440058_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Type of Visit: 11 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Q Routine Q Complaint O Follow-up O Referral Q Emergency Q Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: / Arrival Time: Departure Time:County:tk&LM-0
�/ Region:
Farm Name: i Owner Email: `! (r /� L� CZ fOYd
Owner Name: -4Phone: 92-8'~593 ►1,30 CA911
Mailing Address:
Physical Address
Facility° Contact: t1 [ 6Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone: Vz_r_Cb f3 _70A 00
Integrator:
Certification Number: hots aw 3,53
Certification Number:
Latitude: Longitude:
Y DesrDwCurrent, ,� F; t4�D ignCurrent�
Design Current
Swore : gCacih Pap.
Wet Ponitry; �Cpa trop0e
Capacj� Pop.
Wean to Finish
f9
t i
La yer`
Dai Cow
Weto Feeder
Non La er
Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
=i �' ; �Destgn Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
:`>
' ' ';,'Dr�;.Potiltr� :;o -.Ca achy 'Pow
Non -Dai
Farrow to Finish
a ?
Lavers
Beef Stocker
ltsNon-Lavers
-
Beef Feeder
LjBoars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
r a sem` r 3
Turkeys
Other
Turi:ey Poults
Other
,_...... ::.._w,..
'....
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 DW R)
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)
?. 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?
0 Yes R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA] NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [] No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 2/4/2015 Continued

Facilih plumber: -W jDate of inspection.
l
6Y
t Waste Collection & Treatment
l
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
uctur� ij� Sat
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 NJ 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
1KNo
❑ 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
5� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8_ Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
�`
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers. setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes KNo DNA ❑ 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 W� ind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): _ �A6,t� u - 1 :5 _Y� . nzaAj �r,C t {��
13. Soil Type(s): 040L VII Vp
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 P&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ULNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination'?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes b< No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes KNo ❑ 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 54 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If ves, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes KNo
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I " Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes K No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes KNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
DNA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 21412015 Continued

Facie lumber: - • Date of in
tion: I
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes qNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes RLNo ❑ 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:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes NZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ 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/lnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 14 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes g.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[] Yes P< No ❑ NA [] NE
❑ Yes WA No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes CK No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Cotnmedts (refer. to,gnestion ft-Eaplain.any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or a -h other comments.F}
-rte. o °r
Use;drawtntTs:of;faciliri to better ezniaitt situations (use additional DaRes.as-necessarv). ., ...�r y 4 {.
Qa3./aW►_-�- Al o. 3 i
/d-l19/2v1v Al o.aq
19-49*1
VIP -1 owo A19.6%
a 43 �
N&-xv 6�c;fs 3 2-aS
(W Cowie) w,i H
/V 90/8
ander Awxht
dfSea S
f.r 4)/tate,
MtRwO -1-b lu Pbrt-r_, "e- A-4nC& A -1--Z i.rcAje-f P0'V'c1t0-C( 1677
&s T=4o-ta5y4-v —rc-e— Wu P'
e-11-1, _7ort its na A D F 6mj! r dQva b lc el%3
OP
09W 064b..) 64"T �— W1'�t � �tb �Ui� "ID �� �S�RP�'1
NaVtTIe-S 1 .6- -10 P1 IV e-*
Reviewer/l.nspector Name:
ReviewerAnspector Signatur
Page 3 of
Phone: ��a +wo
Date: P
2/41201 S

.
•
Division of Water Quality
r�
F_I Division of Soil and Water Conservation
f.
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 440058 Facility Status= Aciive
Permit: AWC44 "",'5n ❑ Drn;ed .cress
Inspection Type: Ccrnnliance
lna.;tive or C;�jsed Date:
Reason for Visit: Cnmr`Inint
County: Havw, , i Region: As!
{
f 1
Date of Visit: 0310.1!%014 En:ry Time: 10-011 =%j
Exit Time: 11.30 Alvl ,r.ciden: R:
Farm Name: Merifnrd Dery
G:.':'cr Email:
Owner: Frank D Medford
Phone: n^"
Mailing Address: 247 C!,arlie Med}^rd tt.n
_ Wa•,•-^sti•ille N'.' :'37Firi w
Physical Address: 25','..J n- Medford Rci
Wavr n:+:ille fJC.: !1725
Facility Status: n Compliant Fl t.ct Conjp!ian?
Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 35`; _ w_ ? onr�itu �'e: _ _ -%'3C•"
3 miles north of 1-40 on Ironduff Road
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col. Stor. Trea:
Records and Docur+-,e;its Other Issues
Certified Operator: Charkys F Medford
0p^:ator Ccrt:i, r,. on ,::'m cr: _1353
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative (s): Name
Title P h ^ne
24 hour contact nan•,e Chz:, e '.1edfcrd
i=;,cn
Primary Inspector: Ldv;erd M Wif!i_ r.,s
Pnone:
Inspector Signature:
Dn"C4:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Pale: 1

0 i
Permit AV,;C4 J0058 Omer - Fatuity: Frank D iaecifnrd Facility PJumber : 440058
Inspection Date: 0310,112014 Snspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Complaint
Waste structurc�
G:signed Observed
Type lclon ifier Closcd Date Start Date raeboard Freeboard
asfe Pond
r
Net Stack liac_T STACK
Page: 2

•
Permit: AWC4.100513 Owner . Facility: Frank D Me ',: rd Facility tiun;ber : 4401059
Inspection Date: 03!0412014 Insp 3cticn Type: Compliance, Inspection esson far Visit: ConiN:aint
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes _ t;o N;_ NE
1. Is any discharge obser.•ed from any ;. r; of the operation? n n n n
Discharge originated at:
Structure
Application Field n
Other n
a. Was conveyance [non -made? n n n n
b. Did discharge reach �Afaters of the (if yes, notify p` VQ) n n n n
c. What is the estimated volume that reac',ed waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste inan,.gement system? (if yes, notify DWO)
n
U
n
n
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge `rc+; any part of the. cper�tion?
71
n
n
n
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or poten!ial adv( rse impacts to Waters of the Sla'o other than
from a discharge?
n
n
n
n
Waste Collection, Storage S TreatMet;

Page: 4
Pen,,[',: /A%,VC4-:0058 Owner • Facility: Frank D 6.ledford
Facility Number:
440058
Inspection Oa[o: 03;7 20t4 Inspection Type: Compliance Insp .,c:ion
Reason for Visit:
Complaint
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%,'l 0 lbs.?
n
Total Phosphorus?
171
Failure to incorporate manure?sludge into "are soil?
11
Outside of acceptable crop
F1
Evidence of w nd drlff?
[i
Application CU�Slde of application area?
f_1
Crop Type 1 ( n 5
Crop Type 2�_� - -- - - --- — ---
- ---
--
-
Crop Type 3 (;:Je
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 rece: irg crcps differ fro„, those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
n
f]
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the recciving crop and/or !::nd appli("„Jen site need improvetrent?
❑
❑
❑
❑
16. Did the facil;;y fail to secure andror operate per the irrigation design or %v ottable acre determination? ❑
❑
❑
❑
17. Does the facilily lack adeGoate aCreage fc,r !and application?
0130
❑
18. Is there a lack of proporiy operaur,g wastr, :;rplication equipmenl?
n
f]
❑
Cl
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the faciii`.y fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
0
❑
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAMIP readily available?
n
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appmprc.fe box
WUP?
�l
Page: 4

Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D h4edford Facility Niumbe.: 4,0058
Inspection Date: 0310-1,,20111 Inspect:cn Type: Coni? Dance In;pect;on Raason for Vis,t: vomliaint
Records and Documents Yes t.j NA NE
Checklists? n
Design? n
Maps? n
Lease Agreements? n
Other? n
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping noed improv ,menl?
If yes, check the apprcpriat-o box belov,,
Waste Application?
Weekly Freeboard?
Waste Analysis?
Soil analysis?
1112 l��
( I
Waste Transfers?
Weather code?
L
n
n
Rainfall? V n
Stocking? n
Crop yields? 0
120 Minute inspections?
n
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
Sludge Survey n
22. Did the facility fail to install and mair:a ; a rain gauge? =i I ❑
23_ If selected, did the facKity fall to in-3inll _i.,': maintain a ralnbrar.,er on ,rng^ra., eq.. ;. r� ,'t (i 1?:)F.: niy)? 1 n ❑ it
24. Did the facility fait to calibrate :caste equipment U, raquirr--- by', 'he p , r+r--; r
25. Is the facility out of compliance vviih pe'rnlrt COn11J]tl01--S reiatOd t^ j La j ? if yes. Gh:.Cr: t .3 .l;f:r r:rdt i Q n n
box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge suivu-y
Failure to develop a FOA for sludge levcl: n
Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon � -1
List structure(s) and date of first survey i„dicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide docu;nentaiion of an actively cc.;;,Ged operator In cha; j-2? lL? U rl In
Page: 5

28. Dicf the tarn ;ail to F•roperly ct •= :osc ^{ de :d animals vrithin 24 hcurs andlor document ar,d report L-1 L-1 1-i U
mortality rates tit21 noun.,! r�tir.s?
29. At the time r'` i! -ie inspection did t o facility pose an odor or air quaiity concern? If yes, contact a regional 0 ❑ Cl ❑
AirQualit repr[scr,t2ti eirnmediat
30. Did the facil'y `ail t) notify r,:,iorai DV -1Q cf crnergency situations as required by Perrr�if? (i.e.. discharge, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
freeboard pro!j'er;s. ever-applicatic r.
31. Do subsurface file drains eras: at ;he faciii;y?
If yes, check the ,!,propiiate box, belcvi.
— Application Fi rci-—
Lagoon 1 Stor.:q P cnd
Other
If Other, plea-, specify
32. Were any problems rioted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CA.:VdMP?
33. Did the Rel' LI: SruCtOr :`cal iO (IiSCLISS review/Inspection with -site represer',atri'e?
34. Does the f : require a toilo.:.Ip visit by same agency?
Page: 6
Pcrr ::
0% nc-r - "raci:ity: Frank D '.Ier!tord
Facility Number.
440058
Inspection Dn!,2: OW -'12012
-specticn Type: Compliance InspecJion
Reason for Visit:
Complaint
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA NE
27. Did the facility fail IC secure a p!,,osphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
Other Issues
Yes No
NA NE
28. Dicf the tarn ;ail to F•roperly ct •= :osc ^{ de :d animals vrithin 24 hcurs andlor document ar,d report L-1 L-1 1-i U
mortality rates tit21 noun.,! r�tir.s?
29. At the time r'` i! -ie inspection did t o facility pose an odor or air quaiity concern? If yes, contact a regional 0 ❑ Cl ❑
AirQualit repr[scr,t2ti eirnmediat
30. Did the facil'y `ail t) notify r,:,iorai DV -1Q cf crnergency situations as required by Perrr�if? (i.e.. discharge, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
freeboard pro!j'er;s. ever-applicatic r.
31. Do subsurface file drains eras: at ;he faciii;y?
If yes, check the ,!,propiiate box, belcvi.
— Application Fi rci-—
Lagoon 1 Stor.:q P cnd
Other
If Other, plea-, specify
32. Were any problems rioted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CA.:VdMP?
33. Did the Rel' LI: SruCtOr :`cal iO (IiSCLISS review/Inspection with -site represer',atri'e?
34. Does the f : require a toilo.:.Ip visit by same agency?
Page: 6

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
f Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Charles Wakild, P. E.
Governor Director
December 19, 2012
Mr. Charles Medford
Frank D. Medford Farm
52 Joe Medford Road
Waynesville, North Carolina 28785
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Frank D. Medford Farm
Facility # 44-58
Haywood County
Dear Mr. Medford:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
On December 21, 2010, 1 conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of
the animal waste handling system for the Frank D. Medford Fane. The facility
appeared to be well maintained and the records were in good order.
I appreciate your assistance during the inspection. If you have any
questions regarding this inspection or need assistance of any kind, please do not
hesitate to contact me at [phone]. Please see the enclosed inspection
report for additional comments/observations.
Si vwl��
Ed Williams
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure
Cc: Leslie Smathers, Haywood County Soil & Water Conservation District
589 Racoon Road Ste. 203 Waynesville, NC 28786
Aquifer Protection Section Files ARO
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION — Asheville Regional Office (ARO) Noe
h Carolina
2090 U.S. 70 Highway, Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211 Naturally
Phone: [phone]M 1 FAX: [phone]
Internet: www.ncwaternua5tY.or9
An Equal OFPDrwnih''lt Afirsnabve Action Employer

• 0
Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number. 440058 _„ Facility Status: Active _ Permit: AWC440058 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Hjvwaod Region: Asheville
Date of Visit: 11211812Q��_ Entry Time: 1000 AM Exit Time: 11;15 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner: Frank Medford
Phone:
Mailing Address: 2.47 Charlie Medford Ln _ Waynesville NC 28786
Physical Address: 254 Joe Medford Rd Waynesville NC 28785
Facility Status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Fane: Latitude: 35"35'42" Longitude: °
3 miles north of 1-40 on Ironduff Road
Question Areas:
Dischrge 8 Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Charles F Medford Operator Certification Number: 21353
_ Secondary OIC(s):
Onsite Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Charlie Medford Phone:
Primary Inspector: E a y W'llia s Phone: f
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
The facility appeared to he well maintained and the records were in good order.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number. 440058
Inspection Date: 12/18/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
O Cattle - Milk Cow 130 97
Total Design Capacity: 130
Total SSLW: 182,000
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
aste Pond WSP 30.00 48.00
Net Stack WET STACK
Page: 2

•
Permit: AWC44005B Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 1211812012 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) 0000
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. 1s 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 (Lel large trees, severe ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not property 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)
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
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

i
C�
Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank b Medford
Inspection Date: 12118/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 440058
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA
NE
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
Com (Silage)
Crop Type -2— — --- �^ — _
_ Fescue (Hay, Pasture)
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 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? ❑ ■ Cl
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■ ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■ Cl
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
Cl ■ ❑
❑
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: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 1 211 8/2 01 2 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents 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.
0000
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
0
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
0
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
Q
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
0
Q
0
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
000
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
0
■ ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
❑
000
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? 0 ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 5

11
C
Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 12/18/2012 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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Other Issues 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 concem? If yes, contact a regional 0000
Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge, 0000
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
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

VL
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly l=aves Perdue
Governor
Mr_ Charles Medford
Frank D. Medford Farm
52 ,foe Medford Road
Waynesville, North Carolina 28785
Dear Mr. Medford:
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Director Secretary
Aquifer Protection Section
January 14, 2011
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Frank D. Medford Farm — Facility # 44-58
Haywood County
On December 21, 2010, 1 conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal waste
handling system for the Frank D. Medford Farm. The maintenance and operation of the dairy
appeared to be very good.
One area of concern noted during the inspection was with regard to cows having access
to the creek. This causes potential for adverse impacts to the creek. It is recommended that cows
be fenced from the creek and a watering source added to the pasture. Also, feeding stations are
too close to the creek, presenting the potential for animal waste to be discharged to surface waters.
Recommend moving feeding stations up and away from creek You can contact Haywood County
Soil and Water for technical assistance in this matter.
I appreciate your assistance during the inspection. If you have any questions regarding
this inspection or need assistance of any kind, please do not hesitate to contact me at (828) 296-
4685. Please see the enclosed inspection report for additional comments/observations.
rely,
Ed Williams
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure
Cc: Leslie Smathers, Haywood County Soil & Water Conservation District 589 Racoon Road
Ste. 203 Waynesville, NC 28786
Joe Hudyncia, Division of -Soil_& Water Winston-Salem Regional Office
uifer'Protection-Section-Files-401
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION – Asheville Regional Of k;e (ARO)
2M U.S. 7D Highway. Swannanoa, NC 28T7"211
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] On
Customer Service:1-877-623-6748 T�Tn.0+>f,
Internet www.naeate ua .o — __ "'
JUatura!!l
An Equal Oppwtudy %AfiirmaUve Action Empioyer

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 440058 _ Facility Status: Active _ Permit: 6ZEMQ058 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspgction Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Rolain2 County: Haywood Region: &sheville
Date of Visit: 1-2 1!2010 Entry Time:02:00 PM Exit Time: 03 00 PM
Farm Name: Medford Dairy _T
Owner Frank D II&dford ---
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone: 7
Mailing Address: 247 Chgoie Ngaford Ln Waynesville NC 28786
Physical Address: 254 Joe MedfQrd R0 Waynesville NC 287B5
Facility Status: ■ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator.
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35'35'42" Longitude: 82°58'30"
3 miles north of 1-40 on Ironduff Road
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Charles F Medford Operator Certification Number: 21353
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Charlie Medford Phone:
On-site representative Charlie Medford Phone:
Primary Inspector: Edward M Williams Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspectorls):
Inspection Summary:
Irrigation equipment has not been calibrated. Please contact Joe Hudyncia with Soil/Water [phone] for forms and instruction.
As has been noted during past inspections, the creeks around your farm look bad. Cows have free access and they are causing a lot
of stream bank erosion. Also, feeding stations are too dose to the creek. Animal waste is piling up at the feeding stations and
creating conditions where waste can get into surface waters_ Please consider the cost share program that can provide funding for
cattle exclusion fencing, waterers, and other BMP's to protect surface waters. For assistance, contact the Haywood County Soil and
Water Conservation District.
Page: I

i
Permit: AV C440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 12/21/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle - Milk Cow 130 103
Total Design Capacity: 130
Total SSLW: 182,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
aste Pond WSP 30.00 42.00
Net Stack WET STACK
Page: 2

0
0
Pennit AVJC440058 Owner Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 1221/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit Routine
Diselta es & 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, Storage S 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.)?
5. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ EDO
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? (blot 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 altemafives 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 AWC440058 owner - Facility: Frank D Medford
Facility Number:
440058
Inspection Date: 12/21/2014 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No
NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 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
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 2 —
Fescue
(Hay, -Pasture)
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 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 property 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?
Cl ■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

1
Permit. A11VC44D058 Owner- Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Dabs: 1212112010 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)?
❑
22. Did the facility fall 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?
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
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 concem? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

! i
Pormit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford
Facility Number:
440058
Inspection Date: 12/21/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Other issues
Yes No
NA
NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑ ■
❑
❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewtinspection 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 I Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
Page: 6

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
Aquifer Protection Section
January 4, 2010
Mr. Charles Medford
Frank D. Medford Farm
52 Joe Medford Road
Waynesville, North Carolina 28785
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Frank D. Medford Farm — Facility # 44-58
Haywood County
Dear Mr. Medford.-
On
edford:
On December 7, 2009, 1 conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal waste
handling system for the Frank D. Medford Farm. The maintenance and operation of the dairy
appeared to be very good.
One area of concern noted during the inspection was with regard to cows having access
to the creek. This causes potential for adverse impacts to the creek. It is recommended that cows
be fenced from the creek and a watering source added to the pasture. You can contact Haywood
County Soil and Water for technical assistance in this matter.
appreciate your assistance during the inspection. If you have any questions regarding
this inspection or need assistance of any kind, please do not hesitate to contact me at (828) 296-
4685. Please see the enclosed inspection report for additional comments/observations.
Sincery,
Ed�illiams
_/
Environmental Specialist
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Enclosure
Cc: Leslie Smathers, Haywood County Soil & Water Conservation District 589 Racoon Road
Ste. 203 Waynesville, NC 28786
Joe Hudyncia, Division of Soil & Water Winston-Salem Regional Office
Aquifer Protection Section Files ARO
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION — Asbevine Regional Office (ARO)
2090 U.5.70 highway, Swannanoa, NC 28778211
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] One
Customer Service: 1-877623-6748 NorthCarol ina
Intemet www.ncwateTquardv.m Am rally
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer

1<
Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 4400 T Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC440058 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Ha 2go Region: Asheville
Date of Visit: 12107/2009 Entry Time: 10: Q AM Exit Time: 11:30 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: MedfQrd DairyOwner Email:
Owner: Funk D Medford _ , , Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 247 Charlie Me&W Ln Waynesville NC 28786
Physical Address: 254 Joe Medford Rg Waynesville NC 28785
Facility Status: ■ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
3 miles north of 1-40 on Ironduff Road
Integrator:
Latitude: 35"35'42" Longitude:
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Charles F Medford Operator Certification Number: 21353
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Charlie Medford Phone:
Primary inspector: Edwa M illi 1m� Phone:
Inspector Signature: �� �_ � _ Date: ZOf C)
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
The facility appeared to be well maintained and records werein good order.
Cattle have access to the creek surrounding the property and are causing significant bank erosion. Recommend fencing cattle out of
stream and installing watering stations. Contact Haywood County soil and Water Conservation District for technical assistance.
No waste analysis for falllwinter applications
Waste analysis: 4/20/2009 #1 ALD Irrigation N=2.4 Ibs/1000 gal
#2 Broadcast N=3.2lbslton
Soil incorp N=4.4 lbs/ton
Soils analysis: 4123109
Page: 1

Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 12/0712009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle -Milk Cow 130 99
Total Design Capacity: 130
Total SSIW: 182,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
aste Pond WSP 30.00 30.00
Let Stack WET STACK
Page: 2

If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Permit: AVVC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number :
4400$8
Inspection Date: 1210712009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & StreaM If?1paCtS
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, 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] targe 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 rooted pits,
❑
0
❑ ❑
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
❑
m
❑ ❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
n ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

• •
Permit: AWC440058 owner - Facility: Frank D Medford
Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 12/0712009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
n
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
n
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
Q
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Q
Evidence of wind drift?
n
Application outside of application area?
In
Crop Type i
Com (Grain)
—Crop,Type-2---
Small -Grain -(Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
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
❑ ■ Q Q
Plan(CAVVMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
n ■ n ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ ■ Q ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■ n ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
D ■ 11 ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
Q ■ n n
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ Q
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

i
0 0
Permit: AWC440058 Owner • Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 12107/2009 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)?
❑
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?
❑
■ ❑ 0
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑
■ ❑ Q
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concem? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

• 6
Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank O Medford
Inspection Date: 12d07/2009 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 reviewlinspection with on-site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 440058
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
D■DD
0 0 CQ
D■QD
Page: 6
t

=�F \\NA Qp • • Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr-, Secretary
r C North Carolina Depart hent of Environment and Natural Resources
D Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Aquifer Protection Section
November 18, 2008
Mr. Charles Medford
Frank D. Medford Farm
52 Joe Medford Road
Waynesville, North Carolina 28785
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Frank D. Medford Farm — Facility # 44-58
Haywood County
Dear Mr. Medford:
On November 5, 2008, 1 conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal waste handling
system for the Frank D. Medford Farm. The maintenance and operation of the dairy appeared to be very
good.
One area of concern noted during the inspection was with regard to cows having access to the
creek. This causes potential for adverse impacts to the creek. It is recommended that cows be fenced
from the creek and a watering source added to the pasture. You can contact Haywood County Soil and
Water for technical assistance in this matter_
The Waste Utilization Plan (WUP) has been updated to reflect correct fields, field numbers and
nitrogen requirements according to Mr. Leslie Smathers. Please complete your PAN calculations using
the corrected updated WUP.
I appreciate your assistance during the inspection. If you have any questions regarding this
inspection or need assistance of any kind, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Please see the enclosed inspection report for additional comments/observations.
Sincerely, J
Beverly Prieel
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure
Cc: Leslie Smathers, Haywood County Soil & Water Conservation District 589 Racoon Road
Ste. 203 Waynesville, NC 28786
Joe Hudyncia, Division of Soil & Water Winston-Salem Regional Office
Aquifer Protection Section Files ARO
N( Cam
�Nalura!!r�
North Carolina Division of Wafer Quality — Asheville Regional Office 2090 U.S. Highway 70 Swannanoa, NC 28778 Phone ($28) 296-4500
Aquifer Protection -Section FAX [phone]
Customer Service 1-877-623-6748
lntemet h2o.ennstate.nc.us
An Equal Opportun4lAfrirrnaWe Ackm Employer — 50% RecydedVIO% Post Consumer Paper

Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 44005$__ _ Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC4400 8 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Cornplianc2 Ins ecti n Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Haywood Region: Asheville
Date of Visit: 11/05/2008 Entry Time:01:00 PM _ Exit Time: 02*30PM _ Incident #:
Farm Name: Frank D. Medjofd Fad, Owner Email:
Owner: f=rank D Medford _ Phone: &766
Mailing Address: 52 Joe Medford RRo Waynesville NC 287866420
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant p Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
3 miles north of 1-40 on lronduff Road
Latitude: 35°35'42" Longitude: 82°58'30"
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts © Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Charles F Medford Operator Certification Number: 21353
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
24 hour contact name Charlie Medford
Title
Phone:
Phone
1
On-site representative Charlie Medford Phone:
Primary Inspector: Beverly Phone: S %` 296 " ;/6'?,S-
Inspector
S
Inspector Signature:Pric!'/Qtw Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford . Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 11/0512008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
3. Cows have access to streams - potential exists for WQ violations. Recommend contacting Haywood S&W for input on BMP's.
21. IRR -2 should be completed now that updated WUP is available. SLD -2 PAN balances need to be recalculated based on updated
WUP.
24. Mr. Medford indicated that he would contact .teff Young this week for assistance with calibration of waste equipment.
WUP has been updated to include N requirements for first and second craps as well as corrections to irrigation field.
Waste Analysis: 10/19/2007 ALD N=2.0 Ib/1000gal. Irr., SSD N=2.7 Ib/ton Broad.; 5!7/2008 ALD N=0.55 Ib/1000 gal. Irrg.; SSD 4.8
lb/ton Broad.
Soils Analysis: 4/10/2008
1
Page: 2

I '
Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility_ Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 1110512008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle - Milk Cow 130 ill
Total Design Capacity. 130
Total SSLW: 182,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifler Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Waste Pond WSP 30.00 54.00
Wet Stack WET STACK
Page: 3

0 0
Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 11105/2008 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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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,managemenl-system? -(if yes: notify-DWQ)--- — - —---❑-Q-e-❑-
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
013011
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage S 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.eJ 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?
❑
■
❑
0
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 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: 4

Page: 5
Permit: AWC440058 Owner - facility: Frank D Medford
Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 11105/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection i
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAM?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 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
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Fescue (Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Braddock
Soil Type 2
Brasstown-Junaluska
complex, 8 to 15% sl
Soil Type 3
Dillard
Soil Type 4
Dillsboro
Soil Type 5
Edneyville
Soil Type 6
Hayesville
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? ❑ ■ n n
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
n n n n
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? /
n ■ ❑ ❑
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.
Page: 5

Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford
Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 11105/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA
NE
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
11
Other?
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
■ ❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
■
--126-Minute inspections?—
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
Rainfall?
Inspections after > t 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?
El ■
❑
❑
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?
In ❑
0
0
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?
❑ ■
0
0
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PIAT) certification?
❑ ❑
E
❑
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 property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
Page: 6

Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 11/05/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
A L__ Y.. Nn NG NF
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 Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on-site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
U
Page: 7

R —
N Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 440Q& Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC440058 Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection _ inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Haywood _ Region. AshCyill
Date of Visit: 111052008 Entry Time:01:00 PM Exit Time: 02:30 PM Incident #i`:
Farm Name: Frank D. Medford Farm
Owner: FranEp Medford
Owner Email:
Phone: 8213-•627-67 66
Mailing Address: 52 Joe Medfotg Rg Waynesville NC 287866420
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: $5'35'42" Longitude: 82"58'30"
3 miles north of 1-40 on Ironduff Road
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Charles F Medford Operator Certification Number: 21353
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Charlie Medford Phone:
On-site representative Charlie Medford Phone:
Primary Inspector: Beverly Price Phone:
inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
6!1 U,)3 acc-e-u d<D S,(re.ar,,
Page: 1

Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number. 440058
Inspection Date: 11/05/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Type Identifier
i1 it
3° ; 54�v
Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard O erved Freeboard
/ JUfa
��5 s ,f �Mr'
aste Pond
WSP
Net Stack
WET STACK
�rr1 v1v� Cosr'� 7 ��� p!^bes 1;f jfvd�. •ll�
OAQ
LL
/Jo w &j( -i 44u1
f�, �, � 1AD✓k�`` i11� 6t�4ou1 5�►�w8i"'1 -� Yte.�p�
PA 1,b
Page: 2

• •
Permit'' AWC440058 Owner - Facility; Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 11/05/2008 inspection Type: Compliance Inspec9ion Reason for Visit Routine
Disq t_ arges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ffl ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? 0000
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) 001100
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d_ Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
Y ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
P
❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
000
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Cres
No
NA NE
4. is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
T
❑ ❑
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
❑
000
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
Y
❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
g
❑ ❑
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)? V ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AW0440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 11/05/2008 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 r r- S o'g A--
-Crop--
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 0000
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
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. IIs there a lack of properly operating waste application equipint? ❑ ❑ ❑
Records a d Documen s5 t- , L' a Yes No NA NE
So� 1cL S 4� � r r^�[=�• �
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? Pto r% ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below. tt1.1� — �s f C3 1
1rr:Ga1� �S ►\off Gorr -c 1 w�
WUP? Ccl!7�JYe C JJ ❑ y/ ��
PLso nQlei dam` �As I AQU10_.
Page: 4
Wu P
hAS 6-t Corr�� d

Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 1110512008 Inspection Type; Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? 6 - ❑
Design?
Maps? 0 �L
Other?
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
n) If yes, check the appropriate box below,
AC, err- Z Phi
�9,Vw S� _ P��WiWaste Application? lrr — 4 _ u#b�i
C-
51�j �zX1 S
120 Minute inspections? 4r%— 02r -
o ,-6 o 3 M 1 -vr -
1 ( Weather code? oK
Weekly Freeboard?OK-
/ Transfers? N Or
Rainfall? CjIC
Vv) Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
� y+ Waste Analysis? 5/,7'og ,OLD hrr-i5 . (,
Annual soil analysis? 55 O i = �• Ib f -{�on
> 4boic's—
Crop yields?
Stocking? pK
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ ❑ ❑
C- pmt ani
❑■
❑■
L■1
❑
❑
� of i4o-7 i D 0— 2.6
55D Q_ a-�
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calliibrart1e_waste application equipment s 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 foss assessment (PLAT) certification?
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 and/or document and report those
mortality rates that exceed normal rates? 44-1� lo
d+5po-A ©v}bn5
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
Quality representative immediately.
E
❑000
❑❑00
q❑❑❑
0000
❑V❑❑
❑❑A❑
Yes No NA NE
■ii■■
7 1! ■ ■
Ems
Page: 5

• 0
Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford
Inspection Date: 11/05/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on-site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 440058
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
Q Q ❑
Q DQ
❑ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

of W A rER (^ r Michael F. Easley, Governor
• William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
rNorth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
MAI
Q Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Aquifer Protection Section
November 29, 2047
Mr. Charles Medford
Frank D. Medford Farm
52 Joe Medford Road
Waynesville, North Carolina 28785
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Frank D. Medford Farm — Facility # 44-5B
Haywood County
Dear Mr. Medford:
On November 20, 2007, 1 conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal waste
handling system for the Frank D. Medford Farm. The maintenance and operation of the dairy appeared
to be very good.
One area of concern noted during the inspection was with regard to cows having access to the
creek. This causes potential for adverse impacts to the creek. It is recommended that cows be fenced
from the creek and a watering source added to the pasture. You can contact Haywood County Soil and
Water for technical assistance in this matter. Please see the attached inspection report for additional
comments.
The Waste Utilization Plan (WUP) needs to be updated to reflect correct fields, field numbers and
crops.
I appreciate your assistance during the inspection. If you have any questions regarding this
inspection or need assistance of any kind, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
72dwi
y '
ams
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure
Cc: Leslie Smathers, Haywood County Soil 8 Water Conservation District 589 Racoon Road
Ste. 203 Waynesville, NC 28786
Aquifer Protection Section Files ARO
1 p76Caralina
-/�Va4(rally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality — Asheville Regional Office 2090 U.S. Highway 70 Suannanoa, NC 2 877 8 Phone [phone]
Aquifer Protection Section FAX [phone]
Customer Service 1-877-623-6748
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opponun'itylAfrrrmative Action Employer— 50% Recycledl10% Posl Consumer Paper

• 0
E Division of Water Quality
F1 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 440058 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC�440058 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ � County: Haywood Region: Asheville
Date of Visit: 111201200_7 Entry Time: 10.00 AM Exit Time: 11:00 AM Incident #t:
Farm Name: Frank D. Medford Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Frank D M df r
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 52 -Joe Medford Rd Waynesville NC 287866420 _
Physical Address: _
Facility Status: n Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°3542" Longitude: 82"58'30"
3 miles north of 1-40 on lronduff Road
Question Areas:
a Discharges & Stream Impacts ij Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
ij Records and Documents ij Other Issues
Certified Operator: Charles F Medford
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 21353
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Charlie Medford Phone:
On-site representative Charlie Medford Phone:
- q
Primary Inspector: Edw rd, Wi iYA',
s J Phone:
Inspector Signature: � V�'/ , �Date: /1/Z ti/'-'`�
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: t

• •
u
Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number . 440058
Inspection Date: 11120/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
The waste handling facility and record keeping appeared to be well maintained.
Cows currently have access to the creek. Potential for adverse impacts to the creek exist as a result. It is recommended that you
contact Haywood County Soil and Water to get technical assistance for fencing the cows out of the creek and establishing watering
stations.
Spray irrigation equipment needs to be calibrated.
The WUP needs to be updated to reflect correct fields, field numbers and crops.
Waste analysis: 712107 ALD Irrigation - N=0.60 lbs/1000gal
SSD Broadcast - N=3.6 lbs/1000gal
SSD Soil Incorp- N=4.9 lbs/1000gal
10119/07 ALD Irrigation - N=2.0 lbs/1000gal
SSD Broadcast - N=2.7 lbs/1000gal
SSD Soil Incorp- N=3.7 lbs/10009al
_Soils.test:.4118I07 — —
Page: 2

'.Y
Y
Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 11120/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
rite Pond WSP 96.00
k1t Stack WET STACK
Page: 3

0
ir
Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 11120/2007 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? it ■ n
Discharge originated at:
Structure rl
Application Field n
Other ❑
nn n
a. Was conveyance man-made?
— — ■
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
n n ■
n
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
n
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
n ■ n
n
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
n ■ ❑
n
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
n ■ n
n
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management n MOD
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
I] ■ n
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? {Not applicable to roofed pits,
fl ■ n
n
dry stacks and/or 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 ■ n
n
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
D 000
if yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
n
Hydraulic Overload?
fl
Frozen Ground?
n
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
n
Page.4

0
0 i
Permit: AVVC440058 owner - Facility: Frank D Medford
Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 11120/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
n
Is PAN > 10%110 Ibs.?
n
Total P205?
n
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
n
Outside of acceptable crop window?
n
Evidence of wind drift?
n
Application outside of application area?
n
Crop Type 1
Com (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Corn (Grain)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain Cover
Crop Type 4
Fescue (Pasture)
Page: 5
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
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
n
■ n
n
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
n
■ n
n
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
n
■ n
n
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
n
■ n
n
Records and Documents
Yes
No NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
n
■ n
n
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
■
n n
n
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
■
Page: 5

IF
Permit: AWC440058 Owner -Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspections Date: 11/20/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? n
Design? n
Maps? n
Other?
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
n
n ■ n 0
Waste Application?
n
120 Minute inspections?
n
Weather code?
Weekly Freeboard?
n
Transfers?
n
Rainfall?
n
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
n
Waste Analysis?
n
Annual soil analysis?
n
Crop yields?
n
Stocking?
n
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
n
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
n
woo
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
n
n ■
n
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
■
n n
n
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
n
n ■
n
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
n
■ n
n
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
n
n ■
n
r�.�__ _......_
Ywc
Nn NA
NF
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? n ■ n n
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those n ■ n 0
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 n ■ n n
Quality representative immediately.
Page. 6

F
Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford
Inspection Date: 11120/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Other Issues
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with ort -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number. 444058
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
n■nn
n■nn
n■nn
Page: 7

• 0
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 440058 Facility Status: Active _ Permit: A ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Haywood Region. Asbeville
Date of Visit: 11/2012QQ7 Entry Time: 10:00 AM Exit Time: 11:00 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Frank D. id.PS oEd, Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Frank D Medford Phone: [phone] _
Mailing Address: 52 Joe Medford Rd Waynesville NC 267816.420 R
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
3 miles north of 1-40 on Ironduff Road
Integrator:
Latitude: 35°3542" Longitude: 82°58'30"
Question Areas:
Discharges 8 Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment jj Waste Application
© Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Charles F Medford
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 21353
Onsite Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Charlie Medford Phone:
On-site representative Charlie Medford Phone:
Primary Inspector: Edward M Williams Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
t(A
SSO
k o1 gLQ
550
So
LA
iLT N(c,( P - �j 7 I -i.
1��I(�cc� 5�1
IV
Page: 1

• i
Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 1112012007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Type Identifler Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
k1ste Pond WSP
k1t Stack WET STACK ?
Page: 2

i •
Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date. 11/20/2007 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? J
❑
120 Minute inspections? -�
❑
Weather code? ✓
❑
/
Weekly Freeboard .7 '✓
❑
1�'
❑
Transfers?
/�
Rainfall? ,/
❑
/
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly? ✓
❑
Waste Analysis? J
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields? `/
❑
Stocking? ✓
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
[B ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)? ❑
❑ 0 ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate,waste a plication equipment as requ d the permit?
�,�'c sC''e� 0� — Se o t o .�-
❑
r-_� cio
❑ ❑
i cr.S
V-ka'0.
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?
❑
❑ 0 ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑ 9 ❑
Other Issues Yes no NA n
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ G ❑ ❑
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 ❑ 0 ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

0
Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford
Inspection Date: 11/20/2007 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 review/inspection with on-site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 440058
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
0Wl❑.n
El R' ❑ ❑ �
❑IIc❑n
Page: 6

V7
Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number : 440058
Inspection Date: 11/2012007 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? ❑ 0 Q ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ W n n
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ 9 ❑ ❑
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 he State other than from a ❑
❑ ❑
❑
discharge? Qc,�,.�. wiJ r
`�
Ct.�--
cv 5 ..^ 3 �, e c
❑
[
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
W ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
0
91 n
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 ❑ O' ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
0000
metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
g. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
0 ❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
0
91 n
n
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? ❑ ❑ ❑
yes, check the appropriate box below.
;ive Ponding?
❑
ilic Overload?
❑
Ground?
❑
metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3
M_

Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number : 440058
Inspection Date: 11/20/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN? ❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.? ❑
Total P205? ❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil? Q
Outside of acceptable crop window? fl
Evidence of wind drift? ❑
Application outside of application area? Q
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3 \ Soy-�-� Sm� 5 rek, r- v > •J
Crop Type 4 Pub
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
yr
Soil Type 6�:
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management ❑ fl ❑
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? ❑ 9 0 Q
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ 0 ❑ D
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? ❑ �l fl Q
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
wuP? ✓ n
Page: 4

t�oF WATE,Qp
�O G
o -c
Mr. Charles Medford
Frank D. Medford Farm
52 Joe Medford Road
Waynesville, North Carolina 28785
Dear Mr. Medford:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
FILECOPYNorthWilliam G. Ross al Resources Carolina Department of F.nvtronment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Aquifer Protection Section
November 29, 2006
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Frank D. Medford Farm — Facility # 44-58
Haywood County
On November 29, 2006, Bev Price, Jeff Young and I conducted a routine Compliance Inspection
of the animal waste handling system for the Frank D. Medford Farm. The maintenance and operation of
the dairy appeared to be very good.
One area of concern noted during the inspection was with regard to cows having access to the
creek. This causes potential for adverse impacts to the creek. It is recommended that cows be fenced
from the creek and a watering source added to the pasture. You can contact Haywood County Soil and
Water for technical assistance in this matter. Please see the attached inspection report for additional
comments.
The Waste Utilization Plan (WUP) needs to be updated to reflect correct fields, field numbers and
crops.
It was a pleasure meeting you and I appreciate your assistance during the inspection. If you have
any questions regarding this inspection or need assistance of any kind, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (828) 296-•4500.
Sincerely,
Ed Williams
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure
Cc: Leslie Smathers, Haywood County Soil & Water Conservation District 589 Racoon Road
Ste. 203 Waynesville, NC 28786
Aquifer Protection Section Files ARO
N_o�nCarolina
alurn!!f
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Asheville Regional Office 2090 U.S. Highway 70 Swannanoa, NC 28778 Phone [phone]
Aquifer Protection Section FAX [phone]
Customer Service 1-877-623-6748
Intemet: h2o.emstatemc.us
An Equai OpportwutylAffumative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post consumer Paper

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number. 440058 Facility Status: AG1iy-e Permit: AyC44Q058 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compiiangg Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Haywood Region: Asheville
Date of Visit: 11/29/2006 Entry Time: 10:00 AM Exit Time: 11,30 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Frank D Medford Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Frank D Medford Phone: [phone]Q
Mailing Address: 52 Joe Medford fad Waynesville NC 287866420
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35"55'42" Longitude: 82°58'31_„ _
3 miles north of 1-40 on Ironduff Road
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment ij Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Charles F Medford Operator Certification Number: 21353
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On-site representative Charlie Medford Phone:
24 hour contact name Charlie Medford Phone:
Primary Inspector: Be erty Price Phone: /�,
Inspector Signature: Date: f t 1.;tq �%%
Secondary Inspector(s): Edward M Williams VW*,1&
Phone:
Page: 1

•
Permit: AVVC440058 Owner -Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 11129/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Overall, the facility and record keeping were well maintained. Land application was occurring at the time of the inspection, and it
appeared that buffers were being maintained and application was being performed properly.
Cows currently have access to the creek. Potential for adverse impacts to the creek exist as a result. It is recommended that you
contact Haywood County Soil and Water to get technical assistance for fencing the cows out of the creek and establishing a watering
station.
Spray irrigation equipment needs to be calibrated.
The WUP needs to be updated to reflect correct fields, field numbers and crops.
Waste analysis: 5/19/2006 ALD irrigation N=0.77
SSD broadcast N=2.8
SSD soil incorp N=3.8
Soils analysis conducted in 4/4/2006
Page: 2

Ir
s .
Penult: AM440058 Owner - Facility: Frank 1] Medford
Inspection Date: 1129/2006 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
•
Facility Number: 440058
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
O Cattle -Milk Cow 130 110
Total Design Capacity: 130
Total SSLW: 182,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed pate Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freaboard
ste Pond MISP 48.00
t Stack WET STACK
Page: 3

Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 11012006 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) ❑ ■ Cl ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management systerim7-(if yes, notify DWQ)-- - ❑ !a-❑-❑
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? ❑ ■ ❑ Cl
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard? Cl
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 andlor managed through a waste management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
or closure pian?
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,
❑
■ ❑
❑
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
001113
improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■ Q
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overioad? 0
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 4

•
Permit: AVYC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford
Inspection Date: 1129=06 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 440458
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 (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3
Fescue (Pasture)
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 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 property operating waste application equipment? ❑ ❑ ii
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 GAWMP readily available? ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP? rl
Page: 5

Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection hate: 1112912006 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?
Cl
120 Minute inspections?
■
Weather code?
Crop yields?
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
Q
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
n
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?
■
❑
❑
n
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?
❑
■
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andlor document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ 0
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 Cl ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 6

•
•
Permit: A1MC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 11/29/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: RoOne
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? 0 i 0
Cl
32. Did ReviewertInspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative? D ■ C1 fl
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? 0 ■ n ❑
Page: 7

Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 440058 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC440058 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Roigine County: Haywood Region: Asheville
Date of Visit: 11/28/2006 Entry Time:10:00 AM _ Exit Time: 11:30 AM .. Incident #:
Farm Name: Frank D. MedfQr Fgnn Owner Email:
Owner: Frank 12 Medf2rd Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 52 Joe Medford Rd WayneWile NC 287866420
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°35'42" Longitude: 82°58'30"
3 miles north of 1-40 on Ironduff Road
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Charles F Medford
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 21353
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On-site representative Charlie Medford Phone:
24 hour contact name Charlie Medford Phone:
Primary Inspector: Beverly Price Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
COWi
hc..ra v-Cfe}`S
C.ee
kk
Q
Page: 1

i
Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facillty: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440056
Inspection Date: 11/29/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures Az� C v rrtrA k; 1 l () C c4v5
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Fraeboard
� o-1 �
1 1 1A Z is 0 Lo
moo, s r.z �
rA
R' L tN Q f o c+� r-[ �S
Page: 2

F
Permit; AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number: 440056
Inspection Date: 11/292006 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? ❑ 9 ❑
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)
❑ a ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ im
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑ M
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑ 10
❑
❑
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
n 4)
n
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
5. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ 0
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ ®
❑
n
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
Cl N
0
0
dry stacks and/or wet stacks) KvA 4,, G,J r A SNk -c}- `..3 �. 6,, ;S : 5
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
n T
❑
n
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
f=1
]
❑
improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect application?
n 69
n
n
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? FI
Page: 3

•
0
Permit: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford Facility Number. 440058
Inspection Date: 11/29/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN? ❑
Is PAN > 10%110 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
CG r
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3a
-
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 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? 0"
I e- 2-2 G� .
❑
❑ -
❑
❑
n
❑ IE ❑ ❑
❑ @ ❑ ❑
❑ ® ❑ ❑
nN❑❑
Yes No NA NE
❑L1❑❑
❑a,❑❑
LK
Page: 4

• i
Permit: AVVC,44o058 Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford FaclIity Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 11/29/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? C� 6
Design? Y cx� d ts'.�r. r..: t s � 1 t.-�� ❑
Maps? G1rrL ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ❑ ❑ []
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application? 04, 1 ❑
120 Minute inspections? t-tk ck ��'
❑
Weather code? ki z¢ � c �• '
❑
Weekly Freeboard? 0"'f
❑
Transfers? �A- L
❑
Rainfall? okz 4-1
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly? Ck
❑
Waste Analysis? J
❑
Annual soil analysis? `�
❑
Crop yields? Okw
❑
Stocking? �
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)? N -A A
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 a plicatioyquipment as required by the permit? -*-�N !Sr�~y
❑ Q
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ ❑ a ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ 9 ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ n 0 ❑
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 anima within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑ &0 ❑ fl
mortality rates that exceed normal rates? i- c�.4'
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: AWC440058 Owner - Facility: Frank b Medford Facility Number: 440058
Inspection Date: 11/29/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? LI UI Rol U
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative? ❑ Is ❑ D
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 6
•

IM
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical assistance
Reason for Visit J9 Routine 0 Complaint O Follow up O Referral 0 Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: -/ -d Time: r j 1: �Q
Q =Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted © Certified E3 Conditionalll• Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ...............
Farm Name: .rt n .....] M. -J-. C County:........ ee............................................................
Owner Name:..!. h~.5......,[!.' 4 AA ............... . Phone No:
Mailingaddress: ....................................................................................................................................................................... ..........................
Facility- Contact: .................................... - .................................. ... Title Phone No
Onsite Representative: .................................. Integrator* ........................... ........ ...................................................
Certified Operator:., ................................ . Operator Certification Number:.._at*, �3 r
Location of Farm: 9), stir 7 ........def:�c ........_f.........4l f.... ..../, n 4� U �I �'Q .,�3�tf�iJ c7trt C jo
-/ �� 1 1 O , %lt r
3 Indes j—/O O-7 s --o-7 A:;e T4 jrj-te4.rff �i J ----p /4 3.
4, urf v
.01
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �• C� r-�~ Longitude • �•
Design Current
Swine Caaacity Population
❑ 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 Dairy / p
❑ Non -Layer I I ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons
-Holding fonds / Solid Traps
llischarges A - Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑?'C'o
Discharge oriEtinated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a_ If discharge is observed, was the conveyance nun -made? El Yes El No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ) El 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 DV1'Q) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes RNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes
Waste Collection S Treatment
4, is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure I Structure ? Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure Structure 6
Identifier: ste-....f cnA. ..aL!a... '' t ............................................................ ....................
Freeboard (inches): t 9�-
12/12/03 Continued

Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection 0
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 Auuliration
r ,
❑ Yes U!o
❑ Yes [LgNo
❑ Yes Flo
❑ Yes MNo
[Yes ❑ No
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes Flo
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 -No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hy�draulic Overload E] Frozen Ground El Copper and/or Zinc > 30(
12. Crop hype �itn S-,6, E,t,1(146L- - -- —
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes B_<0
-14-a)-Does-the-facility-lack-adequate-acreage-for-land-application? — — — ❑Yes_D.lo_—._ __._-
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes [}No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes [j�-No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? J r C-] Yes 55-NO16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? +ld,a �'V �Q��`t �prt 11 ii// E] Yes D-Xo
> 9,nd" "o 14 Iry
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atior below des eg�<
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes 2-56
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 Z14o
Air Quality representative immediately.
. yit�a�.
C' 0 -refer to uestion # E lam -an YES answers andlor an recammendatton§ or_an other cornmenu x
-} 3 c. n. -� � � wry �� -� �{ „.� -�i ,�.• , �..� "` ' - - ,�.. >.._
Use drawings of facrhty to better explain°situations (use additional pages as necessary) ❑ Field Copy F❑ Final Notes : L:
•.�.nifalax-7�, ��• 4µ a. :tn 4 ti+ µ- s- i'.a' ,
Uj Da< in0V. 30 tLA_ kilt Sma '1,tr�
1%0 ac�flr nab'►c�,�,
T
Reviewer/Inspector Name -
Reviewerllnspector Signature: Date:
12/12/03 Continued

j FaS!ity \'umber: — Date of Inspection
4 • •
.Re
uirW Records & Documents
R.. cO I 7
° �j.ot � --;> Sie �iliri C
PD
� Nor
21.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
40�'Yes
B `o
22.
Doe facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ -UP checklists, design, maps, etc.)
8-10es
❑ No
23.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Eales
❑ No
91-196ste Application tfreeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
_CpLQ-_L` 65 K_` Of i Csoog
24.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
M -No
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
o
25.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Pernut?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
2<0
27.
Did Reviewer/lnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
❑ Yes
z9dKo
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes [x'150
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes 9 -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? ElYes ElNo
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forams need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After V Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
Q No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no farther correspondence about this visit.
Addiii6fial C6mm ents�and/ar Diawtngs "� =fit' * ; ' ' }~-
- .. .
-�� `/ate-►
�a. D;1 e-3
R.. cO I 7
° �j.ot � --;> Sie �iliri C
PD
� Nor
r
jj'
- All ,� M
12/12/03

roLAI5
LJ
w�

i
I Assistance Site Visit Report
Dimon of Soil and Water Conservation'
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number ®- 58 Date: 122104 Time: 1 15:07 1 Time On Farm
Farm Name Frank D. Medford Farm
65 ARO
County Haywood Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 52 Joe Medford Road Waynesville NC 28785
Onsite
Representative Charles Medford Integrator
Type Of Visit Purpose 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
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
PT-1
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Soars
p Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaintllocal referral
Q Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population
Layer
❑ Non -Layer
rEl
Dairy X30 124
Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
b• Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Liquid WSP Wet -stack 11
Level (Inches) I 4$ IF I
CROP TYPES icom,silage heat escue-graze 11 1 7771
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

0 9
Facility Number 44 - 58 Date:
6122104
PARAMETER
Q 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
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
®
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
1:1
El
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30.2H.0200 re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
M 18. Latelmissing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
_34._Sludge_E_v_aluation
,❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
®
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
El
El Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation design/installation
❑
❑
❑ 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 evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage workievaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measure ments(G PS, surveying, etc.)
El
114'
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
El
1:15.
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6.
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number - ® Date: 1 6122104
COMMENTS:
Soil samples dated 4-21-04 looked good.
# 18. Mr. Medford didn't have a waste analysis for the Fall 2003 applications.
# 25, 27. Mr. Medford does not have a copy of the waste plan.
# 39. The maximum liquid marker needs to be installed on the waste pond.
Mr. Medford had a record of the dates, the amount of waste applied and the fields that waste was
applied to.
D6,e,5 ►3 m�ctn LOUP or� c{�u1mP ?
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 123104 Entered By: lRocky Durham
3 03/10/03

0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 440058 Facility Status: Active Permit: 6WC4400 8 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: gQmplian Inspeglion Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Haywood Region: Asheville
9 ";ZO
Date of Visit: 12/07/2005 Entry Time:69.99 AM Exit Time: 10 : Incident 0:
Farm Name: Frank Q. Medford Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Frank D Medford Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 52 Joe Medford Rd Waynesville NC 28786642D
Physical Address: -
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
3 miles north of 1-40 on Ironduff Road
Question Areas:
jj Discharges & Stream Impacts
W Records and Documents
Certified Operator: Charles F Medford
Secondary OIC(s):
Integrator:
Latitude: 35°3542"
Longitude: 82'58'30"
JW Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
W Other Issues
Operator Certification Number: 21353
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
Primary Inspector: Beverly Price Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary: f
so
f l��
S
i:'QAe
I rr54414 in De -CL,, b4,
Page: 1

Permit: AWC440058
Inspection Data: 12/07/2005
1
Owner - Facility: Frank D Medford
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
I
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlnspection with on-site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Humber : 440058
Reason for Visit: Routine
Page: 6

r 0�0 w A �E9pG
D -r
Mr. Charles Medford
Frank D. Medford Farm
52 Joe Medford Road
Waynesville, North Carolina 28785
Dear Mr. Medford:
0
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environn=t and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek. P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Aquifer Protection Section
November 30, 2004 t
,
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Frank D. Medford Farm — Facility # 44-58
Haywood County
On November 15, 2004, 1 conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal waste
handling system for the Frank D. Medford Farm. The maintenance and operation of the dairy appeared
to be very good.
One area of concern noted during the inspection was with regard to record keeping. Liquid
levels in the holding pond are not being recorded. This is a violation of the General Permit# AWG200000.
A Notice of Violation addressing freeboard record keeping will follow this letter. Additionally, the waste
storage pond liquid marker was not in place on the day of the inspection. It is my understanding that the
marker will be installed by November 30 by the Haywood County SWCD. Please seethe attached
inspection report for additional comments.
It was a pleasure meeting you and I appreciate your assistance during the inspection. If you have
any questions regarding this inspection or need assistance of any kind, please do not hesitate to contact
me at [phone].
Sincerely
Bev Price
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure
Cc: Leslie Smathers, Haywood County Soil & Water Conservation District 589 Racoon Road
Ste. 203 Waynesville, NC 28786
Aquifer Protection Section Files ARO
IA�`bCarolina
11QtlZrall f
North Carolina Division of Water Quality — Asheville Regional Office 2090 U.S. Highway 70 Swannanoa, NC 28778 Phone [phone]
Aquifer Protection Section FAX [phone]
Customer Service 1-877-623-6748
I*Nnet h2o.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Qpport< *[Aifimtative Action Employer — 50% RecyclW10°% Post Consumer paper

Type of visit © Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
for visit OO Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Reterral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 44 58 Date of Visit: tZ/1S/2fl04 Time: 1I:3Qam
.,. ... =Notrational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Narne: Era b.D.—Mg.dfo d-Earm............................ ...... County jia). -.QQd.
ARO............
OwnerLame: Era &- D.. ............................... kNlWfQrd..............-...................................... Phone No: (.&Z.8j.6.Z2: 6.76.6................................—.................,.
flailing Address: s2. Q�.�1vdlnxd..RQad.......... ........ ...............
Facility Contact:
Title:
Way:Q a.i11e..yG--
Phone No:
z.z8.5....
OnsiteRepresentative: .......................................................................... Integrator: ........................................ ........... ... ....... ................... ..
Certified Operator:.(Jarlgs.E.............................. h1019rd.......................................... Operator Certification Number.21.153..........
.............
–•-•
Location of Farm:
A miles north of I40 on Ironduff Road y!
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ' 35 42 Longitude F-82--1 OF 58 30
Design. Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity population -Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
130 94
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
130
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
182,000
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons
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?
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
W'aste 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: ....._.%aste_.pautrl...... ........wttstack............................................ ---- ........ ....................... ................................... ...............................--•-
Freeboard (inches): 48 48
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 44-58 Date of Inspvctlon 11/15/2004 •
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 ❑ 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
S. 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 ❑ Na
elevation markings?
Waste Application
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 > 3000
12. Crop type corn silage
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
ii) Does the facility need a wettable acre det(rmination? — ❑-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?
Odor Issues
17. 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?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional
Air Quality representative immediately.
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
�:i.L�� 3 �':.aa•��"�E"3 �r � X --S' 'caia7" t �.,'�": "..;E�"fi'.":-v-' �"==fl:Pr��7"�+��5� ;-:«'z`"%iisiat �5.�� s. �"^ �.#:`.q
Comments refer to uestton E Y' lam,anYE$ answers and/orRaa recommendations or an .other comments
_Useadraw�ngs�of=foci/:typtwyo better,e=platn situateons. (use addttional,pages as necessary) ❑Field Copy ®Final dotes �. yI
9. Waste marker will be installed by the end of the month with assistance from the Haywood SWCD per Leslie Smathers.
A,
17. Discharge pipe is above the water level; no odor was noticed.
2. Mr. Medford does not have a copy of the waste plan. The waste plan is being revised by the Haywood County SWCD. Revisions
should be complete by the the first quarter of 2005.
3. Waste pond levels need to be recorded on a weekly basis per the General Permit.
:� :-�,�+,.', .d � ��* r✓r--t i r �,�r^£ ,. ";� y "a : r ilk , -• w r � � +�
Reviewer/Inspector Name Bev Price
•''A,w . r+}.nx. _ ik.. r....,. a. %y�.# yam, -,a, :fa s sa..- t
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:." �,��� Date: Ij
12/12/03 Continued

Facility Number: 44-58 Datnspection 11/15/2004 •
a
Rewired Records & Documents
2 f. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Pernvt or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WiFP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Waste Application IN Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
25, Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
`PI)ES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
35. Does record keeping for ;NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ 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.
ddrtional or.Drawings a�t� °cs�- ' •� ;�> ' _ ? `��
jl�,+,.rtr. '
Mr. Medford had soil and waste analyses for 2004. The operation and maintenance of the dairy appeared to be very good.
NOVAn will follow for absence of freeboard records.
Ed
12/12103

._I_.��
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional office
Michael R. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
WATER QUALITY SECTION
December 10, 2003
Mr. Charlie Medford
247 Medford Lane
Waynesville, North Carolina 28786
0
1 � •
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOLRCES
Subject: Animal Operation Inspection
Frank D. Medford Farm 44-58
Haywood County
Dear Mr. Medford:
Please find attached a printed copy of the Inspection Report for the inspection, which I
conducted at your dairy for the 2003 inspection year. I think 1 neglected to send you a copy earlier
in the year. If you already received a copy, please disregard this one.
Your excellent work on recording Keeping is greatly appreciated. Keep up the good work! if
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 251-6208.
Sincer ,
Keith Hayne
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure
xc: Haywood Soil & Water Office

Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit t7 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number t$ 58 Date of Visit: 0588/2003 Time: 1300
O =Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified El Conditionally Certified Q Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ........ ........
Farm Name: Funk.D..McjJfard.Farad►............................. County:#faxwmd............................. ........ .... ARD............
Owner Name: Erank.D................................. I&dfQrd..................................................... Phone No: 012J).621-0.66 ....................... .........................
Mailing Address: J5fUoc.Mcdfhr.d RarA.................................................................... WAY. ►eaxiair zic.................................................. 287BS......... _..
Facility Contact: Cleat:life.Mcdf ltrd .......................................... Title: ......................... ............................ .......... Phone No: ............. ........ ... ............. ........
Onsite Representative:.................................................. .... Integrator:
Certified Operator:.Chulea.F.............................. Meth........................................... Operator Certification Number:.2135.3..........................
Location of Farm:
I miles north of I40 on Ironduff Road �
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse LatitudeF-3-57• 35 4 a2 K Longitude 82 ' 58 30
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
DiscbMXe_s & Stream facts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: [I 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 ga ruin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: ....... waste.goad....... .....................................................................................................r..........
Freeboard (inches): 3h
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes 1Z No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure b
05/03/01 _ . Coerced

Facility Number. 44-58 • Date of Inspection OSIZ81Z003 .
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 maintenancelimprovement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
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 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? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
CK Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
0 Yes 0 No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 9 No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
CM Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit. i
•Sias.:.,T...... ..w .... ... }..>:Tii..T ....{i,s55::irir>:;;......k-�.,iy,:-}�. :-:c,`t :: ' ,.,y ..r::..-. ,::.�
.TT2
, L,.+; r. -..TT Y�4,,-y��,;'':k:j JT h .?Y`.�•Y..T rFT -. hy::'-._':`: ?TSH. Ti,:w.� -
Field Copy 0 Final Notes �
0.....?TTib:.,.-.,i.+}�C}:-�T: nx.},v`.-:.--.x'•. �.-.n:, ,�.i.,..}y:.t^S..T.^..-:>... w..F... .T:.ic,o.,-;;.x: <::�tl �.,.1 "YT i...l �.t�+.`:•:.`
:i
%'ic222Y<.... �`T;`Q'::�4,LLarc'e;....:
,A:$:„= .::�:.- ^..}♦�� Lx{:� ,`-i:t::'' .,r.',�`.�,., ::;•��•k
„r:tt:. ::,{{:_ »;;�..: c::u:.. ..z,>.:;h �{, >::�{iz'zY,.rrx;`::{• :;E:, n.zn:w:, •Tm{?;z?ct�.:�{;tia:{,. :..t?c .,.o.
acility appeared to be in good condition. Waste was being sprayed onto a nearby field during the visit with no problems noted. Records
ere not reviewed as the facility was just inspected late last year. Normally record keeping is very good. Other questions not marked were
of addressed during this visit.
:4T5::..:�....,. v.yi.;'.:i ....: ... •:.gin.:. _ _
Reviewer/Inspector Name
:......:: r
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date;
05103107 rnntin110d

7
• NORTOLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DmsioN OF WATER QuALiTY
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
WATER QUALITY SECTION
January 7, 2000
Mr. Charlie Medford
247 Medford Lane
Waynesville, North Carolina 28786
Subject: Animal Operation Inspection
Frank D. Medford Farm 44-58
Haywood County
Dear Mr. Medford:
Please find attached a printed copy of the Inspection
Report for the inspection which I conducted at your dairy
farm on November 18, 1999.
Your hard work in the installation and implementation
of your animal waste management is greatly appreciated.
Please remember that part of the requirement of your animal
waste management plan is record keeping of waste
applications, and to have manure and soil analyses
performed. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me at 251-6208.
Sincer ,
a
Keith Hayne
Environmental Specialist
xc: Haywood Soil & Water Office
INTERCHANGE 9VILDINO, 58 WOODFIN PLACE, ASHEVILLE, NC 26HO1-2414
PHONE [phone]B FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOTER - 50'% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

r
[*Routine 0 Complaint 0 hollow -up of UWQ inspection 0 hollow -up of IISWC: review O Other '
Facility Number Date of Inspection 1 11718/99
Time of Inspection ®24 hr, (hh:mm)
p Permitted a Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered In Not n_P_er_a_t7o_na`9 Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Frank 3�_ Meeifnrr�,F.aatm_----------, ........... ....----_----. . _-........ County: Haywood ARO
Owner Name: Medfnrd__........ __...................... __,.. Phone No:
Facility Contact: Fran W Ifnrd........................-• .....,..Title: O�m�..._..............-. Phone No:
Mailing Address: .......... _ ......... .... _. 7.828fi..__._._.
Onsite Representative: Frank.&.Char-lia-Medfixtl................
Certified Operator: CbaalaY............................. Medford .......................... ................ Operator Certification Number:21353.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude Longitude ®•
rren
esign x * urren� esig[tI-j,- ,v ren a Plumesul_,
��Capa��pulatiDp-�PouitrY�C_ ai acifyPulatinn_Capems ikon
ee er pLayer
r=71M
Dairy 1 130 1 96 -�
Feeder to Finish Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
"
arrow to Feeder er
r_
g" Farrow to Finish �, -�:-_
a
Notal Design Capac ty 130
Gilts
Boarsfrd
_ i w
Ta$2,00 l
E SS�W� : i 0
.R�� umber n� tions �
u surface rains reser goon rea 13 pray ie rea ;
g
o ignr Waste Management System
��` � MlPnds�
._
_.kSUM
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p 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) 0 Yes p 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? Cl Yes N No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? t] Yes Ills No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway p Yes ® No
Stricture I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ......txzste.pamcl.............-drystark.........
Freeboard(niches) 60..............................3h................................................................................................ .......... ............. ........... ....................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, [3 Yes N No
seepage, etc.)
3/13/99 Conimmed on back
4

jt
-:-ieor�es�o�dcnc�ab�ufthisvisit;•.-: �-:-:•:.:.:.:.:.:.:..• ..- -:-:::. -. -:-: ..:
NumSen f0e0finspectioll
'tVO�tIli$ — t�Y-i1CSI1"rSitSW
rBIFt[!i` 8tE ad Oft.
FRMY 44_$8
&=water technician NWH� E stsLm�"nwt �s
-_
ii7 e en�.hasnotbeen=issuedL. e
V
. office
y
to�theMedfdRl:9�6
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
lias not given a copy,. of the CAWMP 3
closure plan?
E3 Yes
® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
k RL�r =
L Y
MR
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
p Yes
® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement9.
p Yes
® No
9. Do any stucmres lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
® Yes
p No
Waste ARplication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding p PAN
p Yes
® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Graze) Fescue (Hay) Small Grain {Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAV�MP)
p Yes
® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
p Yes
® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
p Yes
®No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
® Yes
p 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
p No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
p No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes
®No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
p Yes
® No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
p Yes
® No
23- Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
p Yes
® No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
p Yes
M No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
p Yes
® No
.............. •defici .....wei....e. -dturM9_oris visit. ... Moirwill... ........e.
-:-ieor�es�o�dcnc�ab�ufthisvisit;•.-: �-:-:•:.:.:.:.:.:.:..• ..- -:-:::. -. -:-: ..:
'tVO�tIli$ — t�Y-i1CSI1"rSitSW
rBIFt[!i` 8tE ad Oft.
Thewaste�ondr �notw�ave.a level marker ,The,local sad
&=water technician NWH� E stsLm�"nwt �s
-_
ii7 e en�.hasnotbeen=issuedL. e
V
. office
y
to�theMedfdRl:9�6
lias not given a copy,. of the CAWMP 3
i�-4Rccord keep"�mg=has nottbeen€utitusted'smce.tlte dairy does=nbt
have a copy of,tbe managcin nt`�lai> &d� iiot
ass 7U WC 4s'7`t�
Al
k RL�r =
L Y
MR
C waste n,Ange enp--system'.was m'excellent_ condition
;� -
- '
_
Reviewer/Inspector !Name gi. ���
ReviewerMspector Signature:
Date:

r
Printed on 12115/99
ac Number. 44_58 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 p 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? 0 Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, 13 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? 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.) p Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? 13 Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? p Yes ® No
r �A F M1
.�'.��4
. S+.U'
rel
- �'
j.a ..M -
y a'; - 3•t �
r •• '.` its �-'�.h "4
.* K
,Y` �a s�.r _h "r a _ 5-�Fc'..yR
- :
-4"w
ff`sJ
tif
T

Type of Visit p Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit © Routine O Complaint O FoDow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied
"ate of Maur: 1Dl17R000 Time: 1000 I
Facility Number 44 58
O Not Operational Q Below Thb I old
© Permuted M Certifeed 0 Conditionally Certified Q Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold• �. _.
Farm Name: E=k D_ Medfard_Faon ---- -- - ------------- --- _ County:
Owner Name: frgah 11, — Mcd(QQBL Phone No:
Facility Contact:
Mailing Address:
Title:
Onsite Representative: Sadie Medfand _ __ ,. ____ Integrator.
Phone No:
CertWzed Operator. _ _ Medfpudd ��- ____.. .. Operator Certification Number.
Location of Farm:
3 mike north of I40 on Irondaff Road
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® CaWe ❑ Horse Utitude 3S ' 35 r 42 M Longitude ®•
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
r T
130 11 105
1�0
182,00a
»r tIf LDn6
%Mritg rrsJ� raps$
0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 1.egoon Area
2 7 ' ❑ No Liquid Wade Management System
SprayArea
M�
Discharges ail: Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Y
®No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
t
t
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
Ygs
No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (1f yes, notify DWQ)
I
[] Yc
s No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
i
I
d Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
(] Yt
s ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Y
M No
4
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yc
s CM No
Waste Colledlon A Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Yc
is 0 No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
S ".-
F
6
Identifier: --ma= P=d _ dt�r slack _ _ . .........--------- _______
Freeboard (inches):?
r

FanTity Number. 44-58 Date of Inspection 10/17/2000
m1MtY
The waste pond needs a level marker. The local Soil & Water Office should provide assistance in the installation of the mater.
�►
5. Are there any' threats to the of any of the structures observed? (ie! trees, stvere erosion,
,
❑ Yes
09 No
ser -page, dc-)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed andlor managed through a waste management or
t
closure plan?
❑Yes
N No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses as
immediate public heabb or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
I
7. Do any of the structures need maintenanoe6mprovement?
r
OYcs
i
N No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste s =tures require ?
❑ Yc s
N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maxim= and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
®Y
❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintmance ement?
Js
I
N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Y
N No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage &. Grain) Small Gram (Wheat, Barley,
01131
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designate is the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
byts
N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
OYes
N No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
bycs
N No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
i
❑ Yc s
N No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yc s
N No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Y
N No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Y
® No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
i
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
N Y
❑ No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iet irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
N No
20. Is facility not in compliance with arty applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Y
N No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yts
z
N No
22_ Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
1
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yg s
1
N No
23. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
❑ Yt p
N No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
N No
Lbyl
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
Ll Yi s
N No
_do- Y_ kotalhm�s: qr:d�#" iredeies wee: gotea:dai�ug its Y�Si�:: *1wIWUTA eO a )ao bribo : :
. .. . .... ....... ....
' • '-carresparabence About �his.visit.- . • . • ... • .. • . • . • .. • . • -
, a{ M,.:..�;,.,h.��,��{:r., rr� n^:`:'•,cz;E.;C3:t `-r.:.>S<<�},. tx'Cccwi;z�.:<`��• ri;i:`:{;or.cycyii��#;;��:�..i<' : w tt t- ;�,,�tt.,� ,2a*. '!'.�. 4,k�i,,:>.;,a.�._�-:.,.,k,��.:rxutri2:.,:t_�s��uY.u:ztH;, ccatstiy
J NO
The waste pond needs a level marker. The local Soil & Water Office should provide assistance in the installation of the mater.
�►
WMP needs to be obtained from the Soil & Water Office also. record keeping is minimal, assistance should be provided by the W
Office. The facility appeared to be well maintained and operated
.vim-,;.,:-,Rsa.tA:a?s,��i�+'.'{,+SYP:'tA:•ttrt�ir:<. 4?i�.'ac2?'t;;.:<ri::Rr':,...;i':;-:` >:.:.' t't'.">`.;...2:?y.`2:•:,::�z<:?"a*'• :<.. M+w�.'t• .,::,::ax>czat;
Reviewer/Inspector Name x { �� xuw { �,.�: �, ,�•,„, > ^�,„ y.,f { ,. � � ,�, �.
RevieweriInspector Signature: — - _ Date: S/00