explain sstuafsom (use additional pages`as:necessary}: Field Copy real F' Notes
* Waste report dated $16I03 with HF-6 = 0.26 lbs NI1000 gal. (irrigates out of )
HF-5 = 0.521bs NI1000 gal. (irrigates out of)
NF-3 = 1.5 lbs NI1000 gal. -
NF-4 = 0.I8lbs N11000 gal.
* Waste report dated 5/15/03 with: HF-5 = 0.60 lbs NI1000 gal. -House Farm - HF
HF-6 = 0.42 lbs NI1000 gal. Near Farm - NF
NF-3 = 1.9 lbs NI1000 gal.
NF-4 = 1.3 lbs N11000 gal.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Scott Vinson Entered by: Portia Peaden
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: / 03
05103101 Continued

Facility Number, 7-6I Date of Inspection 0$Ix812003
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 drill during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ❑ 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 ® 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 ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes OR No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
* Waste report dated 2/19/03 with: HF-3 = 2.6 lbs NI1000 gal.
HF-4 = L9 lbs NI1000 gal.
NF-1 = 4,5 lbs NIi000 gal. House Farm - HF
HF-5 = 1.1 lbs NI1000 gal. Near Farm - NF
HF-6 = 0.45 lbs NI1000 gal,
❑ Yes ❑ No
Soils samples are collected by N.C. Ag Services, Inc. (David Butcher) in the Fall of 2002 with up to 1.0 Tlac. Lining
recommendations were in a separate folder. From now on have whoever runs the soils analysis on samples to give a liming
recommendation for each of the fields that have waste applied.
05103101

(Type of Visit ❑ Compliance Inspection p Operation Review p Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit p Routine p Complaint p Follow up p Emergency Notification p Other p Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: 'Time: 820
p Not Operational p Below Threshold
N Permitted E Certified 13 Conditionally Certified p Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ......•
Farm Name: L.H. Allen & Son, Inc. Sow Farm Countv: Rau larl............................................ 1N.ARQ.......
Owner Name: Leaman Allen
Phone No: 252-935-5384
Mailing Address: 385.indiaxi.Hum.Rad............................................................................. Panteg[x..1.5tC......... ............. .................... ................. 27.8G1I........ .,,
FacilityContact:..........................................................•--...........••-•-..Title:........................................•...................... Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: Brrya Itavis.....................•--.--....----..----..----...........----•................. Integrator: L..H..Allen.&.Sw4.1ac......................................
Certified Operator: Bryan.& .............................. Davis.................................................. Operator Certification Number: 188-19... ...... ...................
Location of Farm:
an ego North on Hwy. 99 5 miles to Indian Run a e left & go mile to farm on left.
® Swine ❑ Poultry p Cattle p Horse Latitude ©0 r77-0-1« Longitude
Design
.....Current Dest n Current' . ;;::w;;; xD
......:...:::.......:::::..r'_.Ca act :` Pa ula#tan x :. ........ �Y;:_;.'mCa act
....:................a ==Po platton_ atteym'w" ::"Ca sett %Pa.....ulatioEi
_ ........, p....... _ .. -. P................ :.., .:...,,.-:...--._....; ... r3:-.,q.:.:._... I! ..._.n' p p....... y p.
13 Wean to Feeder
13 Feeder to tuts
® Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
p Gilts
13 Boars
�.
..........
1,350
_:::
..:.......
..........
r
584,55
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes ®[No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon p Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes p Nu
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? 0 Yes I@ N'o
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® , To
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway ❑ Yes N No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure G
Identifier: recycle .......... ...galids.-.middle........ alids.-.sGuth..... .... sa:li:ds.:.aor:th.... .......seroadary........ ..........
Freeboard(inches). ................ 14- .............. ................ 1.6 ............ — - ..... ....... .18--.......... ..19...---........................ .3o............................... f5a........ .......

Facility Number: 7_61 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, 0 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 g 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 N No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structuresrequire maintenance/improvement? p Yes ®No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? p Yes g No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes g No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN p Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Cam, Soybeans, Wheat
13, Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes g No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ N'o
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
p No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
g No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
p Yes
g No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
p Yes
g No
l g.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
p Yes
Is 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?
p Yes
a No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
p Yes
H N❑
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?
p Yes
g No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
C1 No violations or deficiencies were noted uring this visit. You will receive no further correspondence al)out this visit.
C& invents' refer a�muettkKi Ex lain an `YES''answe'rs'aridlorany a e�aiii men ations'vr any oth re comments. (q #}: p y
Use drawings of-faci_10, to;better expla%in;situations.'{use.additional;pages:=a5' neeeSSary:]: ❑Field Copy ❑Final Notes
* Lagoon level records complete with application events consistent with lagoon level drops
Ah�
* Last waste analysis dated 4-29-02 with lagoon 5 at 0.36 lbs PAN/1000 gal. and lagoon 6 at 0.09 lbs PAN/1000 gal.
Previous report dated 1-31-02 with lagoon 5 at 1.1 lbs PAN/1000 gal. and lagoon 6 at 0.53 lbs PAN/1000 gal.
* 2002 soil samples to be taken this fall
* Operation has converted some of the sprayfields to cotton. Jack Long with Beaufort Soil & Water Conservation District is currently
working on an amending the waste plan. No waste has been applied to cotton. Current waste plan has a PAN deficit of 54,529 lbs.
technical specialist for starting PAN rates for IRR2 records as needed.
LoLntact
MENTS CONTINUED ON PAGE 3
__'-
Reviewer/Inspector Name _ - „...::::::- w : - .�: �_ - �:'_�� -:� • _
.Pat Hoo er:.2S2 946= 481 .... Y .:w:_,..�;_:�� ::..:._�--'•:::,� a=,:,:,x.�::: =:=�=�:;,�... ��' ., _ ,r.
� 'Y
....... ..-..wr:K„.::e. ....: Y.i.Y. .........:. . ..:.zM . nN:x:':::.: .: •'WT.:-.r.: .re .: �:i ' .�1
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

05103101 Confinsied
aci i y Number: 7_bl 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 17 Yes p N❑
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? p Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, p Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the Iand application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? p Yes ® 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 ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? 13 Yes S NO
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? 13 Yes p No

Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation i
Reason for Visit d Routine O Complaint O Follow up Q Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
(late of Visit; 9117l211{ll Time: 1:0A m Printed on: 9/17/2001
7 61
NNot O erational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:..............
Farm Name: ....................................................... County: RgAdp.rt..................... ...................... WARO.......
Owner Name: t.e;3t1P-0..................................Allcu....... ..... ................................................. Phone No: 252:.9 9........................
Mailing Address: Ili .. .i�IghlY�y. f?C[�1.................... I ................. g
FacilityContact:..............................................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: RUAIL ANi5................................................................................ Integrator: ...............................
Certified Operator: Rnaa.--...... .................... DAyis..... ......................................... Operator Certification Nnmher:l. ... ...................
Location of Farm:
Pantego North on Hwy. 99 5 miles to Indian Run Rd. Take left & go 1/2 mile to farm on left.
N Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 38 lZ.t}7 Longitude 76 • 37 4 4.$8 °4
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
N Farrow to Wean
1350
1300
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design.. ., Current_.
Poultry' Ca acii Population Cattle Capacity Po u.lation
❑ Layer I IQ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer 1 1 1[3 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 1,354
Total SSLW 584,550
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream lmr)acts
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? (]f yes, notify DWQ)
c. If dischar1ge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (Ifyes, notify f)WQ)
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes N No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes N No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure ti
Identifier: ...... S.a].ids..Tjrap... ... ..... .S.alids liap...... ...... 5olids..Tzap...............Recycle.......... ....... Secanda y....... ............Fiztal............
Freeboard (inches): 13 14 19 19 20 43
n.sm.;m I C'nntinuod

05103101
Facility Number: 7-61
Date of Inspection 4117120fl1
Continued
Printed on: 9/17/2001
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 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 Corn, Soybeans, Wheat
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CA WMP)? ❑ 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
I S. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Docnments
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other 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? (ie/ 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 ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments {refer to quesfian #}: Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
[Ise drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary.): El Field Copy ❑Final Notes
* Irrigates out of lagoons 5 & 6.
*Waste Analysis on 6/4/01 for Lagoon 5 @ 0.47 Ibs.N/I000gal.
for Lagoon 6 @ 0.021bs.N/I000gal.
*Soils Analysis 12/15/00 gives minimal lime required in some fields. This year's soils are currently being taken.
+
Reviewer/Inspector Name Scott Vinso�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

O5103101
Facility Number: Mae of Inspection 911712UU1
Continued
Printed on: 9/17/2001
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
®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
® 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
®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 ❑ No
J

jTV" of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other
I [] Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: [Z= Time-
ro -Not rationa
l 0 Below Threshold
,Permitted IQ Certified [3 Conditionally Certified. [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ..._..._....I ..
Farm Name: ........ �vp .. County: .......... ...............
Owner Name: ... law-Ir.tIA.................... ....... . . ......... . .................................. Phone No: .......
r-;rv- - ......................
Facility Contact;
Title: -.
Phone No:
Mailing Address: ....... J.242:q ...... .............. . ........ Av.i� ................... 1.2'y6v
Onsite Representative: .......... . 6.C'j . . . . ........ ................................................. Integrator: .... .......
Certified Operator:..... A.1- Operator Certification Number:........ M .....
....... ................................ ...... xj�l ................. ..........
Location of Farm:
� i
14 Swine 0 Poultry 0 Cattle [] Horse Latitude Longitude 0
Design, Current
W-I'A I I LmA
E] Wean to Feeder
[I Feeder to Finish
10 Farrow; to Wean
0 Farrow to Feeder
1 E] Farrow to Finish
[:1 Gilts
[:) Boars
Design Current
Poultry Ca- pacity Population
10 Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity.
Total SSLW
Nnmber.of Lagoons 10 Subsurface Drains_1 Present 10 Lagoon AT0 ! ❑ Spray Field Ares
Holding Posids 1.Solid Tnqm 10 No Liquid Waste Management System =
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? 0 Yes XNo
Discharge originated at: [I Lagoon [] Spray Field Ej 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 gat/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
[] Yes [] No
D Yes 0 No
0 Yes 0 No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? D Yes XNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? [] Yes )&NO
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? 0 Spillway 0 Yes J4 No
S"Cture I Structure 2 'A -4 VS ct Structure Struc(UrFiq 4, Structure}
.
-&� k......... ...... <V- ...... ?1! Tt . 3)
... ... so.1,gs- -I..( 1\55c .4
Identifier ... S:gjj. 4;.;p ... ... a .— 4P ......... 11 �-
Freeboard (inches):
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: Jr7 — (n [ Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, [] Yes *No
seepage, etc.)
fi. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes JV 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 j2qrNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ,8fNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes No
Waste Al2glication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes j No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes No
12. Crop type Cann W� "
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? (ie/ 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?
Vil iil�1Q 5,[� ' deeC�e +t� wire 1� 1Sli°�!!g S,V 5 t. Yvijt Wl�� itec�iye;tD u
cnrrespy>litXeilee: awut this visit~ -
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes K) No
❑ Yes jP No
❑ Yes 1] No
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes PP No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes F1 No
.. ..
Comments (refer to question #): - Explain any YES answers and/or. any recomawndations or, any rioter commiats:
Uae dra - - _ <.... .
wings of facility" 6ettrx.explairt situ ttnns: (use ad pages as necessary): ; , __ ;
IBLS o+qr7l:fN�t� [
460 o,0"Z s16) 1
So,IS -� s ►�lfs�� �^ `.'-'J live 'ev ►'d /� � �� 7&-.5 sot is
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
5100

Fpcility Number: 7— & ( Date of Inspection
6dor 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 klNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
24. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes 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 No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes �i j No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanentltetnporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14dditional Comments an or. rawmgs• ....-.... r - _......., - _- '
J
5/00

Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of water Quality
To: Produces
From: Scott V nsoni
/K
Environmental Fng�eer
Washington Regional Office
Subject: Animal Compliance Inspection
Year-2W St a ■ 2-
Enclosed please find a copy of the Compliance Site Inspection (as viewed in the DWQ database) conducted at the referenced
facility by the Division of Water Quality from the Washington Regional Office. Please read this inspection and keep it
with all other documents pertaining to your animal operation for future inspections.
In general, these inspections included verifying dial: (1) the farm has a Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP);
(2) the farm is complying with requirements ofthe State Rules 15 NCAC 2Ii0217, Senate Bill 1217, and the Certified Animal
Waste Management Plan; (3) the farm operation's waste management system is being operated properly under the direction of a
Certified Operator; (4) the required records are being kept; and (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or nmo$
As a reminder, please note the following comments, which are conditions of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan and
the General Permit; therefore, these items must be implemented:-
(p The maximum waste level in lagoons/storage ponds shall not exceed that specified in the CAWMP. At a minimum,
maximum waste level for waste for lagoonslstorage ponds must not exceed the level that provides adequate storage to
contain 25 year, 24 hour storm event plus an additional foot of structural freeboard
op An analysis of the liquid animal waste fi m the lagoon shall be conducted as close to the time of application as practical and
at least within 60 days (before or after) of the date of application. This analysis shall include the following parameters:
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Zinc and Copper.
(p Soil analysis is required annually. Lune is to be applied to each receiving crop as recommended by the soil analysis.
(p The following records are required: off -site solids removal, maintenance, repair, waste/soil analysis and land irrigation
records. These records should be maintained by the facility ownerhnanager in chronological and legible form for a
minimum of three years.
op Land application rates shall be in accordance with the CAWIVIP. In no rase shall land application rates exceed the Plant
Available Nitrogen (PAN) rate for the receiving crop or result in runoff during anv given aunliration.
op All grassed waterways shall have a stable outlet with adequate capacity to prevent pending or flooding damages. The outlet
can be another vegetated channel, an earth ditch, stabilization structure, or other suitable outlets.
cP It is su eat A not a requiremntt, to keep crop yield information far future use to update your waste management plan.
You will need three years of crop yield data before your plan can be updated.
For your information, any swine facility that has a discharge to surface waters of the State will have to apply for a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit with the Division of Water Quality, effective January 1, 200 L
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation during the inspection. If you have any questions, please contact me at 252-946-
6481, ext. 321 or your Technical Specialist.
Cc: WaRO
SAV Files
943 Washington Square Mall Washington, NC 27889 252-946-6481 (Telephone) 252-946-9215 (Fax)

of Visit ® Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Mason for Visit 0 Routine Ci Complaint Q Follow up Q Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Amass
Facility Number 7 ti1 Date of Visit: 11251I01i2 Time: 9:30
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
E Permitted ■ Certified [] Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: ctfu�,Lu� SlR1YEa .. __._. �. _. County: BMUfg-1T..
Owner Name: Phone No: 25.E-.9.35.
Mailing Address: T.43 9� Igh1Y Y it l w - _ _ _ .� . _._ �atileg� Nam_.. .._. w� Zug_...........
Facility Contact: _--•----_ _........... __-_----- ..._..... Title:.. ------....____. Phone No:
Onsite Representative: $p�,aA f?�Y ..___. _ . _-----------.. ._---• Integrator: i(. i.r�luGtlRxl, Dili~.__ ._ . __ ._
Certified Operator:BiCyBaKm_ ._. __._. I ,�xi� ... Operator Certification Number:�$13
Location of Farm:
antego North on Hwy. 99 5 miles to Indian Run Rd. Take left & go 112 mile to farm on left.
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ` 38 12.t]7 Longitude 76 I• 37 4.58
Discha rees & Stream 1 in incts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. 1f discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gaUmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection B& Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure a structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: _:_-S.aiids Trap...... -----Solids.T_aR-_..........S.eccxndary..__.
Freeboard (inches): 16 12 12 12 20 41
05/03m1 ironifnued

0510.3101 Continued
Facility Number: 7-61 Date of Inspection IR5Rfl0Z
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?
S. 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 Corn, Soybeans, Wheat
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
❑Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
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?
16. Is there a tack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ Wi]P, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ 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 Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No
13 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
Waste analysis dated 9/17/01 with 0.46lbsN/I000gal. from secondary lagoon. (HF-5)
with 0.16Ibs.N11000gal. from final lagoon. (HF-6)
;oil analysis dated 11/26/01 with Iime to be applied this spring.
Needs to recalcualte PAN applied to wheat. Used 0.42lbsN/l000gal instead of 0.461bs.N11000gal. with 9.Qlbs PAN left.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:

0510"] Continued
FacilityNumber. 7-61 Date of Inspection 1/25RD02
Odor issues
26. Roes 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 ® 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 ® 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 ®No
3 I _ 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 ❑ No
U

■
Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine ❑ Complaint O Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
1 -- - Date of Visit: 5-7-2IXI1 Tune: 810 Printed on: 9113f2001
Facility Number 7 61
Vot Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted M Certified © Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: .................................... ............. County: &Allf k&................ ....... W. AAQ---....
OwnerName: Leanum.................................. .Egm............................................................ Phone No: 25Z.:9,35-53,0.4 ..........................................................
Marling Address: 37113.NC99.UxbYy W...hut*..........-................I.............................. P.ttult�;u..15i1C.� ....----...----..... ... Z7.M.............
.............................
FacWtyContact . ........................................................................ Titre:............................................................... Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: Bu an►D xitx............... 3s s[ Q^ SJ�t'(.. ... Integrator- LJLAlh;>a.&.5,aii.JBz.. .......................................................
Certified Operator: Braun ..................................... DAxis...... ........................................... Operator Certification Number:19839............. _................
Location of Farm:
Pantego North on Hwy. 99 5 miles to Indian Run Rd. Take lets & go 112 mile to farm on left.
if
�f
J
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse La=nude 35 • 38 ° 12.t17 Longitude 76 ' 37 4 3.58 cc
Design Current _
Swine C'anaritr- pannintion
❑ Wean to Feder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
1350
1300
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry .. Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Lai er ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Laver I I[] Non -Dairy
❑ Ott
Total Design Capacity 1,350
Total SSLW 584,5SU
Numberof Lagoons. 2 10 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds/ Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management SFstem
Discharges & Stream Impa
1. Is any discharge obsen°ed from arty part of the operation? El Yes ®No
Discharge origivated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b, if discharge is obs-awed, did it reach Watcr of the State? (If yes. notitl' DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is obsen'ed, what is the estimated flow in gal./mill?
d- l]cx:Doesdiscltat•ge bypass a lagoon ;'!•Stem`. (Ii'vcs, noiiA- DV►'Q) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes ®No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard phis storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b
Identifier!..solids.hmA...............spud JXM........ ]fides. t.t.I)............ myric....... ....... S=11(law.02)... .... ._..iin,aL03.).........
Frceboard(inches):...............A4............... ..I4....------.... ......... 19 ... .......................... 14............... ............. n...............

05103101
Continued
f Farilyy Number: 7-61 Date of Inspection 5-7-2001 Printed on: 9113P2001
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
®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 maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
X No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
9 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 maintenaucelimprovement?
❑ Yes
® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
19 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 or other Permit readily available?
❑ Ycs
®No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(icl WLTP, 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 complianceMth 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 Rcviewerllnspector fail to discuss revicwlinspcction with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency9
❑ Yes
® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No
1 0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (re€er to question ft-- Explain any YES answers:and/or any recommendations or any other comments: = --- Y-
ter_ _- _.- - =� - - ��_ ... � _. _-�_.----..-- -- - -- - - - - - -- - - - - ----------- -- _
Uie drawings of. facility; to he#er explain situatinn�.'use additiaiaal pages. aa. neeasary) �❑
Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
* Discuseed IRR2 and waste sampling schedule
* Lagoon level records complete
* Soils report dated 3-20-01 with some lime needed. Copper and zinc levels within acceptable levels.
* Lagoon 4 (recycle) on east side of site and provides flush water
* Last waste analysis dated 4-10-01 with lagoon 5 at 0.73 lbs/1000 gal. and lagoon 6 at 0.36 lbs/l000 gal. Previous sample dated 1-18-01
with lagoon 5 at 0.91 lbs/1000 gal. and lagoon 6 at 0.42 lbs/1000 gal.
* Waste plan amended 1-18-01 to extend soybean window through September
* Waste plan PAN deficit is 54,5291bs. and dated 8 4-98 1j"
Reviewerlinspector Name _ _
Pat Huoper. a?52=9Ab-6=t81._ ,_� .. _ �. .7 _ .
Reviewerllnsnector Sianature: Date:

05103101 Continued
Faeiiity Number. 7-61 Date of Inspection 5-7-2iH}1 Printed on. 911 U2001
Odor issues
26. Does the discharge pipe fi-om 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?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 yours?
28. Is there any e,6ridence of wind drift during laud 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 permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Ye% ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional Comments, and/or Drawings.—
* Operation utilized honeywagon to apply waste in front of 2001 corn crop
* IRR2 and SLD2 records complete and balanced
* Area where nutria tunneled and damage lagoon 6 was repaired (shaped & packed) around 1.5 years ago. Continue efforts to eradicate
[rodents and repair as needed. No rodent activity noted.
J

Li,�
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
June 15, 1999
Mr. Leamon Allen
L.H. Alien & Sons, Inc. Farms
3703 NC 99 Hwy North
Pantego, North Carolina 27860
SUBJECT: Notice of Deficiency
Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
L-H. Allen & Sons, Inc. Fauns
Facility No. 4 7- 61 & 7-65
Beaufort County
Dear Mr. Allen:
Enclosed please find a copies of the Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspections (as it is
viewed in DWQ database) conducted at the referenced facilities by the Division of Water
Quality from the Washington Regional Office. Please read these inspections and keep
with all other documents pertaining to your animal operation for future inspections.
In general, the inspection included verifying that: (1) the farm is complying with
requirements of the State Rules 15 NCAC 2H.0217, Senate Bill 1217, the Certified Animal
Waste Management Plan and/or General Permit; (2) determine whether the waste
utilization plan is based on total or actual wetted acres; (3) the farm operation's waste
management system is being operated properly under the direction of a Certified Operator,
(4) the required records are being kept; (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or
runoff The following deficiencies were observed during the inspection (s).
(p In accordance with condition IIl, item 4 of your General Permit, an analysis of animal
waste shall be conducted as close to the time of application as practical and at least
within 60 days (before or after) of date of application. The analysis shall include the
following parameters: Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Zinc and Copper.
cp In accordance with condition III, item 2 of your General Permit, you are required to
record weekly lagoon levels on forms provided and/or approved by DWQ.
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Cont. Page Two
L.H. Allen & Sons, Inc. Farms
# 7- 51 & 7-65
cp At facility # 7-61, the lagoon levels in lagoon 2 & 3 are not ideal. It is recommended to
maintain a minimum of 12 inches in these lagoons at all times.
cp It is recommended to install a gauged marker in the lagoon 1 and the final lagoon.
cp It is not a good practice to dispose of old feed on the edge of the swamp. It is
recommended to find an environmentally sound means of disposal for old feed.
It is very important as the owner and the Operator in Charge that you resolve these
aforementioned deficiencies and any other problems that may arise, as soon as possible.
For additional assistance, please contact your Technical Specialist. Nothing in this letter
should be taken as absolving this facility of the responsibility and liability of any
violations that have resulted or may result from these deficiencies. Failure to comply with
your Certified Animal Waste Management Plan and General Permit could result in civil
penalty assessment and/or revocation of your General Permit.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation during the inspection. If you have any
questions, please contact me at 252/946-6481, ext. 318 or your Technical Specialist.
Sincerely,
Lyn B. Hardison
Environmental Specialist
Cc: Beaufort County SWCD Office
DSWC-WaRO (w/out attachments)
Compliance Group (w/out attachments)
WQ Central Files
WaRO
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889 Telephone 252-946-G481 FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Koutlne 0 LOMplalnt 0 ronow-up of [-jwV inspection 0 roiiow-up or rlavvt review 0 titner
Facility Number I)ate of inspection
Filne of Inspection ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
■ Permitted 0 Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered 113 Not Operatrona Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: L.tL.AllerL.&.Som..Inr..Saw.Farm........................................................ County: Beaufort WARD
Owner Name: Learna.................................Allen— ....................................................... Phone No: 252-9.35: 3L04(11).--.............................
Facility Contact: Rryan..Daxis....................................................Title:
Phone No: 252.-93.5-515040)......... -....
Mailing Address: 370-NC.9.9.11ighwayMorkh..........—..—.........I.............. .... I ... -....— Pan.trgaAc........................................................... Z7R6Q ..............
Onsite Representative: Bry:an.Da.vis................................................................................ Intel;rator:independent................................... .........................
Certified Operator: Bryan.& .................... .......... .Da.}:is.................................................. Operator Certification Number: 188a9— .......... .........
Location of Farm:
Latitude ©� ®j ©44 Longitude ®� ©� ®64
-. urrent _ Design. . - Current: eg- urrentmestgn '
I?Ullltr
SWiDe__ _. Capacity=Population xY _ ........ Capacity Popula#ion;::= Cattle ___ Capacity ..Populatio n
13 Wean to Feeder
p Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
13 Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Ftnts
p Gilts
❑ Boars
• .;Lagoons --' Subsurface ace rains Present rea
Htililin Ponds 1;Salid Traps; - _::=M E o LiquidWaste Management System
_. _ g _-
p pray iNumbero e
yea -:
Dischary-es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
p Yes
®No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon p Spray Field p 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? (Ii'ves, notify DWQ)
p Yes
® No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
nla
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon syslcm. (]f yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
N No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
p Yes
ONO
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes
0 No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway
N Yes
13 No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure h
identifier: ...... #.. ,4hLotjey).-.... ......#..2..(snlids)...... ........ #.3..(sol.ids........ ... #A.(cecycUg)... ........ #.5jsec.)....
.... .......#..fz.(fxztal)........
Freeboard(inches): ................ 1.4................ ................. G................. ................ a ................ ................ 1.22............................... 3.6...............
.............. 3.G::..............
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion,
0 Yes
0 No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
Continued
on hock

ac i y Number,. 7-61 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
N No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
[]Yes
N 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
N No
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
®Na
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
®No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
p 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
IT Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
®No
I & Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WI,1P, 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
�:2tiia.�itilatioits.ar. dciea.cies.were u�ite+d dtiring.tNis visit..l�ou_will:reCei� do fvi-ther.:.:
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:......... . .:...:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.. .
Comments (refer to q ues ion. : j x am -an , -answers andlorany'recommen a ions or' an '.ot er:commen s. = - -
iJse drawings:offacility to?tietter;explain: situations::(use s�ddittonaL,pages.ss ne�essa _ F
_ =14--
4 19 -Need to secure waste analysis with 60 days o application. Suggest to collect samples quarterly. A
0 4 - The lagoon levels of the L2 & L3 are not ideal. Recommend to maintain a minimum of 12 inches.
4 9 - Could not read the marker in lagoon one (under the water level) and the marker in the final' lagoon is difficult to read because
the lagoon design' information does not indicate where the temporary storage elevation should be or even if the 24 hr, 25 yr storm
events from the others lagoon•are included in the final lagoon. There are plans to install new markers which is a good idea.
Irrigation records are satisfactory. The general permit requires you to record weekly freeboard levels.
DO NOT dispose of old' feed in the swamp, ditch or any waterway..
Continue to work on the,low areas'on the dike walls. -Need to begin pumping as waste plan allows as soon as weather permits.
ector Reviewer/Insp Name Ly
� n:B: Hardison...::
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

19 Routine p Complaint p Pottow-up of DWQ inspection p rotlo►►--up of CaNwC review p Vther
Facility Number I),ite of inspection
I ime of I nspection ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted ■ Certified p Conditionally Certified sa Registered Ig3 Not Operationa Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: L.H..A11en.&.Son,lnc..r.-F.finishing....................... County: Beaufort WARO
OwnerName: Leamua................................. Allen ............................................................ Phone No: 252r9.Mr3aO.4 ..........................................................
Facility Contact: B.t:yan..Davis................ ....... _....... ........... ....... Title:
Phone No: 752-.935.-.515.0(.C1)................
Mailing Address: 2i71I3.NC.99.Highway..N.Qr1k .......................................................... Patitego...KC........................................................... z7.8Gt1..............
Onsite Representative: B ryapt.Dayis................................................................................ Integrator. independentt................................ ............................
Certified Operator: Bryan.K. ............................... Davis.................................................. Operator Certification N{imber:188.19............ .................
Location of Farm:
----------------------
..
Latitude ©. ®� ®�� Longitude ®• ®��
Design- __Current
,Swine... Capacity Population
® can to Feeder
® Feeder to finis
❑ arrow to can
p Farrow to ee er
❑ Farrow to Finis
p Gilts
❑ Boars
- .. F:. ,:.
_ .Numtier-of:Lagoons�.-`..=:
x.
❑
u
sur ace
rains
resen ❑
agoon rea E3 sprayi r
Holding Ponds l Salid-Traps
❑
No
Liquid Waste
Management
System -
DischarLes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance ratan -made? ❑ Yes ® No
b. If dischargc is observed. did it reach Water ofthe State'! (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ® No
c. If•discbargc is observed, .vhat is the estimated flow in gal/min? n/a
d. hoes discharge bypass a lagoon system? (Il'yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ® No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ®No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway p Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
identifier: ##.1............... ..............#. .............. #z.3............... #.4,...........
Freeboard(inches): .12................. .....1.2..................... ........ 12....... ........ ................ la ............... ........................ ............ .................... ...............
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion, p Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on hack

ac#v Number: 7-b5 I)ate of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
p 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
N No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
[]Yes
N 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?
p Yes
® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding p PAN
❑ Yes
® No
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
H No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
N No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
p No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
p Yes
®No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
p Yes
®No
Rea nired Records & Doe umen ts
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)
H Yes
p No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
H 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)
Cl 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?
p Yes
®No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
p Yes
N No
CC -a A'ew` ncics-wer_e.nnted :during: tF[is visit.: Yuu_ wviII :receive tia further.::: '.
:: ' �corxes�atwdence, aboirf this:visit:. ' :. ' ::...... :::. ' :
Reviewerllnspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

(Type of Visit a Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review a Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit 0 Routine ❑ Complaint a Follow up 0 Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 7 61 Date of Visit: ti115lZt]Ot} Time: 8:3U AM Printed on: 6/19/2000
Q Not Operational ❑ Below Threshold
N Permitted ■ Certified © Conditional) Certified E3 Registered p .
Y � Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .....................
Farm Name: ....................................................... County: Rauh.Lit........................................... W ARQ.......
OwnerName: LC;I OQA.................................. A11R11............................................................. Phone No: ...........................................................
FacilityContact:.............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: .TQ.91�113.!If?X1..........................................................g
Onsite Representative: UXy,M1j.Vax1'a................................................................................ Integrator: ,,.............................. .......
Certified Operator:R.trap..& ...............................D-eyk ................................................. Operator Certification Number:l$R39.................---------...
Location of Farm:
........................................................................................................................................................................ ..................... ............ ........... ....................... I ........... ....... .
hJgt R. [Qxtla.mll<. ..,.9.95..miks�. to. lmdiaal..l`ium.Rd..Taase.lefl.A, 1/2.xWIt..ta.farrm..n..Idt..................................
N Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 38 ' 12A7 � Longitude 7ti • 37 -
Design Current
Swine C'anarity Pnrmiatinn
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
N Farrow to Wean
1350
1325
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity population Cattle Capacity Po elation
❑ Layer I I I[] Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I IF-] Non Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 1,350
Total SSLW 584,550
Number of Lagoons 2 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 4 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)] Yes [:]No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes N No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes N No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:.... .......... ......................... ... ................................. .................................... ....................................
Freeboard (inches): 19 19 19 19 19 42

Continued on back
Facility Number: 7—G1 Hate of Inspection 611SIZDDD Printed on: 6/19/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes N 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 N 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?
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?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
[]Yes
N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
N 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?
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? (ie/ 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?
0 No *iolations:or defieieneies•were"rated'during.this *Mt; You will receive no furtheir,
correspondence about this xisit... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . .
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[]Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
[]Yes N No
sere is a gap in freeboard records. Need to complete freeboard records weekly.AL
new transfer pipe has been installed between the two large lagoons. This pipe will make it better to
aintain 19 inches of freeboard.
3dents are a potential problem. Watch for rodents.
PS File: L061513A
L061513B
IReviewer/Inspector Name Carl Dunn Entered by Ann Tyndall I I

Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Facility Number: 7-61 Date of Inspection 1 6/15/2000 Printed on: 6/19/2000
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
® 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
®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
®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
❑ No
J

0 Division of Soil and Water Con:664ation -_Operation ReyiM x ' .
- _ -
13 Division of Soil and Water C.oi4seiiwation - Co -__
m Rance eetion ° ��--
P gip.
Dlivmon of Water Quality �..t ..p .. . • - - o ce pectioni. •,,. ='c
-, =- a,
13 Other A enc - ❑ er�itio'Beview.' .,�.� _y�g:i�:+� 4:
- ry, ssF'.;`•:.. `-prswY�,.' '..�'�Y�R.ays-! ..r �':i ., - .. ��^L
10) Routine ❑ Complaint a Follow-up of DWQ inspection p Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number "7 (a Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 1t -CV 24 hr. (hh:mm)
19 Permitted R Certified © CAonlditionalh- [rtified l] Registered [] Not D eraLinna�ly Date Last Operated:
A11Q.► ]�►,r Fw I � County:....'3Q�r."` �..�........................... ..-----..
Farm Name:------.............................................••-......................... _.............
--.....-......-....
Owner Name: " Phone No:
- . � ......----------------------------------------------------------------------
FacilityContact: .... ............ _...... ................ •••...... ..-.-.....-........ .-........ Title: ............................. _._...................... . Phone No:
Mailing :'Address:
OnsiteRepresentative:....... ....... --.rns:s...................................... ................. Integrator: -----•-•--•--•--- ........................... ............... -......... ---.............
Certified Operator: ........................................ .....................-..........................---•--..------•-------• Operator Certification Number:..-- ............. ........... .............
Location of Farm:
F\
Latitude Longitude
t` _ Design CurrentDesign Current. CP_Caftfe Capacity PoelatonoulabonCapact Population
a a
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑Non -Layer ❑Non-dairy
Farrow to Wean f ] 32
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Ndinber-of.Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
' Holdtng'Porids`I Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes V 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) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes tN No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes In No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? El Spillway El Yes t. No
Slructurc I structure 2 Slructurc 3 Structure 4 Stnicture 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): �1 �}-..--••.............................................................
•...................................... .............. r...
5_ Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? fie/ trees, severe erosion, El Yes t9No
seepage, etc.)
3123199 Continued on back

Facility Number: 7 Date of] nspection 4t7
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes j No
(If any of questions 46 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 •
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require main tenance/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
r'No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
(2f 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
9 No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
29 No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? El 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.) ❑ Yes DINo
19. hoes record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes IN No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes 19 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?
Oe/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes n 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 El No
El: N,6"yieiafi6Tis-or delclettcies were pied. 006og Ois:Asit' • Y;01t will-Te-eoiye lia further
correspondence ahinA this
'.� dY--Cf*f�i!_.Fi"�'rt�+:'�F:.T#R`�'ii�'�-.s�"� t'�s�i�ti".�.�..��=�cwz:1�-ES.iiir'•.�YT.�'ca-:�w�..:e �4'.�Fr:. �?"-"+�i�+MF�R •.w PJARak.-�i'aY YYiinL'.`._:.f::�.^'^^ _=�C: 1F-Ff
`T6 yr i5 w a IN ee 6aa,� rrr-"Ji, 1"e4�a Ca..�p�e '�rPe Dowd
�, n�••� �, � Q,� ��, bcQn +'� S�-, Ite d 4 44
s+3A
120d_Q_Js are a �� a,.,l ��a61e..� . L/hick LOG+
ar �a1e.t�s L o 6157135
w
:� >.y
Reviewer/Inspector Name X,, -.. x .��_ � 4� ��►.v �°_ _�� ����'
:. ..e• mow: _
r �*
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: _ }.. Date:
3/23/99

Facility Number: —f? 1]atc of inspection C7
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?
2T Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes KNo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes 01 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 �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 Pq No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes RNO
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional: owments.an orrawin
...........
....
.. __
3/23/99

. ..
= J❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
a. Y ..,. ..- ..� .
Division of Water Quality
.....:....
n.
,
10 Routine 0 Com' faint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up cif DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection Fs -5-"
Facility 'Number F' Time of .Inspection F 3730 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Registered M Certified ® Applied for Permit 0 Permitted Q Not Opera Date Last Operated
Farm Name: f4- Allen...... -co, �a r F County: .-E:4 .............
........--- `�-"' ...........................................................
Owner :Name:
Facility Contact:
Mailing Address:
Onsite Representative:
qv- /_%,r! S
Certified Operator-- ................ $.........._P�s
Location of Farm:
Title:
Phone No:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Latitude 0.0 ` 0 « Longitude 0 • ��
Design... ' .Current
.:.Swine` Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
1350
f 3s1)
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
I
I -
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
a
'a
'Nianber of Lagoons:/ Holding Ponds ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
No Li quid Waste
❑ Management System q g
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 g*allinin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
mai ntenanceli mpro vement?
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?
7125/97
❑ Yes ENNo
❑Yes 1 jNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑►Yes 0 No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes 0 No
Continued on back

Facility Number: T — �
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes bdNo
Structures fLap-oonsAoldine Ponds Flush fits etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Cl Yes 09 No
Structure I tructure 2 Structure 3 Structure-4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: f -rl R,c fr�d fti. '�)tl .. P....111.. "'1.............5. °: :?.......... ....-----....................................--..... ... ................ .................. .....
Freeboard [ft): ..........1 2 7.5 3
lo. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes [A No
11, Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'? ❑ Yes 01 ;No
12. Do any.of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes F9 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 maximuni liquid level markers? ❑ Yes No
Waste Application
14. is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes j No
(If in excess of WHIP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ......... .................... ........... ..........WA!ftf.................................... ........................................................................_.--...... .....-.-..................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste ,Management flan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes jY No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes CO No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes M No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes f Z No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes j`� 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 Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste :Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes [�l No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes P No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit'' ❑ Yes ❑ No
0 No.vitilations or defiden' cies.rvere noted during' this visit.-You4ill receive no further
correspondeke about this -visit.
Cornhaan6lrefer..to question #):..:Explain any ITS"answers and/or any recommendations or any other' comments:
• r:.
Use drawings of:facility to better explain situations. use additional pages as necessary):
Nr j w 1JQ.-h
1^., lei �14n r Nri r, 5
/ e o JS,
7/25/97
Reviewer/Ins ector Name
P
'
oC
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:- T�

.. 0
Division of Soil.anil ►�Vater, on§e ❑anon - perat�on �Revtew
Division of Soil and Water Conservation'- Con► liance Ins ection, •
" ®Division of. Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
0 Other•Agency = Operation Review. T= 4
A:.
a
Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspection 4 Follow-up of DS C review Q Other
Facility Number " /
Dale of Inspection -a
of Inspection p:w 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Permitted 0 Certified © Conditionally Certified © Registered JE3 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name-, ..-....� . 1�. /Q 11t.4:%1.... L.r�`'''..., .11 c . Li�7 �tir'1�...--.... county:..... ................................ ...
Owner Name: ... ............... i Phone No. 2 53�
Facility Contact: ►� A.1ter Title: �unp,r Phone No: . rD
Mailing Address: 3r...........R.�.....)� N.,..................... .'i...a L ............................. ..
2�d....
Onsite Representative:_�A,C4.....PR?a!l!a............................................................... Irttel ratear:............ .......................................................
CertifiedOperator:.......&ry.FA.......... r ............. t�'s�!. ............ ..... Operator Certification Number: f "..�.................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ° :9 Longitude ' 4 "
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity. Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
El Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean !3-So 3
❑ Farrow to Feeder Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Cuts EE
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Prescnt 110 Lagoon Area ❑ 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 (If yes, notify DWQ)?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the con veyance man-made?
h. II' discharge is observed. did it reach: ❑ Surface Waters ❑ Waters of the State
c. 11' discharge is observed. what is the estimated floe' in Lal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon systern?
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?
Wasle Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 StruuC 3
I-rcoboard (inches): ............... ... i.. �-•
Structure 4
Structure 4
V"
❑ Yes EAlo
❑ Yes © No
❑ Yes Q No
►1A
❑ Yes [0 No
❑ Yes j2No
❑ Yes ® No
54 Yes wo
Structure 6
a.rL4L
.3C "
l /b/99 Continued an back

Facility Number: `1 — 0t [lute 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 environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need tit aintenancelimprovetnetit'!
8. Does any past of the waste management system. other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do anv stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required top of dike, maximum and minimum
liquid level elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/impro,,•cincnt'
11. Is there evidence of%over
., application? ❑ Ponding ❑ Nitrogen
12. Crop type ..........i rt" �'`.................... ....................
13. Do the receivin- crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. Does the facility lack wettable acreage for land application'? (footprint)
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? t',�3ee.Qdt'.T
18. Does the facility Fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement'? (iel irrigation, freeboard. �andsoil 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 certified operator in responsible charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
Oc/ discharge, freeboard prohletns, over application}
23. Did Reviewerlinspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
... . .. Cations _or. deficieri�ies .w:ere nnled [/tiring tli..v.. . You . . . . e.nr.
..... sp .... ce....tt. tt>tis v.
...................................
❑ Yes -WLNo
❑ Yes 5}No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes [gNo
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes EgNu
❑ Yes 9 No
❑ Yes J9 No
❑ Yes (F-No
❑ Yes JZ No
❑ Yes j3-No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes BNo
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes allo
❑ Yes Wo
❑ Yes j& No
❑ Yes E3 No
❑ Yes ffNo
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):.
7A r qIZ#q- II�d1►E'r e n +,�t�a(i �¢ : v� n 44 �1 r
)��
f 1iLt.d? •� .G«j��.►. rr.� •a.�t?,•- �-o— ert.�� } s.c�-t�
Reviewer/lospector Name , � �rj `Z _ q L G _ b It 0 3 a�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: _ 11/6/99

Routine 0 C ompiamt 0 rouow-up of uw4 111spect3011 0 reiiow-up of uawL review 0 uiner
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 13:30 24 hr. (hh:mm)
p Registered ■ Certified ■ Applied for Permit p Permitted JZ3 Not 0perationa (late Last Operated:
Farm Name: .................................. County: Beaufort WARD
OwnerName: Leaman .................................. Allen............................................................ Phone No: 919-93S:.S3.44..........................................................
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone No:
Mailing Address: 37II3.NL.99.H►:y.Nrarft....................................••---.......................... Patilega..NC ........................................................... Z7869 ..............
OnsiteRepresentative: BTry n.Davis.-•............................................................................. Integrator: ..................... ........................................................... .... -
Certified Operator.-Hryan.K................................ Davis .................................................. Operator Certification Number: 18839 ............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude
SwineT. %wM: Capatilty_;Paputati
Longitude ®0 ©° ®'6
[2:s=.. ues�gu,::�urreni_
=Poult -- Ca aci =Po ulation Cattle —''•':Ca aet ~Po uiation'. --:
Ej We -an to Feeder
p Feeder to airs
-
® arrow to Wean
p Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finis
a
p Gilts
p Boars
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? p Yes ® No
2, Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
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
p Yes N No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes
p No
p Yes
N No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
N No
Continued on buck

8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
n Yes
® No
Structures (i agoons,Holding Ponds, Flush Pits etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
n Yes
R No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: • .1•-4.>�Stif .#X1.�1 ......•...•..l?]C14[Yl ................. lrggAda ....... ....................................
Freeboard(ft): •---...-----.1.25............................1 7.5..............................a...........................
10, Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
n Yes
N No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
n Yes
® No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
n 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?
n Yes
® No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
n Yes
® No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .......Com.(S.ilage.&..Cimint........ S=I1.CixairL4Wh=t,.Barley„.................... Smykieans...............................................................................
il
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated m the Anrm)al Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? n Yes ® No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18- Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
Far Certified or Permitted Facilities Dnl
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?
• o o teps•or e�c>ot4CteS-were •n� a;qrig s visit. bu w teuive a it er -. .
.. corres�ionderice a6vu# Ni1S:Visit: • : ....:...:.:.:::.: . : .:.:.:. : ..:.:.:.:.:.:.
n Yes ® No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
1] Yes ®No
n Yes ®No
n Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
n Yes ❑ No
Comments (refer.•to'question #)2Explain any,YES'answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments:- _ 1 ; ' -
a. .., r.. ra-=a•�3:„'..S •"'h�.;"�'... — —'^'..��L -�� .�.:, ..aE}�'�x'_. t _ �„F ��. i - xW -
e' - i._ _�.-'�
Ilse°drawings;of factltty to better-egplain:sttuatrons;�(use:additionsl�pagesas=Aecessary):_�.�:���.-�N=-: =-a==� _„,�::::_
-e ,.,.-. W. _..... �:�.. �,. �-- �:�:� � ems:_
Need a better, marker that can' he read'durmg high water: periods. - ..
J• :Y?°i.;v.€r it' 'Fir . �k ...
rS4 3.T:�.,�( yam- _:�. = ...ia3K •. 53 - aJ _ "'3:.' w:.`•.n w'::t .:
�
•.n+.., r-h. vP-.. �~ r�35• {`sxaZi'R...-."a.r .Y ,.N;+�':: `::�. �:i ,v..•Tx e+i�•r
_
� c s
L. :.i".. ^''� • Y: f]... �.5. '_:�y..i C - - .':� Las n
i
r�^_,� 'r "•s:�. fie" icy.'.". Kvr ��-'.
�; _.>"e'�f":�. •-,.
fit, :':r�:•r r..v
W _ `
T
. ...::..�,......�.. ............. w.. ..: ....
c rNm D evtew r1lns a to Name Carl u�nn �-� -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

C rJ'
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 24, 1998
Leamon H. Allen Jr.
L.H. Allen & Son Inc Sow Farm
3703 NC 99 Hwy North
Pantego NC 27$54
AT.K;VA
N C D E N R
i
WASHINGTOY REGIONAL GFIFiLE
G'h0
Subject: Additional information Request
L.H. Allen & Son Inc Sow Farm
Facility Number 07-W61
Animal Waste Operation
Beaufort County
Dear Leaman H. Allen Jr.:
The Non -Discharge Permitting Unit has completed a preliminary review of the subject permit
application. Additional information is required before we can continue our review. The following
components were missing from your Certified Animal Waste Management Plan:
1) Lagoon/Storage Pond Design Requirements (actual design calculations or as -built
calculations)
2) Operation and Maintenance Plan
3) The Waste Utilization Plan (WUP) lists soybeans, corn and wheat in a two-year rotation as
available craps for waste application. Residual nitrogen left over from the soybean crop in
the two-year rotation must be accounted for. Nitrogen application rates to the following
corn crop are required to be reduced by 15-30 lb. (dependent on soil type) to account for the
residual nitrogen left by the preceding soybean crop. Please revise your WUP to properly
list all application rates with residual nitrogen incorporated into your cropping scheme.
4) The irrigation parameters listed in your WUP exceed current NRCS recommendations.
Irrigation events are to be listed in the WUP as the maximum application allowable for that
soil type from the time the pumps are turned on until the time they are shut off. The
application events listed in your WUP appear to be out of the Sprinkler Irrigation Guide.
The Application Amounts listed in this guide have not been adjusted for the application of
animal waste. NRCS currently recommends that total application amounts not exceed one
inch in any application event for any soil type. If your application rates need to be adjusted
for the application of animal waste, please have your Technical Specialist revise your WUP
to reflect the appropriate application amount per event. If the rates exceed the
recommended one -inch, please have your Technical Specialist justify the increased
application rate in the narrative of your WUP.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled! 10% post-censumer paper

Facility No. 07-0061
Learnon H. Allen Jr.
Page 2
5) The WUP indicates the nitrogen produced from the facility will be Iand applied in the form
as slurry as well as irrigated_ The nitrogen available will vary depending on the form of
application. Please provide a detailed calculation sheet that indicates how the nimogen
production rate in your WLtP R-as produced and how much waste will be land agWlied as
slurry and how much will be i�-am%L
All revisions 1 amendments are requz ed to be siened and dated by bo& the landoRna and the
Technical Specialist before they are submitted for review. Please riefemnm the subkxl permit
application number when providing the requested information. All information shaald be siowdd and
submitted in duplicate to my attention at the address below. The informaton re� by this km=
must be submitted on or before July 24,199$. or the Division will re,un yo¢r anpiic�iaxt bK%xwlem
in accordance with 15A N.C.A.C. 2H .0200 and ►-our faciliry will be m be cccatine wig a
permit. _
Please be advised that operation of the suhierz animal waste mmia-p=c= s-.,szm u idiom a ►mod
permit is a violation of North Carolina Cremit-a Statute 143-215.I and wU, saLie;z ym m tbe ar6r`=n=r
authority of the Environmental Managemenr Com®ission-
If you have any questions regarding tiis vezu . please call nr x 3- -Z-6'1 e� --: 5=--
Sinceteh,
KarhaZiDt
5-Oil
ti on-Dis,-.:-ir-- =t nir
cc: Washington Regional Office, Water Qmdr
Permit File

Facility Number
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Registered 0 Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted in Not 0perationa Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: L.H..Allen.&.Son 1nc,Snst.F.arm►.......................................................... County: Beaufort WARD
OwnerName: Lea man .... ............................ ARM ............................................................ Phone No: 9.19.93S-.5301.................... ......................................
Facility Contact: Lea.Allen..........................................................Title: omaer .................................................. Phone No: 252L9.355-53,0.4........................
MailingAddress: ...........................•---......•-•-- ........................ Pankgax..XcC.---•-................................................... 2.256a...............
OnsiteRepresentative: Bryan.Daxis................................................................................ Integrator:.......................................................................................
..... D.aris.................................................. O erator Certification Number: IRS3.9..................... Certified operator: Bryan.K.........................p ........
Location of Farm:
Latitude ©4 ®° ©" Longitude ®■ ©®u
1_nnnrwi
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p 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. 1 f discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
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
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes
❑ N❑
p Yes
®No
p Yes
®No
p Yes
®No
p Yes
®No
Yes
®No
Continued on back

8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
p Yes
® No
Structures (Lagpons,Hvlding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
N Yes
p No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure
6
Identifier: :# RikGy)....... .......�2.(.4Oj].dS1....... ....... l..(�Qji4b).-.--- in) .... ... O.(n1Ywn.ftu)...
........ �..O.Nilztl.)........
Freeboard(tf):............... 1.R............... .............. a Bpi............................1..0.............................15.....-----.----. ............. 1.3.3..............
............... 15...............
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
N No
11. is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
p Yes
® No
12, Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
M Yes
p 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?
N Yes
p No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
p Yes
N No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ........................ Cam ............................................ sod bimus............................---•----.......]heat.---••-......---............. ........
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/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?
- o-�- o • ,eps-Or - e bietWiesvelre •tide - d qg t s W s. - bb w-rejetiVe d6 rt- er . .
airresptindelace a�riut Ni18 Visit:. ... ..... ..
u1Ra rE
p Yes ® No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
® Yes p No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ® No
p Yes M No
p Yes [3 No
Reviewer/Inspector Name Pat.Hooper• 5�....-.�;-. -- _ - �� �- _ -- - - _ _ . - ;;;.�-�
Rcviewerflnspector Signature: Date:

AddMonal Commentsand/or.Drawings:
13. �L6`= last stage�lagoon•egtimatea-t-18jiriches. Mr. Dais felemarker was submerged:around'1.5 feet - need;to replace with a-
s �
eada6le;.gauged'th&ker. ILl need marker.
0.-- Will'revisit no sooner. tham34'days from' 3/19198 to recheck,lagoon levels.'

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Washington Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November 25, 1997
Mr. Lea Allen
3703 Hwy 99 N
Pantego, NC 27860
Subject: Annual Compliance Inspection
Facility Number 7-61 & 7-65
Beaufort County
Dear Mr. Allen:
QLAM�'
VA
On September 3, 1997, Carl Dunn from the Washington Regional Office of the Division of
Water Quality conducted an inspection of your intensive livestock operation. This inspection is one of
two annual inspections as required by Senate Bill 1217. The Division of Soil and Water Conservation
will also conduct an inspection of your intensive livestock operation during the 1997 calender year.
The following comments are, in regard to the inspection of facility 7-6 1.
The freeboard was observed to be approximately 4, 2, 2, 2, 1.5, and 4 feet for your lagoons.
You are advised that you must maintain a freeboard of at least one foot in each lagoon plus a
storage volume sufficient to accomodate the rainfall and any subsequent runoff from a 25 year
24 hour storm event to remain in compliance.
* A transfer pipe between the two large lagoons has raised up due to its ability to float on top of
the waste. Please secure this pipe.
The following comments are in regard to the inspection of facility 7-65.
* The freeboard was observed to be approximately 1, 1, 2, and 5 feet for your lagoons. You are
advised that you must maintain a freeboard of at least one foot in each lagoon plus a storage
volume sufficient to accomodate the rainfall and any subsequent runoff from a 25 year 24 hour
storm event to remain in compliance.
The freeboard in the first two lagoons may be inadequate due to the depth of the transfer pipes.
You should check with your technical specialist on the location of this pipes.
943 Washington Square Hall. Washington, North Carolina 27889 Telephone [phone]Bi FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Fac. No. 7-61 & 7-65
Allen
Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation in this inspection. If you have any questions in regard to this
letter I can be contacted at [phone] ext. 208.
Sincerely,
Carl Dunn
Environmental Engineer
cc: -,W�G Files
DSWC - WaRO
Beaufort County MRCS
Compliance/Enforcement Group
Central Files
943 Washington Square Hall, Washington, Worth Carolina 27889 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

i. ..... ................... ..................... .... . .... ... .. ...........
❑ DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review
ODWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
d Routine ❑ Com laint ❑ Follow-up of DNVQ ins c-ction ❑ Foil ow- top cif DSWC review ❑ Dther
Date of inspection
Facility Number Ll Time of Inspection �24 hr. (hh:mm)
e Registered © Certified © Applied for Permit © Permitted 10 Not Operational
Date Last Operated:
ame:L� Al" -0 SO`5�rr ,,, Countr:......6c"� �
Farm\........................................................................—-....................................... ............... ...................
OwnerName :..... .........'�A 1rC�L........,..!.......................................
Facility Contact: ...........$ y,",^............... ....­11 Title
Mailing Address:....... 33..70..3............. ��....7-7 4 P,}A�O, 0
'.................................................. ..
Ir` n,� fl•,n•s
C}ttsite Represent:ttn�c:............. �-...............-................. - •...... .......................................
Certified Operator... ...... +5
Location of Farm:
Phone No: ........ .............�.
515 ... ..o.... %,e.
.....................
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number, ......................
Latitude • 0` 'k Longitude ' .4
Swine - Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean 35J o
❑ Farrow to feeder,
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑esign Current Design Current.
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population.
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I I 1E] Non -Dairy
❑ other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons 1 Holding Ponds © ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
10 •
No Liquid Waste Management System
Genera!
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation''
DischarL,e on tinated au ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made`.'
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Wa(er'? 01' yeti. notify. I7WQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated floe.• in ,ailntin'
tl. Does discharge bypass a lagoon cy;tcm? ([t des, notify I71L`Q)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'?
4- Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
b. 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 IN(No
❑ Yes > K No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes N.No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes JKNo
Continued on back

Facility Number: '7 —
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons,liolding Ponds, Flush Pits, et j
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: 1,146a 4-
Si — on y
...............................................................'--.......
FreeboardZlt): ...........................................2..................
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 adequatC minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ............CDrr• % 444 l� 4^
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)'?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Pennitted 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 violations or deficiencies. were noted during this visit.' .You will receive no further
corr6pofidence about this -visit: -
❑ Yes XNo
Cl Yes 10 No
Structure 4 Structure. 5 Structure 6
1, 5 L'
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes 14 No
%Yes ❑ No
,X Yes ❑ Na
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Cl Yes $No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ' No
Cl Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes JKNo
❑ Yes kNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
omments (refer to uestion x to an answers and/or an recommen attons.or any.o er comments.
q p' y.... Y.....
Ose. drawings of t'acility to better explain. situ"h ns. (use additional pages as. necessary):
4c -r SZ,•yr ~n 7167�,7 i+
.,X g1a�k p�p� �l' +s rMs + .�• Ile �� +. !� �
!3, peA +n >e m M•-61'-
7/25197
Reviewer/Inspector Name vv n.:4 ..
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �CCt�� Date: 7-3 -97

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Washington Regional Office
,tames B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Mr. Leaman Allen
L. H. Allen & Son Inc.
Route 1 Box 14
Pantego, North Carolina 27860
A4
L7�.H1�.1F�
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
June 18, 1997
NG ONO
WASHFr1rE
JUN 19 1997
SUBJECT: Operation Review Summary and Corrective Action Recommendations
L. H. Allen & Son Inc. - Sow Farm Facility No. 47-61
L. H. Allen & Son Inc. - Finishing Facility No. 07-65
Beaufort County
Dear Mr. Alien:
tL L M.
On May 23`a, Operation Reviews were conducted at the L. H. Allen & Son swine operations in Beaufort
County. These Reviews, undertaken m accordance with G.S. 143-215,1OD, is one of two visits scheduled
for all registered livestock operations during the 1997 calendar year. The Division of Water Quality will
conduct a second site inspection.
During the Reviews, it was determined that waste was not being discharged to waters of the State, and the
animal waste collection, treatment, storage and disposal systems for both farms were maintained and
operated under the responsible charge of a certified operator. A copy of the completed review forms are
enclosed for your information. The following observances, questions, and management deficiencies were
discovered and noted for corrective action or response:
Both Farms
• Contact your technical specialist to locate any perennial streams which may be on the farm. Follow
applicable setback requirements as needed.
• Proper markers will have to be installed in the lagoons prior to certification.
• Though not required at the time of the review, the farm will need to complete an odor, insect, and
mortality checklist in preparation for obtaining a general permit. Your Technical Specialist can assist
you in completing these checklists.
• Once the facilities obtain a certified plan, the following items should be maintained on site: completed
certification form; Waste Utilization Plan (WUP), Operation and Maintenance (O&M) PIan for the
waste management system; site schematic; any design survey materials which were prepared prior to
construction; Site Evaluation (Form NRCS NC -CPA -I 7) and Hazard Classification (if applicable);
measurements and calculated volumes for the waste structures.
• Ensure the acreage documented on the land application field maps and the Waste Utilization Plan
(WUP) is for wettable or usable acres as opposed to total acres.
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Mr. Leaman Allen
June 18, 1997
Page 2
As discussed during the visit, materials listed in the fourth and fifth items above can be obtained through
your Technical Specialist and/or the local Soil & Water District Office.
Sow Farm 07-61
• Several swine houses were under renovation or being replaced at the time of review.
• Tanker trucks are available as an alternative should the pump fail between lagoon 41 and lagoon 93.
• Dike walls around the recharge pond are presently being reshaped and stabilized.
• Filter cloth and rock have been installed along portions of the lagoon 93 dike wall to prevent erosion
from wave action. These areas should be monitored periodically to ensure that the rock has stabilized -
check for undercutting or washouts.
• Soybeans need to be added to the WUP prior to certification.
Finishing Farm U7-65
• Slight erosion was observed along the inner dike wall at lagoon 93. Should situation become worse,
contact your Technical Specialist for repair recommendations.
During ensuing reviews, any deficiencies noted above will be re-examined to determine if corrective actions
were implemented.
As discussed above, all registered livestock operations are required to obtain and implement an approved
animal waste management plan by the end of this year. The plan must be certified by either a designated
technical specialist or a professional engineer. For additional assistance with the plan, please contact your
local Soil and Water Conservation District Office, the local Cooperative Extension Service Office, or a
regional agronomist with the North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
The Division of Soil and Water Conservation appreciates your cooperation with this Operation Review.
Please do not hesitate to call me or Pat Hooper at [phone] if you have any questions, concerns, or
need additional information.
Sincerely,
Scott Jones
Environmental Specialist II
cc: Beaufort Soil and Water Conservation District
Division of Water Quality WARD
DSWC WARD files i

DSWC AnimalFeedlot pera Ion Review
�w
-DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site .........:..
10
w..
Routine Complaint p o ow -tip o inspection p Follow-uFof 05wc review p Other
Date of Inspection
I i I Facility Number
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Farm Status: m Registered p Applied for Permit
p Certified p Permitted
p Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: L.H. Allen & Son Inc - Finishing
County: Bxaufo rt.............................................WARO...--.-
Owner Name: Leaman ............................... _ Men ....................... ............. ...................... Phone No: 935-530..4...........-- .
FacilityContact:...............................................................................Title:..........-.....................--........................--... Phone No: .....-.-..... .__ ......... -... -...... __....
Mailing Address: RU.Brxac-.t.4............................................................ ........................:. Pan.tego_xc......................... ............ I ............ -....... I z736ja..............
Onsite Representative: ........................ Integrator: Indepeadal........ -...........
Certified Operator- BWan_& ............................... Dayk_...--.......................................... Operator Certification Number:1,8i3i.39....... -....... --.-
Location of Farm:
px....:?:.'�:..:..:..: !>x!......:ta. n tan rt. :...:g!:......:........... tu. axpa.,un e
:.... ................... - ............................-............ .-...�
Latitude ©■ ®� ®" Longitude ■ ®° ®"
pe of Operation Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
er
3500
trtts
i�cac
Fee
can
ee er
Finis
p Other
p aver airy
Non -Layer JE3 Non -Dairy
= Total Design Capacity 157
Total SSLW 1,725,000
Number of.Lagoons 1 Holding Pouds to Subsurface Drains Present p agvnn rea pray ie rea
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? CI Yes ® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes H No
Discharge originated at: r3 Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes N No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) Yes ® No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? Not Applicable
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) EI Yes ® No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p Yes ® No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoonslholding ponds) require ❑ Yes N No
4130197 m a i nten an c el i m provem en t?

act ity Number: 07_fi5
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?
p Yes
® No
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
p Yes
® No
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
p Yes
N No
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
.----.---.1.5.fL............ ...... ....... UIL ............. ............. 1-5.$.............. ..............L4.ft............... ...................................... .....
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
p Yes
N No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
N No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
N 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?
N Yes
p No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
p Yes
® No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ....---Gat nn..(5dage.&.G.rain)....... ................... Spay}jeans............................................... ............ --.....---.......................----.............---.--....................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
N No
IT Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
®No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
p Yes
®No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
p Yes
®No
For Certified Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
p Yes
❑ No
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
p Yes
❑ No
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
io subsurface drains on site according to Mr. Allen. Has dashboard riser in downstream drainage canal/ditch.
Mr. Allen is currently cropping up to the edge of ditches in the spray irrigation fields. Based on the USGS map for this area, at
!ast a portion of these ditches appear as blue lines (perennial streams). Mr. Allen has set his spray irrigation equipment to maintain
t least a twenty-five foot setback from all ditches. However, the cropping pattern fails to allow for',a permanent twenty-five foot
egetaiive buffer as required by 15A NCAC 21-1.0217. This issue is currently under review by the Senate Bill 1217 Interagency
Troup. A determination will be made at a later date.
3. Marker not required due to registered status. Will be installed prior to certification.
5. Wheat is also grown at this farm (crop rotation).
Iight erosion from wave action observed in lagoon #3.
w.:.�:.._.. �.-....::..„
Reviewer/Inspector Fume Pat Hooper &'Scott Jottes'
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: {- ��.s �� Date: Z MAY q-7

X DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review
DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
F'..
-
07 G1
;:... _ . .
Registered Applied for Permit
Certified E Permitted
-_:
...................................................... .................. ......................... WARO....-
_ ... :.,..., 1 eaaoian ............................ Alllen ............................................................
. 5~ 3i 1........................
............................................•........................ _.....---...---...------..........................---...... _........
................................................------. ............................... ............................................... ---........ Z78.60.........----
- L. Al>seu & �� Dal to 1p� tr �emt ........................ .........................
....................... IIaris. ,. 188,39 ......... ......
35 ^ 38 I 15 1 76 3 lU
Type of Operation
Swine
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
M Other
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
- -------- -- ..........------ - - — .._........ ------------------ --- - --
Laver Dairy _
----- ------- --'.... - ------ -- - ------'__ __...------- -
on -Layer 1 EimmNon-Dairy 1 -
1350 1350
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
1,350
584,5
Number of Lagoons 1 Holding Ponds ® ��! Sub�urf.�re Dra9nsµPresent --___L:►gswss'1s_e e 5pi;s� Field as_ - a N
1 " Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Lagoon Spray Field
3. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
Other
Yes ?, No
Yes ?( No
Yes
X No
Yes
)( No
Not Annlicable
Yes X No
Yes X No
4. Were there anti- adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? Yes X No

5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holdiug ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
4/30/97
[Facility Number: 07-61 1
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 M' responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed9
yT ruC­j reti f I d""-1 r a Pon el f, 1
9, Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Yes
'K No
Continued on back
XYes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
............. ........... ........... .......... ........... ............. ...........
............
10, Is seepage observed from any of the structures? Yes
No
11. Is crosio& or auv other threats to the integriq, of any of the structures observed? Yes
No
12. Do anv of the structures need mam(enancelimprovement? 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 anv of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markets? >( Yes
No
14. Is them physical evidence of over application? yes
K No
(If in excess of WNW, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ..... _.Corn,(.SjJ;1gg.&.CTJAW ....... .. sma.urAiakm r'aLJ3'UJq ...................... ...... ......... ................................... . ........
.............
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
X No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement'-? Yes
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 reviewlinspection with on -site representative? Yes
No
OnJ.
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? Yes
NO
23, Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWNT? Yes
No
24. Does record keeping need improvement? Yes
)(No
Comments (refer to question #)- Explain any YES answers and/or anyrecommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
No subsurface drains are present at this site according to Mr, Allen. A dram routes stormwater from the grain silos to Indian Run
Swamp adjacent to swine operation. Pipe is routed between recharge pond and the gestation solids trap. NF# I house has starmwater
routed to Indian Run via concrete gutter which is adjacent to lagoon #1. Tanker trucks are available as backup if pump fads between
lagoon # I and #3 - Mr. Allen is currently rebuilding and/or replacing several swine houses.
6. Mr. Alien is currently cropping up to the edge of ditches in the spray irrigation fields. Based on the USGS map for this area, at
least a
portion of these ditches appear as blue lines (perennial streams). Mr. Allen has set his spray irrigation equipment to maintain at least
a
twenty-five foot setback from all ditches- However. the cropping pattern fails to allow for a permanent twenty-five foot vegetative buffer
as required by 15A NCAC 2H.02 17. This issue is currently under review by the Senate Bill 1217 Interagency Group, A determination
will be made at a later date.

ReNiewerllnspector Name Scott Jones Pat Hooper
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �ca-� 1 �..�, Date: x 3 MA l q- }
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Ouality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97
Facility Number: 07-61
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
:...........- �- ---..........._.......-_-...------...._._....__�-....-- .......--....-._........ _.
.12- Currenth resbapin¢ and stabilizing dike around the recharge pond- Filter cloth and rack have been used in Iaevon #3 to prevent
further erosion from wave action.
13. Markers not required based on farms status -Registered. Markers will be installed prior to certification.
416. Soybeans need to be added to Waste Utilization Plan prior to certification

r- , 1
Site Requires immediate Attention*
Facility No.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
Date: (]�( - Q'( , 1995
Time: 3 = S Pfln
Farm Nam
Mailing
County:
Integrat__ _
On Site Representative:
Physic 1 Address/Location:
f .. _h.._ - _ . A-t- to
Type of Oper i'an: Swine G Poultry Wattle
Design Capacity: No. of Animals on Site: ( r)OLSna>)
DEM Certification No.: ACE DEM Certification No.: A W Gic-Oa
Latitude: Longitude: Elevation: Ft
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient eboard of 1 Ft + 25 year 24 hour
storm event? (approximately I Ft f 7 in) Yes or No
Actual Freeboard: L� Ft p riches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes o No
Was any erosion observed? ices or C)
Is adequate land available for spray? Yes or No
Is the cover crop adequate? Yes or No
Crops) being utilized:
Does the facility meet SCnimum setback criteria?
200 Ft from Dwellings? Yes or No 100 Ft from Wells? Yes or No
Is the al waste stockpiled within 100 Ft of USGS Blue Line Stream?
Yes or o0
Is animal waste d applied or spray irrigated within 25 Ft of a USGS Map Blue
o Fine? Yes or 7
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state an -made ditch, flushing
system, or other Eimilar man-made devices? Yes o Hv
If Yes, please explain:
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manur
land anclied, spray irrigated on specific ith cover crop)? Yes or No
4AVAt so'eq �dU�
Ine_ ector Name Si _ _ e
cc: Facility Assessment Unit
Comments S Sketch on Back of Sheet

DEM
SITE VISITATION RECORD
Page Two
Comments:
Sketch:
t
� 3
LC G Y1
3-W
L.Ci Qa G Vl

QPERRTIM 13WM - WO Fax.-919-715-6048 Jul 25 '95 11:38
- s�r6qulrea��amrrioa
StTt: V1SfTAT l7N RECORD
Dot INS
Cmw, 46N Farm Alamo:
cwn�:
Alert vl 09 Sitar I
OPMW.
On Slta Repress I i
Physical Address:
Address:
Pi= 4(.
MR&
IaINwe
Typo of operafion: .. s,� a PoUIky _ Came
DeQn Cvacity►; 5t Nuaitw of An macs on SN.,
Latitude: ..-. l.angiwcie: _ ° Ll
Type of lnsp%*n: _ZGcwnC1, AdrW
Circle Yes or No
Dots the Animal Waste lagoon hm autfident rmoboard of 1 Flat + 2S yaar 24 hour sbrm went
(aPPr'oxi mtcly 1 Foot -� 7 fsrlhwj es or NO
ktuai Freeboard: Feet _ inches
0-7 - (1
v�
Forfacir&swith more ingn arcs Wom, please address to odwi worts' freeboard under the
commxxrfs seclorr.
Was any xepaw observed from tha lagoon(s)? • Yes or a
Was there ems w of to dam? Yes or
lg adequate W d swede for Lund application? UD or o
Is the raver crop adeq ? t9 or No
AMtianal Comm lda: �0j�g Lr-rvN -
Signature of
Fax to [phone]
5