240103_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental W4

���� r- -•� gx. W .,: � � �VISIIDn ofVyster QuaLty �• _:`� :y :? ��' °: -� '°a
x
� � � ,� Q Dryrsion of Soft and -Water Conservation � � ��
»�-+- -�" e��n � 'A- �R.....•.--; � Q4�lerA�enC,.� �.- `" ....xa:r'�..�..��a a -- ,..�' ,5-.." � �,'� tea"':
Type of Visit )6 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification f(Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Wte of Visit: 7 Time: ; 0
Not O erational Q Selow Threshold
Permitted [3 Ced © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Opera or Above Threshold: ___.... .
Farm Name: �
.'.I.1._........ - - -- - ......... ._ . --�— - County: ..�21 4...._..... _� ...._ .....
Owner Name: .................................... ...
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: .....
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:......
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
-1� .. ... ...._ .. Phone No:
Ititegrator: _� » »................
_ ... _
Operator Certification Number: ............ ........... ...... . ........
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �* �� ��� Longitude • 4
Desegn Current rz DeslgO Cur[en# ; »'` Design Current
Poation. lCtry_cPoelation_ Cuattier acaPo'tilation
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑Layer . ❑ Daisy ^
El Feeder to Finish ❑Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean 060 00 `
r a
Farrow to Feeder 0 Other i = t ,K F
Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
GUts
Boars
z Number of Lagoons e s
. .., ..._-. _ .,� „-` •` .-,-.�. �L'c,.,., _ Bcs -.._.. ...«.... .-«.>.,.._ -vim».:'-.. r'��;
Discbarees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes iff 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? ElYes 2rNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes )2No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes 040
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifiier: - - — ... ..... .......................... ,_.................... ------------------------ --- ....._.... ............. ........... .................................
Freeboard (inches):
12112103 Continued

FaciliV, Number — 0 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ONo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes XNo
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 jo 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 AnnHcation
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes )6 No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Ye0
❑ Excessive P00%nding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ F zen Groun ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type L1 (t(/ , Z
13. Do the receiving crops differ with tho a designated in the Certt ed Animal ante Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes VNo
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 7 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 attor below []Yes ;dNo
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ,ZNO
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 XNa
Air Quality representative immediately_
rCanirttents (r"�ei'er question:#} �.E�ipNam�any YE$ answeis �xulfar ate}; aho�ns ar any r►tiier, comeients. �� :.�, ��' � "�
Use diavneg�;of fatty to better eacplaan stbp�atians (use stddttional�paiges as'nec�ssary} �-.:Meld Copy ❑Final Notes � "`
�
r,'� vI�T=i�►�fEL�PAI7,C L
AIP F0-C,o
jots f'
ReviewerAns ector Name E7 ='' 4 '
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12112103 Continued

. Facility Number: — O Date of Inspection(
Required Records & Document.~
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes eNo
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 XNo
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes )2rNo
❑ 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 JdNo
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes XNo
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes XNo
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes ONo
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes J No
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes / No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
XYes ❑ 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 VrNo
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes gNo
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 )0 No
Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After I" 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.
_ x; m
ddrUoeal Comments andlor'Drawtngs �;z.� �� ri
f� W64vv-) f �
f
12lq
35 � 34) 66 6WE %
4eVROS,
a,�r)�S 1!EF�,p &��ref
: �4y1 N�� ,4R 5 to /5"s 415�7 A'C"Iqe.
12/12103 (��y� �n�� ��- C�� ��r �,Q�r9-,n. JUp�,✓� �SY��.�m�

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Ct Routine O Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit:
Permitted © Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered
Farm Name: ,UR>7t�J/J S /yAAMf�AM- &m__ 36 "
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Time:
Date Last Opera2V64'1.t)64,5
Above Threshold:
County:
Phone No:
Facility Contact: Title: MPhone No: p
Onsite Representatiive: , Ll�7�l DGLZV.5 , 4 4A)' Integrator: !/1l1�0 `i ~ �OG20[di✓
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number:
Mwine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0' 06 " Longitude 0' 4 OK
Design Current
Swine Ca aci Po ulatioi
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
0
Qo
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons
HoldingTonds I Solid Traps
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dai
❑ Non -La er ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
No Liquid Waste
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
Total SSLW
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon'system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
identifier:
Freeboard (inches): / Z
05103101
❑ Yes ;No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ Yes
❑ No
Yes ❑ No
S ructure 6
Continued

Facility Number: Z 03 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes XNo
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
& Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydpaulic Overloa, ❑ Yes ❑ No
12. Crop hype URjed. t` V 0AA v , [Ah4OAT Irfscue rc10-9474C
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
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16.
is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required
Regis &_Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
ONO
23,
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
XNo
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
'-�.-..:� Y dYr Y 'f.� •. '�}- �!�'+.=. � '•�S �k` _ eli '� i 4 -a�" { ��•. '-igY' },i 'e'+.t .r,— i` k;
,Comments {refer to .queStlon, #) Expn any YES answers and/or. any recommendattonsfor�any�other comments. r � �-�
U`se dra gs to better
of°facility ea�lam stteratroas: {useadd�tional'_pages^as necessary) " x ❑Field Copy ❑Final Notes
DT,4' s�T r�DuCTF�O comrese 9!5�c �_2 r1Fyp
dohw &"F6 CQ.�e�,e� .,c� Gf+G..00n> G1'v�. U°,E 147 r
%l
r i4a a. � �4 �o� ©� ,E PO s
actor Name - , ` Reviewer/Ins
p ff D.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Z
05103101 Continued
7�

Facility Number: Z #3 Date of Inspection / O
dor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor 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 permanenUtemporary cover?
❑ Yes
❑ No
,,Additional,,AdditioMil CZomments an or g*tivin s- A .
Ak
lb„ AN4 /7//}W-/- � �� /v ��- //IMP a�rt,ES �-,/ 1PCI!$(
M AllL ikli►!� , v�liv
40
G,
1071E 11 � 7T,
d9z
AV
'¢
70
�p��p C� �sp� E,�r �I.�o ��.✓Kf es D� Sz�F G/�� � Sy�T�m��✓�
�"' 19K9 0 �
elf
SoztU& z V - gT,ERTVU
OLG! f i/0�{ �fIV Q �li/��r� 7� ��8��Dr 4 F � A- C�5"DA S,
6w— V �i� 'Va—rz-- q t

IType of Visit )9) Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit:
Permitted 0 Certified [3 Conditionally Cqq3ertified [3 Registered
Farm Name: 1 om,
Owner Name: _—A
����
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Date Last Operate'pr Above Threshold: _
County: Gu S
Phone No:
Pone No:
Integrator 4O i' — S609441W
Operator Certification Number:
swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude a 6 " Longitude 0a 04
Design Current
awl"e tapacity ro ulauon
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean I 4oWWI I
U Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer IEJ Dairy
jI
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non-Dairyi
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons / j 1L Subsurface Drains Present JJLJ Lagoon Area !Lj Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps �'', ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Laizoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste C—ollectign & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: nn
Freeboard (inches): r4
05103101
❑ Yes PfNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
W(No
❑ Yes
❑ No
WYes ❑ No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: O Date of InspectionI
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
❑ 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 (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
B.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no farther correspondence about this visit.
s of fac€litya"to better ezpI" srtuatrons (use additional pages as oeces ry) �
s Field Coav ❑ Final Notes
_, ._.: K ❑
/11V T (Qr:(OtrG f %p
/�f�F�',C'�i4R0 L.�dF-ems. ��G-aa,� ��✓� /"� /2 �.vc��s �'% %-�rr�
�! �NC�S %�-; ' ®NF �fin,E f� '�'4�'� ��r1 �l/iYl C'��z✓� �N �-+,r�
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
O5103101 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
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?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
additional :Comments' a nd/or. Drawings:
AL
-/^AV' �F lh�F
L/�lrl�'JN liVikLLr
Avo 4-
AV
4iF I't �POR� /�T/�j�jy�,, .� F lOf,� </H Uf� �i✓ L�c�ESl�d�l
F'V'rl� e 40'7�erx)'510Ji "--'
�v
05103101
Fr o 'D1J(Q 6J

Type of Visit JOCompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification
Facitity Number Date of Visit•.
0 Permitted 13Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered
Farm Name:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Lother ❑ Denied Access
Time:
Date Last Operated Above Threshold: _
County:
Phone No:
Facility Contact: Tittle::, ) hone No:
Onsite Representative: �d P 9OW Integrator: A�4w
g4` — i
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number:
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude fJ 0 0 & « Longitude 0• ' 0
Design Current
awine capacity ro utatron
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Ll Farrow to Feeder I
❑ Farrow to Finish
Boars
Design Current DesignCurrent
Poultry Capacitv Population Cattle Ca aci Population
❑ Layer I I FO[Dai
❑ Non -La er Non -Da'
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
I
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds 1 SoGd Traps
Total SSLW
Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area
No Liauid Waste Man
Discharges & Stream Impacts
f. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
WaLe Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
J Spray Field Area
r:-7- -
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes oxze
PrYes ❑ No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection ! r
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?
El Yes
El No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
❑ No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
ONO
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
ONO
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
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer�to:queshon°#� Ezplarn"�anyYES�answers andlo any recommendations -or any ;outer: cotstm' entsil : �.x 4 � � s�- }
Use,drawrngs facrl%tyto betterezplatn sit attons�(use
of addrhonal�pages=.as necessary) _ � ❑Field Copv ❑Final Notes , .-•
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: /
05103101 Contdnued

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification .0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Time:
Facility Number
Nat O erational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted O Certified D Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: County:
Owner Name: �� ' ��Ro _ Phone No:
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: Trt 4 rhone No:
Onsite Representative:gL'r uR�Int grator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 ° " Longitude 0 4 Du
Design Current
aw�ne capacity ro ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
IM Farrow to Wean QT1
Farrow to Feeder
Gilts
Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I ❑ Non-Dai
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons p �� J�..� Li�ruid Waste Manace Drains eement S stem Lagoon Area. JLI Spray Field Area
HoldingPonds f Solid Traps
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? 0(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 W(No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): D
05103101 Continued

1
I�
Facility Number: Zq — 10 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.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? El Yes ❑ No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid Ievel
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 ElHydjaulic Overloa� Yes ❑ No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certifie Animal Waste Management Plan (C MP)? ❑ 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
Reaulred Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20,
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22, Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ❑ No
23. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes ;2�No
t- .
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
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
plain;sitiatio�s �('use�addi
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
�N 5P� CYzo n% !-J9NE G'Ap- 5'f VVA1001VO, f lvv Av. 544"_ IfIWA i1-
23w
/0_3
619a-�G�`
�F ..� V, �r �a� � �A-; �,Q pi✓S Eye r�,�7�i✓.
Reviewer/Inspector Name 7"f
,..
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: b
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor 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 _ 7
Zone 2, //,gs�,���o B/� �dr� �y�✓,�,o
ar
aw
�� F �,✓ wo 11
e4 "11OW-5
-N4,r, D
A &- ✓�,n,JT /C �nI�FF N,O �xcEs S� ✓F�
1 [-r�N �P� z/✓1:!L�`2,5
Cofnm,�O�1-���
avr
05103101

zk27
Dtvtston of Water Quality Q=Division of Soil and Water Conservation — mm = _ -
O°Otlter.Xgency $ .
e _e
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 24 103 Date of Visit: 11/9I200t Time: 14:15
O Not O erstional O Below Threshold
® Permitted 0 Certified ® Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: _ __ _. _.._ .. _.
Farm Name: UrQwja.'_s-aMkr.OJ mjFarm.34............................................... County: Cvlujoabm ............................... .'W13Q_..---
Owner Name: - --- - --------------- I�rQwn'�_Qf_CaxQlina.IILC.-- - - - Phone No: 9J.QZ44_aQD - - --------•------- ------
Mailing Address:)P..i..09.x.4&7................................................................... ............. Wairsarr.NC................................. ................... Z$39.s ..............
............ .......
Facility Contact: .......Title : ............................................... Phone No: ......................................
Onsite Representative: RQSriitit. MarkJ�stut,Rusly.�ollin�Integrator:Hrowi !s_af
Certified Operator:MaXjk ...................................... Hunt.................. ...... Operator Certification Number: 25,SAS ............................
Location of harm:
From Whiteville take Hwy 130 South. Right onto Hwy 905 toward Nakina. Take left onto SR 1006. Farm is approx. 1.5 +
riles on left. r
® Swine El Poultry ❑Cattle ❑Horse Latitude 34 • 09 00 K Longitude 78 • 39 00
Design Current -= Design Current - Design Current
Swme
-_
Ci acit ,. Po elation ,;.Poultry -. Capacity Population Cattle Capacity_ Population _.
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
4000
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons. 10 Subsurface Drains Present In Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area 1.•
lialding Ponds 1 Solid Traps � ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ® No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ® No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? n/a
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 I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ............ 1.__.......... ........................... --•--•--•--•-----•---------•--•--•--•--•--•--------............................. .....................
Freeboard (inches): 32
Ar/A� rA1

vJiv31ul t,unrrnueu
Facility Number: 24-103 Date of Inspection 11/9/2001
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 Pending N PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat Fescue/Carpet Grass Graze
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
M 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 M No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes N No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes N 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 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 N No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
N Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question, #) Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any otfier cotriimenus
Use drawings ofrfacility to Better explain situateons (use'sddit�onal pages as necessary) E]FieldCopy ❑Final Note,
15. Need to put time according to soil test recommendations; apply between I to 1.5 ton/acre as called for. This will be done soon says
epresentative. The fescue carpet grass field has a good cover and should be maintained if it will be used for waste application.
11. There appears to have been some overapplication of PAN on the 2001 corn. The overapplication was 9.8 lbs PAN/acre, 6.69 ibs
AN/acre, and 10.2 lbs PAN/acre on application areas of hydrants 14B, 15A, and 19B. This overapplication appears due to using invalid
rite analysis on IRR-2's which led to not showing correct remaining PAN.
19. Be sure to use a waste analysis dated within 60 days of application events on the IRR-2's.
Note: Need to extend pipes into lagoon as planned.
Reviewer/Inspector Name 5topewalVMathi9.-, a Chester; Cobb' Gale Stenberg
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Z 1 d d J

05/03 01 Continued
Facility Number: 24-103 Date of Inspection 11/9/2001
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
Additional_ -omments and orDrawmgs w -
Note: I will coordinate with Mr. Brittto pick up 2001 Fescue, 2002 Fescue, Corn2001, and Soybean 2001 irrigation records, maps,
rite plan, and waste analysis by 11/16/01. .
7. Woody vegetation is currently being removed from lagoon.
Note: The linear system has been installed; this should help improve waste management at the farm.
Note: I see progress being made at this farm, but especially need to be wary in keeping records properly; I am referencing the waste
analysis misuse and resultant overapplication.

Type of Visit compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Gomplaint. O Follow up O Emergency Notification 60ther
--]Facility Number Z O Date of Visit:
Permitted 0 Certified 0 CondiitionaBy Certified © Registered
FarmName: ............s1?....1..............................
Owner Name:..............`.. b n^ .nJE..... r......! .� Oti/-O ] i ✓� G.
......................................................
❑ Denied Access
11 D I Time: ti / 5
10_Not Operational O Below Threshold
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: --------
County:„ ,,,,
PhoneNo: ....... ............... ............ » ...� ..
FacilityContact: ............................................................................ Title:................................................................ Phone No:..................................... ........
MailingAddress: ................ ........ ........................................................................................... .....
OnsiteRepresentative: �'qf�C ���1 �VS� GD+^S Integrator: 13..r �n�...c ...�,• e.hAq
............................ }......................... .... j.................
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' A 44 Longitude 0 A «
Design,: Current Design Current Design - Crreat
CipaciiO Population . Poaltry Ciipacity Po ulatiou Cattle Ca 'ci ...Po �ulaSan._,r
❑ Wean to Feeder 10 Layer PO
Dairy
Feeder to Finish ❑Nou-Layer Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other r
❑ Farrow to Finish To#al"Deli Ga apt
- ty.
❑ Gilts P
Boars Total SSLW -
Numbeir of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 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?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Iden€i 1 ier: ............... ........................................................................................................... ................ . .......................................
Freeboard (inches): 3 1
5/00
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes QNo
❑ Yes EfNo
n rC4
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes JETNo
❑ Yes ;?rNo
❑ Yes 1No
Structure G
Continued on brisk

Facility Number: — t a 3 Date of Inspection 1 d 0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, [] Yes )2*1110
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes ❑'1Cfo
(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.ETNO
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes P.No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ;'ND
Waste Application /
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes Z No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ,PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload Yes ❑ No
12.Crop type Gc-n,Wheej)So�jiacr11s-,.resc-vc/Cot fP&�-Le. <f 6rcme _
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?
RSguired 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?
0-1 iolatio*.or- defcienctes •vt're pote�l d ring t�s:vis�t; Yost with Irec ive Rio u t tgr. :
coriespo denke: aNxui this visit. • • .. - . -
to- qu"6n #) =Explain
❑ Yes ,EJNo
❑ Yes )
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes J;Wo
❑ Yes ZT4o
❑ Yes ,E:rNo
❑ Yes D40
❑ Yes A No
❑'Yes ❑ No
/❑ Yes ,TNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes-13'Na
❑ Yes
❑ Ye
slod�
❑ Yes ,,Oo&o
Use Uri' of fac>b toy _ 1
wings tY better explaw s tust<ons (use add}bonm pages ads ncressary} - rt� -, . "w� _ '�
PS N�eO 4 Ov� j.',.v� ACGD�'� 10 S011 4-CS-1✓�CG�h'ie� y�,`ovll y�� �
6e4vuee^ �o ). 5 ion >I q � �� cg11ed Aer.-Tlh:s t.,1;I be i1onexpi)W
A �ecl►� 40 have beep Sate eVL',rq 0 FAK) ark
4 h e 2.63), So be eln ,s� , Tti : s A� c"f s a u e if e v r;'h ► n vq t o,64 Lo"LS-4e,
z n'lt S is On 4ee--zIS.t., k,'c L` A 4o nv� slloW:► eo rea re•►�tQ,n pA/t�
15c S r6 4D LCse A Lila• -4e AVIAl f is do4cd lv4h;-) dety r
`��7`Pj'"a� i o� evens on 421c �>eZ-Z-'S _
Reviewer/Inspector Name - -O heW q���.1 '__ w.�.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date- 11 /Y/ d J 5100

)Facilityllumber: Z14 Date of Inspection L1[
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 -ErNo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ;;3"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 Gr&o
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? 0 Yes ❑ No
-Additional-omments an or rawtngs•
%V a4 c : Nee— ' o ex4c"A pipes ;v710 tvV1 As p�gY1vi20� •
x 4 e : S w ; l l ca o ro -,q4e L ; 4} Mr- r3r : -4- 1,V,P
Z tsOj r seve, 2002- Fe-Lve) 6,orr, Sao)) 2-001
;r��i�ola;a� r'eGOrds, rn��s� t��s�e plate+}-� w�saG gnct� j�S
b M) Y
l l
7. Woody ve9e4 vt4 i o t., ' S G U � r[✓1V1'� � file �+'19 re r`1DV ed -�ro ►1'! � aer-��G'rl -
1
lUW e `the I ; near sv4cv-% �e cn ;nsJa111ll te; A., dt
1
help ? Ypy
I cen�� the fescue Gaf�e} Wass -'ielA �4j q Oood leave✓'
DtnD[ SLZeLt �O� '✓1�G� 1� i� 1V;%r be VSe[i1 �Or�
Waf�e Aff J; Gq k1-
iti
iu�e sG� �ora9 ress be - 1
UZv�� ;n eep �► r�eord s �rope.ell
n� to & ; s rr'su 4'gn4
y�eAve►21v i ► koj --fie yt'e. s+e A►�q l
dfey''q- r: raW1;oM-
1 a�
a
5/00

I
Type of Visit p 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: VU/52000 Time: 14:30 Printed on: 6/15/2000
L - v Not Operationalp Below Threshold
■ Permitted p Certified 0 Conditionally Certified p Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Ilrow117.s.of.Cax'xtWw.Farm.34................................................................ County: Columbus ......................................... . IRQ........
Owner Name: ................................................... HraWu'1.ot.Cat'.olina.Jzr.................. Phone No: 4Q.10).29&18.00.................. .....................................
Facility Contact: ...............................................................................Title: .. Phone No:
.................................................................................................................
MailingAddress: R.O. Box.48.7............................................................................................Wars&WAC ........................................................... 28398 ..............
Onsite Representative: G-us,.Sim aons..Todd.Ro.we,.Roderkk.Hayes............. Integrator: Bro.wA7s..at.CAraljnajnc..................................
Certified Operator: Raderick.1 ....................... Haym ................................................ Operator Certification Number:2020 ............................
Location of Farm:
® Swine p Poultry p Cattle p Horse Latitude ®• ®' ®" Longitude ®• ®` ®u
Swine
p Wean to Feeder
Feeder to mis
® arrow to Wean
p Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finis
p Gilts
p Boars
Design' . Current _
Capacity Population Poultry
r7 ayer
--'Design Current: _ - - �Desigi Current'-_
Capacity Populatio©-Cattle 'Capacity Population
;.
E3 Ogier r
rtl . Total Design Capacity 4,000
-=TotaLSSU 1,732,000
Number of Lagoons - 13 u sur ace rains resen p agoon rea p pray �e re
.-Holden _
- Ponds its I Solid Traps o iqui as a Management System
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? 0 Yes 0 No
Discharge originated at: 13 Lagoon 13 Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes p No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) E3 Yes 17 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) p Yes p No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p Yes 13 No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? [3 Yes p No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway p Yes 13 No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): .................................... .................................... ................................... ......................................................................

Facility Number: i4_ 103 Date of Inspection ® Printed on: 6/15/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
p Yes
p No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
p Yes
p 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?
p Yes
p No
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
p No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
p Yes
p No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
p No
11. Is there evidence of over application? p Excessive Ponding ® PAN ® Hydraulic Overload
® Yes
t3 No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CA"P)?
p Yes
p No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
p No
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
p No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
p Yes
p No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
p -Yes
p No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
p Yes
p No
18. Dges the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
N Yes
p No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
N Yes
p No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes
p No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
p Yes
p No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
p Yes
p No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
[3 Yes
p No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
(3 Yes
p No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
® Yes
p No
N.o•vl618ti0rS*-Oi(lei&nkiies.we#'B.nnted'dn1-ilag•thi5Visit.'' 'a will�•ereiveno'further.'
•.ckr s 66dehlc ab�airttbis:visit::.....:..::........: ::::::....:. .
Review of records conducted as it followup of 5/24/2000,D5WC'inspection. Note -that -I, did -not visit the1acility, I reviewed the,- r
records for this facility while at the Browns 17 facility.
I I- Hydrants 17B and 18B small grain overseed was over applied by 22r37 lbs"PAN/acre`and 27.01 Ibs!PAN/acre respectively.
ydrants'29, 35, and 36 fescue/carpet grass was over applied`by 7 251bs EAN/acre, 40:77"1bs PAN/acre" and 146.76 lbs'PAN/acre
respectively in fall of `99.
ere were also many instances of hydraulic overloading (I am considering anything over 1 inch/acre per application event to be
ydraulic overloading, refer to comments for question 'l 8)' (continued below).
Reviewer/Inspector Name fStonew30ftithis _..__

Facility Number- 24_103 Date of Inspection ® Printed on: 6/15/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below 13 Yes p No
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 p No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, b Yes p No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? p Yes p 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.) p Yes p No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? p Yes p No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? p Yes p No
yarauhe Uverloaflmg: a.
Hydrant Date Application Amount(mches)
10 12/8/99 1.36
12 12/10/99 1.04
16B " 12A 5/99 1.16
17B 12/9/99 1.02
18B I2/7199 109
it
There were also' 13 other°documented hydrauiit"ciVerloAirig,-6i!6-iilLi irf O t ber'"ari No-VA4 eer of `99, o e'event as¢hig1i s,1 84
inches/acre. Hydraulic overloading can result in'ponding#i!Aoff/discharge. Do not hydraulically overload.
18) I did not see any part of the waste management-plaWthat`addressed hydraulic loading•rates. This is -required to be addressed as
art of the GAWMP. Have the waste plan amended `to';include hydraulic`loading rates. This should be done by a"technical specialise
ased on site specific data.
19) The IRR-2's accredits some fields with more acreage=than is in'-theVwte plan.;Make;thodifications'such't eat IRR-2 acreages
match the waste plan. Also, the IRR-2's for. ttie=small grain-indicatel beginning PAN rate'of 100 lbs/acre, burthe waste plan allows
501bs/acre. `Be sure to use appropriate beginntng:PAN on�,IRR 2's;from waste plan Also,the waste analysts used on the .IRR=2's
for the small grain 1999/2000 season is 1° lbIl000,ga1 PAN,.whtle.th I wa 6t "ilvsis�report1i 1111 /06,(the•only waste�analysis
t.�.r
dated sufficientlynto cover any of these events)' says.. 3 Ibsl;l000.ga1 PAN.:.:'Use'correct waste analysts on;IRR-2's.
.
5) Some applications were made to`bermuda in.Noveniber `99. The waste -plan allow s'applications to'bermuda from March to
October. Follow application windows allowed in waste plan.
ate: All available pumping days should be utilized .`to lower lagoon'leve.l to the stop pump`point in preparation for possible-
IVl

•,�> , rL =BY.
VIF
7 i 2
�Ts rye'• �'
9�Z
i 1 �i � H ls: • t h -
# kc
t•. WiRU DWQ - Stoney Matthis
.4
z �r f tit l y From: =Y R : FRO DSWC - Trent Allen
T' Please review the comments section of the attached farm. This
farm ae d a fol ow up'visit by DWQ.
ter' ea t•
- . .fir}"` �} •
t

E- O'Division of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection Q• Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number24 103 Date of Visit: 5-24-2000 Time- lO:OD Printed on: 6/7/2000
6 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
0 Permitted 13Certified ® Conditionally Certified 13Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold.
Farm Name: ................................... County: Wlupq)zlls...........................
.... ...... ... NUR.0....... ..
OwnerName: ................................................... ,.................. Phone No:(QiQ1.296:4.8A.Q...................................:....................
FacilityContact: G.rll AuX.I?.As.................................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: .A. Q7K.4.�� ............................... ...... WArsaw-NYC ........................ ................................... 28.3QS..............
Onsite Representative:T.Qjdd.Ro.w.e................................................. . Integrator: �Co3YA.'.S.f?1 ��CR�i>x0a.h�....................... ................................ ..........
Certified Operator: RQd!<xat<ai..W........................ uaye�......................................... .-..... Operator Certification Number:2Q2QQ,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,-.....-
Location of Farm:
oafs..a�a.l�tt.................................................................................................................................:................................................................................................:..............
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 34 OF 09 ° 004&Longitude 78 • 39 00
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
I
❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
10 Non -Layer
I
IONon-Dairyl
Farrow to Wean
4000
LJ Farrow to Feeder
10 Other
Farrow to Fmis
Total Design Capacity
4,000
Ll Gilts
Total SSLW
1,732,000
Boars
Number of Lagoons �IJ ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ® No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ® No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? n/a
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify-DWQ) ❑ Yes 0 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 0 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: ................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): ...... .....28....-.......... .
Continued on back

Facility Number: 24-103 Date of Inspection 1 5-24-2000 Printed on: 617/2000
5. Are there wiry 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?
IN Yes
❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
® Yes
❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste ARRULeation
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ® PAN ® Hydraulic Overload
® Yes
❑ No
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Small Grain Overseed Fescue/carpet grass
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?,
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
®No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
® Yes
❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
® Yes
❑ No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes ® No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ®No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ® No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ® Yes ❑ No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes ®No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ® No
25. Were any -additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ® Yes ❑ No
violatit) ns:or de ciencie§ werepote, I in- g•this visit: ;You; wi11 receive 06 fiirthei- ; ;
.: corresooridence about this.visit. :::::
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):
7- Make sure to keep vegetation maintained on the lagoon wall down to the toe of the slope and remove all trees from the wall.
Remove all trash from the lagoon and prevent it from entering the lagoon.
The air valve on the irrigation hydrant in the field beside the lagoon needs to be repaired. There is waste ponding around the
drants corning from the air valve.
1- Field #5 hydrant 17B and 18B small grain hay was over applied on by 22.37 and 27.10 lbs/acre of nitrogen.
W
Reviewer/Inspector Name 'Trent Allen
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

Facility Number: 24-103 1 Date of lnspection Printed on: 6/7/2000
Odor Issues i
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
11 cont. - On pulls 16B field #5, 17B field #5, and 18B field #5 the application rates were over 1 inch per acre. The general permit
does not allow over i inch per acre. Pull 16B was 1.16" per acre, pull 17B was 1.02" per acre, and 18B was 1.09" per acre.
11 over applications over 10% of what is given in the waste plan will be referred to DWQ.
15- Both the bermuda and fescue/carpet grass needed to be sprayed for weeds. The bermuda was very weak in all spray fields. This
eeds to be looked at by a technical specialist to determine if the bermuda needs to be resprigged. Make sure to apply the lime calle
for in the soil sample results.
117- Place a copy of the C.O.C. and general permit in the farm folder.
DWQ needs to be contacted about over application amounts.
Some pumping took place in November on bermuda. Pumping windows need to'be followed,
fescue/carpet grass records in 99' showed over application. The amount over was applied to next years crop. This is not
n
J

[3 Division of Soil and Water_C©nservation 'Operatiion Review
1 Division of Soil and; Water Canservarion Compliance°Inspection £
m a a
Division of Water Quality:=Compliance Inspec4an
.Other Agency Ope"rabon Review _ -
-
10 Routine Q Complaint Q Follow --up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review .15 Other �
2 • �
Date of Inspection
Facility Number 10
.. Time of Inspection 2 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Permitted © Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered [3 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
�/'dW....s.......... .... r MA f ,�County:.... r�llJU!'!'��1 US ......................
FarmName: .................. ................. � �1,,r.G.I...�%!a �...�---.................I..:.. ...................--•--.-.............................
Owner Name: �`GW!'16 4' GAD�i +'t4 ... ... Phone No: _...............
Facility Contact: .....................................
Mailing Address:
Title:................................................................ Phone No:..................................
Onsite Representative: .......6!K1?J¢s
,jIntegrator: ... 3Q,6.1
Certified Operator:................................................................................................................ Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
............................................. .................................................... .................. ............................................................................................•-....................................
Latitude 0 ° 1. Longitude • ' "
_.
Design Current' Design_ Current - Design _` Current___.
_Swine. Capacity Po ulation- _' =1. Ury- = Capacity .Population .. Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts,
❑ Boars
r ❑ Subsurface Drains Present agoon Area JE1 Spray Field Area
4N'umbeirof Lagoons _ _
_ Holdttig.0onds / Solid Traps I ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ElLagoon ElSpray 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 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 ❑ 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 I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): ............ a.................. .................................................................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
3123/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
ry ,
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 environmentsi threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8- Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type
1 I
❑ 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 (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 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?
at.igt. . .deficien. .... will receive Rio uii-ther;
correspondence. abaut. this.visit.
[:]Yes [-]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments (refer to queshoti #) Explain any YF,�S answers aiaillor'any recommendations or'. any other commeuts'
-_
Use- drawings, of facility to better i zplatii situations (use addx#sonal� pages as necessary)
-.13.-ow ks of CQrolJ,%a re ftesan444; res CAlied ih
h'qh -�reeba4rd fCVeb
' Teurrec+CA 10,90o01 Al d Akpm - LgAoon 1)4u:A l ud IS a4 Ver 4y.
o•� rrayeor� bv-�' is rta� �e�' a�erJj. �ia�✓ ���d vh S��e r¢ �ese�ct'ive
�o 14904Cr la oo1 1cVel _•0 12 ;^ekes s�
i �e.$)PV n51iX o7q n n a r.
. �:s evs��� Emerg�ne Dre,-.*4 on flow ivtA Imo{- ee iq &ee-&'f'C'0;0 1 Ate.
• L u oo►ti 4 JeV4 ► Ajkdr shotild W resef 4o rt�Flecrue 1 i u;4 level. VV
Reviewer/Inspector Name
t
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ' /,tor'-14 S Date-^ 10 rl a q `
3/23/99

10 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ ins ection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Date of Inspection 3/5197
Facility Number 24 103
Time of Inspection 15:15 24 hr. (hh:'
Total Time Cm fraction of hours
Farm Status: Ce d........................ ..... .......................... ............... (ex:1.25 far 1 hr 15 min)) Spent an Review
or e 'on (Wejudn travel and processing)
Farm Name: Ott btt. g �. , __ .. _ .. .»-.__. _..___. County: alttwl�tta ..... ». »..»__. »»_ .» M Mtl..... -
Owner Name: ............................................. ...... TaxhR.Hog .. .larma.LLC.................... ' Phone No: 9XR-..6.4.Q.34Z4......_.................................................. Mailing Address: PQ. tt�41IT-..-_».____ -. »-.. �_ ._W. - r .. ]eS��.I!l __ .....W».... _. _... 98..............
Onsite Representative: Alfxet CAbb...................... g B.rQy ,.�..�?f 1t1tu.........._......
._.................................._ Integrator:
Certified Operator -
Location of Farm:
Latitude 34 • 09 00 K
Operator Certification Number.
Longitude F 78 •F 39 00 a
10 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/unpmvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
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/bolding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No

6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge (if inspection after I/1/97)?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures ILAzqons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is structural freeboard less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Lagoon I Lagoon 2
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
Lagoon 3
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/nnprovement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adquate markers to identify start and stop pumping levels?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .........._... ............. ........................ ...... FmrILK_......... ................. ..
16. Do the active crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the cover crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available irrigation equipment?
For Cer iiied_Facilitie9 Only_
20. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
21. Does the facility fail to comply with the Animal Waste Management Plan in any wad?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
23. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
24. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with owner or operator in charge?
A follow up visit will be conducted once construction of the facility is complete.
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ® No
Lagoon 4
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes [9 No
❑ Yes ® No
[Q Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
---------------
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �_� Date: 1 q
.&i