010006_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number: 010006 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC010D06 ❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Alamance Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 1 111 51201 7 Entry Time: 10:00 am Exit Time: 12:55 pm Incident S
Farm Name: Covington Dairy Farm Inc Owner Email.
Owner: William F Covington Jr Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 3008 S NC 119 Mebane NC 273028168
Physical Address: 3008 S Nc119 Mebane NC 27302
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36"02' Longitude: 79' 19'34"
Hwy. 119 south-about 2 112 miles south of 1 40/85 on left.
Question Areas:
Dischrge&Stream Impacts Waste Col,Stor,&Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Michael Brian Lee Operator Certification Number: 993494
Secondary OIC(s):
On-Site Rep►esentative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Michael Lee Phone : [phone]
On-site representative Michael Lee Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebrock Phone: 1 I S_?': b 17,,PC Ul
Inspector Signature: Date: ' °Z Q f 7
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

'r
Permit: AWC010006 Owner-Facility : William F Covington Jr Facility Number: 010006
Inspection Date: 11/15/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
3.Silage leachate is excluded from surface water.Thanks!
4.Waste level is above maximum liquid mark and at,not through,the spillway.To pump today.NOV.
—12112/2017-Continued updates regarding the waste level have been received from Michael Lee.Waste level was compliant as
of 12M712017.MMR
7.Dam has been mowed.Must remove sand bags from spillway though.
""17.and 32.Approximately 100 acres may need to be removed from the waste plan.Michael is waiting on buyers to decide on
land.Please contact technical specialist to calculate the number of cattle that may be permitted now due to the"lost land."May
wait to revise waste plan when acreagelleases are certain.
21.October 2016 application records are ok.
21.Waste analysis for Fall 2016 waste applications was outside the 60-day window.Summer 2017 waste applications were
slightly outside the 60-days waste application window.
21.Soil tests completed February 2017,due again February 2020.
21.Several months are missing from freeboard records.
24.Calibration has been completed but please re-measure application width and record.
"Michael is concerned about allowable PAN for corn.Contact SWCD/NRCSINC Coop. Ext.for assistance regarding plant tissue
sampling of corn to obtain higher allowable PAN in a low production field(low RYE in WLJP)and note amount of nitrogen needed_
page: 2

f
Permit: AWC010006 Owner-Facility : William F Covington Jr Facility Number: 010006
Inspection bate: 11/15/17 Inssection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Cattle
Cattle-Dairy Calf 50
Cattle-Dry Cow 25
Cattle-Milk Cow 300 151
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 420.000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Waste Pond WSP 33.60 Q.00
page: 3

Permit: AWC010006 Owner-Facility : William F Covington Jr Facility Number: 010006
Inspection Date: 11/15/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges&Stream Impacts Yes No No No
1. Is any discharge observed from anYPart of the operation?
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a.Was conveyance man-made? M ❑ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State?(if yes, notify DWQ) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
c.What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State(gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system?(if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ ❑ ❑
3.Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the ❑ ❑ ❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection.Storage&Treatment Yes No No No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
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 ❑ MEI ❑
trees, severe erosion,seepage, etc.)?
6.Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ MEI ❑
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 ❑ M ❑ ❑
to roofed pits,dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application Yes No Na No
10.Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? ❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals(Cu. Zn, etc)? ❑
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? ❑
page: 4

r 'fir
Y
•
Permit: AWC010006 Owner-Facility: William F Covington Jr Facility Number: 010006
Inspection Date: 11/15/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes H2 Nj He
Crop Type 1 Small Grain(Wheat,Barley,
w Oats)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain Cover
Crop Type 3 Corn(Silage)
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 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Management 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 ❑ EEI ❑
determination?
17, Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ E ❑ ❑
Records and Documents Yea No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available? ❑ N ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes,check the appropriate box below.
WU P? ❑
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Lease Agreements? ❑
Other? ❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application? ❑
Weekly Freeboard?
Waste Analysis?
Soil analysis? ❑
Waste Transfers? ❑
Weather code? ❑
Rainfall? ❑
Stocking? ❑
page: 5

IL
Permit: AWC010006 Owner-Facility : William F Covington Jr Facility Number: 010006
Inspection Date: 11/15/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No Na No
Crop yields? ❑
120 Minute inspections? ❑
Monthly and 1"Rainfall Inspections ❑
Sludge Survey ❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
23. If selected,did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ M ❑ ❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge?If yes, check the ❑ 11011
appropriate box(es)below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels ❑
Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon ❑
List structure(s)and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26, Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment(PLAT)certification? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Other Issues Yes No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ ❑ ❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29.At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ ❑ El(i.e., discharge,freeboard problems, over-application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
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? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
page: 6

ivision of Water Resource
Facility Number 0 Division of Soil and Water Oservation 104
M.
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: A jdtA 041Cry Region:
Farm Name: t"o V I Y""1'1�� ' dri al r 1 -F-7h L Owner Email:
Ili
Owner Name: C, oV 1 Y1 +8 V1 r Phone: 6 - S" 5 - a �o'`"�
Mailing Address: Q r Ne, 119 c, n 1\J L,
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: (��(��� Le- Title: Phone: 3 3(p "Slb 37.SY
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:(a h r✓5
I.zt 3! 2-0 1 8
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
� rr � ,` ►/
Location of Farm: Latitude: ,36 6 Zt 3 9 Longitude: 7 !Qo � g J 7
14 v.r � <<� � F-a_.V-rvi a r1 .
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish Layer Dairy Cow 3 o Q
Wean to Feeder I INon-Layer I Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean Design Current Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder Dry Poultry Capacity Pop. Non-Dairy
Farrow to Finish I Layers I Beef Stocker
Gilts Non-Lavers Beef Feeder
Boars Pullets Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other urkey Poults
Other Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes (M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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) ❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge'?
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: Z77 - Q Date of Inspection: a/
Waste Collection& Treatment
4. is storage capacity(structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate'? %Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: Was&
Spillway?: �&5
Designed Freeboard(in): ��
Observed Freeboard(in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? �&Yes [KNo ❑ 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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes,and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? KYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? [:] Yes Co 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 g" No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers,setbacks,or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 2f No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? if yes,check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals(Cu,Zn,etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN> 10%or 10 ibs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop TYpe(s): -5l'iJl4tJ Qtr~�r) t ("0Q-C C �'OP ,�0ny—
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
t5. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No DR"�A ❑ NE
acres determination'?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA QjT'NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes � No �N�❑ NE
Required Records& Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage& Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes,check ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
W21oes record keeping need 'eyes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
aste Application Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysi n oil Analysis u1��rP Tars FReweather Code
Rainfall IgStocking ❑Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes YNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected,did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No M-3dA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - O Date of Inspection: Ij /s O
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste appli on equipment as required by the permit? 0 YesN
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facilityout of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If es check Yes No A NE
P p g Y ❑ ❑ � ❑
the appropriate box(es)below.
Failure to complete annual sludge survey 0 Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
Ej Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating nun-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes V No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments(PLAT)certification? ❑ Yes 1XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No [] NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal? 71
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes T��No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes,contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes MA No NA ❑ NE
permit?(i.e.,discharge,freeboard problems,over-application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. Co Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
NApplication Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative? ❑ Yes (!56o ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes Ek No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question#): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations(use additional pages as necessary).
5 o i i }-es 4- AL)e- a o ,Q P7-0 So, to
O O
�f ior7�
tD11p ��{ br �� bh (� � ��+�� ? >� l2-45� t o m45v� e; w
1 c ' �aYr+ mowo-d ? ye-5 Mus+- Ce'Move � .4F r" s Qlt
1OO dLcreS rimoVec ®(i
w
-
a,l s 0) � � 11 OVA re-co
3 5 l. I ag t, 1 e ouch oct e- ex M u d e_a o +Ni s -reams? L-e,e--
3 Qt ems e'' &A11A -u LaAe +l -e_ rn v ".e.v- o� *(na - vw" la e1
dV1 05� ant •' �1 t,�,o�.k re.��o ux ske� to
W111P.Y� AC�e.a��� t 5 Ge�rt��n.
F0.-�1 020110 Qli �s w�Sc-er mat as i s 6 e -J wi hdd
S e�r�r c�-� m o+�l-�n5 o�'e. ��n s s t•�� reoa,r re��o�d s .
5 �5� P�1lin �tSS U� Sa-tile-P� rowti- �orv� i y� 0,. �ot,-) Qrodl iC�10Y+
i�Ce 5 irk a vti �- Inoke, Q tAov v)`{- c rr neeApA ,
Reviewer/inspector Name: �/` ! $5� ro Phone: 1336-
Reviewer/lnspector Signature: 4Date: f 1Ll F412U 7
Page 3 of 3 _ W G-17"-e_ O_-�Qc� f1(LO 21412015
earn pO4 - L`iJ d, u�sP"L Ltw0-ya N6V , pj q -'day

IDivision of Water Resourc
Factiity Number ® - O'Division of Soil and Water servation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency Q Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: p I Arrival Time: wi-00,71 Departure Time: County: ptAffiMa Region: 4]
Farm Name: (p\)U.)G`T �Pt�Y, 11.1E Owner Email:
Owner Name: g\,.>Y COU41�p(1 e.R Phone: 579 ' 2-ag3
Mailing Address: 200-g1, S. T4c_ ky� f'&eL tt 6 1 k%L 5-?90 -a
Physical Address: �Y
Facility Contact: /I cwwl Llc:;& Title: Phone: S(6 --3 7 5q
Onsite Representative: �/ Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. 'Vet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish I ILayer Dai ry Cow O® 5
Wean to Feeder on—Layer Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean Design Current Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder Dry Poultry Capacity Pop. Non-Da'
Farrow to Finish Layers Beef Stocker
Gilts Non-Layers Beef Feeder
Boars Pullets Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other Turkey Poults
Other Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed Gam any part of the operation? ❑ Yes D4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State?(If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE F
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State(gal tons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system?(If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: % - is
of Inspection:
Waste Collection &Treatment
4. Is storage capacity(structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: tx_'#M 9.0m
Spillway?: _
Designed Freeboard(in):
Observed Freeboard(in): �11
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes X 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 14 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? %I Yes ❑ 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes,check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals(Cu,Zn,etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN> 10%or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): Lx- 694«.3 Ll,O V.
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? Yes 0 No ❑ NA 0 NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No ® NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes Dgj No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records& Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage& Permit readily available? ❑ Yes "'�'(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes,check ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes,check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [<No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Waste Application d
c ng ❑Crop Yield y
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? [:] Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected,did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment'? ❑ Yes ❑ No LZNJ
NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: % Ora Date of Inspection: lek
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applTrTation equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes,check ❑ Yes ❑ No � NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es)below.
❑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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments(PLAT)certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes rg�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit?(i.e.,discharge, freeboard problems,over-application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes,check the appropriate box below. Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
XApplication Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes [M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewerflnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative? ❑ Yes Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes [5�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments(refer to question##): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations(use additional pages as necessary). '�}}
�-Soku T6s flV t
E 2-01�► 3 !g, tGs pil �-�kW 3 o �� �� 1000 ( -
117
— CR�tec ttcr� RECoa's 1
— r-Ifi6C�C TtL4 (AtlasJ Z-CDok-&Q (aoA, 41lS t
-
�- eLAX) U tQARISAJ, � ac-l-.eTc to o s ff^ t-r ? P6N Yam,
�'G�Rnn�`i f LS QuN�PW w ► Po �� �d�►.su t -�c��-`t-uiG
-- SAP 1�tR�o� l5 o cc�@RuSG R�r�� 5'P a►�rJ E ��. '�d R�Q$ '� OcZ-��$R t a)
Dow k) tP is-60
p crrc-E Rc�oaz ntr n Fe ► �U 3[\M VW Sr v w
p
CkWW PsfPur 46TgftCtr'S Fac o� 1,. s� o�..►c- was
Reviewer/inspector Name: °J4>� Phone: 'ht L
/10
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: a $ 3e
Page 3 of 3 21412015

r
Division of Water ResouredU
Facility Number - Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation ` ��
Q Other Agency ,
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint Q Follow-up Q Referral Q Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: J Q f Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: it NC., Owner Email:
Owner Name: fj I IV Co v I in 4 �bn Sr, Phone: S 7 0o— 9-113
Mailing Address: 3QQ �, Q, &yNe, Ci 91 0 -2L f
Physical Address: 33(D 5-1 lQ 75-
e
Facility Contact: i clap-I LeeTitle: PhoneX
�
Onsite Representative: iutegra : (0 k ES, L1U 1 i� b
Certified Operator: M ic,h&A Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
� �t{O �. J � �� l�u� I1� . �QX IYl 0 h I✓
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish I I Layer I YJ Dairy Cow Q
Wean to Feeder on-Layer I TDairyCalf
Feeder to Finish Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean Design Current Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder Dry Poultry Capacity Pop. Non-Dairy
Farrow to Finish Layers Beef Stocker
Gilts Non-Layers Beef Feeder
Boars Pullets Beef Brood Cow
Turke s
Other Turkey Poults
lot Cr I 10ther
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE'
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State?(If yes,notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes Lro ❑ NA ❑ NE
3_ Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes 'O�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

50— -�Dri 5'e C V r'e. C4t)VeC- a
Facili Number: - -10 Date of Inspection: � Oy B*-,! t!
Waste Collection&Treatment �(
4. Is storage capacity(structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes I x T No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: P,
`V Spillway?: V
Designed Freeboard(in):
Observed Freeboard(in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? [:] Yes rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e.,large trees,severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes,and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,notify DWR
7.Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8.Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes Q(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits,dry stacks,and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? J�
Waste Application
10.Are there any required buffers, setbacks,or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes b(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application?If yes, check the appropriate box below. [] Yes No ' ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals(Cu,Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN> 10%or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
• b
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes XNo 0 NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes V No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records &Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage& Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes,check ❑ Yes >No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design [:]Maps [:] Lease Agreements ❑Other:
Does record keeping neediprovement? 1 , ❑ Yes No A ❑ NE
Waste Applica on eekly Freeboa d Waste Analysis Soil Analysis ❑ 4Weather Code
Rainfall �tocking Crop Yield 11120 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1"Rainfall Inspections ❑ 4js C�^�
22. Did the facilityDt�al to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes [y No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected,did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No CANA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: n 1 - v to I* Date of Ins ection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes IX No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes,check ❑ Yes ❑ No %NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es)below.
[]Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s)and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments(PLAT)certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28, Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes (� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal? �T
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes a� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes,contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes ] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit?(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems,over-application) 14
3 1. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?If yes, check the appropriate box below. Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative? ❑ Yes .R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments(refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations(use additional pages as necessary).
ClbQ n a 01-7 o
1
six/d
,57
)JCAC9 LK� D V,:� t-7 (�J_N S_
Reviewer/Inspector Name: 6115150 KO 5 Phone: /
'44 Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: I d
Page 3 of 3 21412014

Division(of`Water Quali
Facility N:urabei� O:Division of Soil.ariil`Wat�onservation �:r
0 Other Agency
Type'of Visit: Compu nspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 011outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 12It / Arrival Time: Departure Time: fit) County: Region:
Farm Name: -Co l )q ty0!q 1 )Z`, Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: II Integrator:
Certified Operator: ' f t Gh 4 Q, e Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle Capacity -Pop.
Wean to Finish Layer Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder Non-La er Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean Design Current Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder Dry Poultry Capacity Pop. Non-Dairy
Farrow to Finish Layers Beef Stocker
Gilts Non-La ers Beef Feeder
Boars Pullets Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other Turkey Poults
Other Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes O<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State?(If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes 5No ❑ NA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State(gallons)? Z2
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system?(If yes,notify DWQ) [] Yes N ❑ A• ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 2 No NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters [] Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

IFAility Number; 071 - 0 jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection& Treatment
4. Is storage capacity(structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall)less than adequate? Yes J5201,1]
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?: �/e
Designed Freeboard(in):
Observed Freeboard(in):
5.Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes :No
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 ❑ 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 ea .notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits,dry stacks,and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks,or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 7No
NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals(Cu,Zn,etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN> 10%or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12.Crop Type(s): -
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes N ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ONo . ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage&Permit readily available? ❑ Yes VN
❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes,check ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement?If yes,check the appropriate box below. [:] Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Waste Application ❑Weekly Freeboard ❑Waste Analysis ❑Soil Analysis ❑Waste Transfers ❑Weather Code
❑Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑Crop Yield ❑120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected,did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412O11 Continued

F'acili Number: 0 1 - n 6 jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes,check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es)below.
❑Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon '
List structure(s)and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes eN ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments(PLAT)certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29.At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes,contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the [] Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e.,discharge, freeboard problems,over-application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes,check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments(refer to question#): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations(use additional pages as necessary).
���C/'1'11�}rS l�U �`-C�h�`^ � � I GT��-C`� � • ��fa�/r7G��
t2 Gv n .y, e Civti140 R b
I
i 3 a I�s So 7 ht� .s
Sv [ �eAs 3- 1-- J
Reviewer/Inspector Name: Phone:q t l 7 j 1 Y zp-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: S ('� Date: „ _. 7v r _
Page 3 of 3 2/4/2011

Division of Water Quality
PFacility Number ® - (� 0 Division of Soil and Water Co ervation I n
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: a a(Q Arrival Time: Q, Departure Time: Z�� County:
t�ftaWeRegion: W S
Farm Name: CiDUI h OY1 I f Qf M Owner Email: m b ie e— 1-1 9 G'i'1nal 0,Y)
Owner Name: `I Q rl S r• Phone: S _7 S` d-—i 9.3
Mailing Address: NC 119 mel" __N c)
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: LLe Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: k�tegtslers iv ul.�i. 1/j 6
7 r
Certified Operator: K t L_ ae l t ae_ Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36 a `i Longitude:
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish Layer ai Cow
Wean to Feeder Non-Layer Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean Design Current Dry Cow?pasta:
Farrow to Feeder Dry Poultry Capacity Pop. Non-Dairy'
Farrow to Finish Layers Beef Stocker
Gilts x`J "*' Non-Layers Beef Feeder
Boars Pullets Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other -Turkey Poults
Other I LlOther
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State?(If yes,notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State(gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system?(If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes C5�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes /N(No 0 NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - • Date of Ins ection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity(structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall)less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes,is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: Yy&_erk A4rj
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard(in):
Observed Freeboard(in): 1
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage,etc.)
6.Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan? T
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes,and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes [ No [DNA ❑ 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 ' No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers,setbacks,or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 19No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? 00",11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes,check the appropriate box below. es XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals(Cu,Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN 0 PAN> 10%or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No [%NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes k/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records& Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage&Permit readily available? ❑ Yes k�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?If yes, check [] Yes P�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Waste Application ❑Weekly Freeboard ❑Waste Analysis ❑Soil Analysis m.- ❑Weather Code
❑Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑Crop Yield ❑120 Minute Inspections ❑Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes D�fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No 1XNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: -0 jDate of Inspection: [� 3
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check [] Yes No NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes P(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes rqNo ❑ 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? ❑ Yes *WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes I$ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes NA No ❑ NA ❑ NE
yy
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use _drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
30 b�§S , ,o- vim- &,adeJ LU0P 7
;ZbL Cali �ro��i�n co l2�ed ?
11j1/aoia
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
❑Yes
[�]No
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
DeNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
4 Yes
[:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
W
Phone: -7 -7 1 -- So? g9
Date: 101�_] I r sa
21412011

Form Slur-2
Covington Dairy Farm, Inc.
3008 S. NC Hwy 119
Tract #
3423
Mebane, NC 27302
Field #
2
Facility # 01-06
Location
Beside PHH
336.587.2993 Farm
Acres
31 fields are together now
336.516,3759 Cell.
Crop Type
rye, burndown then corn
Waste Analysis PAN
Recommended PAN
Weather
Date # of loads Vol. (gals)Iload
Total Vol.(gals)
Vol./acre
PAN (lb11000gal) PAN applied
sunny, 81
9/12/2012 15
6000
90000
2903
2.6
7.5
sunny, 78
9/24/2012 30
6000
180000
5806
2.6
15.1
sunny, 77
9/25/2012 15
6000
90000
2903
2.6
7.5
6000
0
0
2.6
0.0
6000
0
0
2.6
0.0
6000
0
0
2.6
0.0
6000
0
0
2.6
0.0
CROP CYCLE TOTALS 360000
Owner Signature
30.2
2.6
100
Nitrogen Balance
92.5
77.4
69.8
69.8
69.8
69.8
69.8
•
0

Form Spar-2
Tract #
Field #
Location
Acres
Crop Type
Weather
sunny, 85
sunny,85
sunny, 80
3423
1
Across from PHH
28
Rye, burn down then corn
Covington Dairy Farm, Inc.
3008 S. NC Hwy 119
Mebane, NC 27302
Facility # 01-06
336.587.2993 Farm
336.516.3759 Cell.
Waste Analysis PAN
Recommended PAN
Date # of loads Vol. (gals)/load Total Vol.(gals) Vol./acre PAN (lb11000gal) PAN applied
8131 /2012 15 6000
90000
3214
2.6
8.4
9/1/2012 19 6000
114000
4071
2.6
10.6
9/26/2012 15 6000
90000
3214
2.6
8.4
6000
0
0
2.6
0.0
6000
0
0
2.6
0.0
6000
0
0
2.6
0
CROP CYCLE TOTALS 294000
Owner Signature
27.3
2.6
100
Nitrogen Balance
91.6
81.1
72.7 .
72.7
72.7
72.7
72.7
72.7
•
r�

Form Slur-2
Covington Dairy Farm, Inc.
3008 S. NC Hwy 119
Tract #
3437
Mebane, NC 27302
Field #
50A
Facility # 01-06
Location
behind barn
336.587.2993 Farm
Acres
31
336.516,3759 Cell.
Crop Type
rye,burndown
Waste Analysis PAN
Recommended PAN
Weather
Date # of loads Vol.
(gals)/load
Total Vol. (gals)
Vol./acre
PAN (lb/1000gal) PAN applied
sunny,84
9/27/2012 28
6000
168000
5419
2.6 14.1
sunny, 87
9/28/2012 10
6000
60000
1935
2.6 5.0
sunny,80
- 9/29/2012 21
6000
126000
4065
2.6 10.6
6000
0
0
2.6 0.0
6000
0
0
2.6 0.0
CROP CYCLE TOTALS 354000
Owner Signature
29.7
2.6
30
Nitrogen Balance
15.9
%9
0.3
0.3
0.3

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number - Division of Soil and Water C ervation
Other Agency
ape of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
mson for Visit: t Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Of Visit
Name
�n ► Z !/ j�';4rrival Time: I- Departure Time: �A,■■ �_
Owner Email: IrW �P��,�.�il��� L,l�L']Ji1A
)wner Name: nv t 1-4I-. Phone: g a 9 3
nailing Address: 11Aeb «x1- , a 730 x
IPhysical Address:
[,
Facility Contact: Title: Phone: 51 T 3751
Onsite Representative:/ Integrator:
Certified Operator: (L.�\.l F• V I ft t �J Certification Number: -
Back-up Operator: C,�1(�{�-Q Certification Numher: III) 13
o -r t,'L O-lti
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
Design Current
Dry Poultry CaDacity POD.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
PR
County: [ Region: f '(,��.1 Q
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
ai Cow
-Dairy Calf Ljaso
5A
(�
,Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes 1� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: V- • Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes CNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: Q5 to N y,
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes O(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 C<No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes 0
❑ 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) �(No
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ❑NA 0NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes jNrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): {�i °+~O V ec re-
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes LXNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes D j< ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑ Yes [)(No
❑ Yes wo
❑ Yes Dj-No
❑ Yes NONO
❑Other:
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑NA
❑NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
2�oes record keeping need i provement? prepr b;Monthly
b ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
,Raste Applica ' n eekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis rs ❑ Weather Code
ainfall Stocking [Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fa Ito install and maintain a rain gauge? [—]Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No QrNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Q Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [ rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [:]No �PA ❑ 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 to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
C%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
C* o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes N<o
❑ Yes N'No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No
ElYes No
❑ Yes 15LIN0
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
(Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use dpewinQs of facility to better explain situations fuse additional na2es as necessarv).
I of1 62,bt Rollo
.
Dc;�o � ��
1/131a�O 13
U
Reviewer/Inspector Name: a,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 1
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 5_2 13
Date:
21412011

L
Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
for Visit Routine 0 Complaint . 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1.fl Arrival}�Time: 1 r7r7 M Departure Time: Z .Od County: R19&Okci.ACG Region:
Farm Name: 6t 0i��n Datru _r�ifMOwner Email: /�
Owner Name: 1301 COUl�lS ,� �>, Phone: Sy%�' 9j.M 6F)0,7lx
Mailing Address:
Phvsical Address: S,A E
Facility Contact: h1'ic- L Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: . M i Lee Integrator,
Certified Operator: , � Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator1'6U-C-11 Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: E, o Oz ' ® Longitude: ® o
�'Lfo �,� �w� I �� �,� �r-q►'M ®n L.PF"-r ^� Z,�Mi, Spk � O�Z-'tt� �
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑.Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
3; ❑ Gilts
Boars
Design Current Design Cui
Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle.` t_ Capacity,fbpu
JU Non -Layer l I J
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Points
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Dairy Cow 3 0 O
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
Q
ODry
Cow
T&A: --
°° ❑
Non -Dairy
ry ❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
El
Beef Brood Cow
Number of�u� re
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation`?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes fkl No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 19(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

MI Facifity Number: 0 1 — 66 1 • Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
El NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure l 11 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: W cok �ond
Spillway?: �3
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): XNo
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ElNE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ElNA ElNE
through a waste management or closure plan? X
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ElNA ElNE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) 1�9M . 1,A, `" , '--kA,
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes ❑ No
X NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes 91]No
❑ NA
❑ NI-
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name q N� iFz (.! Phone: C %—SZFS'3__
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: c Date: 1 Z ►-7 Zb 11
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

!a
Facility Number: D I — �(�. D& Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes ANo
❑NA ❑NE
El NA El NE
21.
Does record keeping need improvement.
ElYes �I No
❑ NA
❑ NE
L''J Waste Application Weekly Freeboard aste Analysis oil Analysis aste Transfer✓sn Annual
``r
`
E
t
ainfall EStocking rop Yield 120 Minute Inspections onthly and 1"
-
Rain Inspections Feather
Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes ❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes )4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes XNo
'�(NA
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes /XNo
El NA
El NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
////����
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concem?
❑ Yes ,[J No
ElNA
El NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
X
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
lJl,./, 1Z,� �� 4Z/d-7 w-tj �ln 7 �c, � G �
Al
�rj 4nlrnl�Y g1Jsn,t.q I.
y/!S i D :Sj�ri �l B.�u►J� !f.
w
Page 3 of 3 12128104

,L7 Division of Water Quality W
c
Facility Number � a✓ / 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit C mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Fallow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: rrival Time: Departure Time: oZ 0� County:qlo (n Region: �`U
Farm Name: .DU + n 4-4n D a[ r 4 Fa rn� Owner Email:
Owner Name: U + ��f n-j— Phone: 7$ —
Mailing Address: s' tiCq t 1'I e a 7 3
Physical Address: IIQ_iY1 L
Facility Contact:
l4 I CIA a-e— l :ems 'Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: II I C.hae-1 _.I Ae e— Integrator:
Certified Operator: , l l (� �fV� uU v t n Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
S O 1 C3 T - t16
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
� o
Latitude:
C` �Il9So0-141,
Back-up Certification Number:
Longitude:
Pots—M a n i�-i'T� 2 14
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
I—� ❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
Pullets
Poults
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
3M
El Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: F
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ElNA ElNE
ElYes YNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility ;\lumber: - 0'P • Date of Inspection .
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ElNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 0i&� e_ cxt
6 Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes )<No ElNA ❑ NE
S. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes PNo ❑ 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 ❑yesNo ❑ NA El NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Anplication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes bNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Po ' g El Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground [I Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN PAN � 10% or l0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
O
12. Crop type(s)�&eA)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[:] yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
[NA ❑ NE
El NA El NE
El NA ❑NE
I aaOq lO � ? ,1� a �gQ p� °� s 2.c-U-L
Ole,
4/9110 bSD=
ReviewerAnspector Name wP, ,�} ( Phone: —
Reviewer/Inspector Sign atur&--Jl� Date:
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: E — Q Oe of Inspection 0
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 1�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ VrUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need im rovement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
aste Applica n need
Freeboard Waste Analysis S;7monthly
alysis aste Transfers n
Rainfall Stocking 1 Crop Yield 220 Minute Inspections and 1" Rain Inspections Weather Cade
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes Ef No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No ANA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes INo ❑ NA ONE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? El Yes ++++❑ No 1�(NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes *0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes �%No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ElNA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by ❑ Yes kNo ElNA El NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes $No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes 'MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
i
Ai
a + ot"
uP d
Af�tL
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Q�oF VArg,
Incident Report
Report Number: 2010 1648
�}oJ-Zolo-�C_ d s7
Incident Type: Non -Compliance Reporting On -Site Contact:
Category: APS - Animal
First/Mid/Last Name:
Incident StartiEd-,,j 11/23/2009
Company Name:
County Alamance
Phone:
City: Mebane
Pager/Mobile Phone:
I
Farm_#: 001-0006
Responsible Party:
Reported By:
Owner:
First/Mid/Last Name:
Permit: AWC010006
Company Name:
Facility: Covington Dairy Farm Inc Address:
ti�r:s f Name! William
Middle Name: F
City/State/Zip:
(Last Na e: Covington
Phone:
Address 3008 S NC 119
Pager/Mobile Phone:
1
CitylState- i-p Mebane
NC 2730281
Phone:
Material Category: Estimated Qty: UOM
DD:MM:SS Decimal
Latitude:
Longitude:
Location of Incident: Covington Dairy Farm
Address:
City/State/Zip
Chemical Name
Position Method:
Position Accuracy:
Position Datum:
Reportable Qty. lbs. Reportable Qty. kgs.
Report Created 05/14/10 12:12 PM Page l

Cause/Observation:
Action Taken:
Incident Questions:
Did the Material reach the Surface Water? Unknown
Surface Water Name?
Did the Spill result in a Fish Kill? Unknown
If the Spill was from a storage tank indicate type.
Containment? Unknown
Cleanup Complete? Unknown
Directions:
Comments:
Conveyance:
Estimated Number of fish?
(Above Ground or Under Ground)
Water Supply Wells within 1500ft : Unknown Groundwater Impacted : Unknown
Access to Farm ■ Animal Population Spray Availability
■ Structure Questions
Report Created 05/14/10 12:12 PM Page 2

Access to Farm
Farm accessible from the main road?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Animal Population
Confined? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Depop? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Feed Available?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Mortality?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Spray Availability
Pumping equipment?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Available Fields?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure Questions
Breached?
Inundated?
Overtopped?
Water on outside wall?
Poor dike conditions?
Waste Structure Type Waste Structure Identi inches Plan Due Date
Waste Pond WASTE POND 18.00
Event Type Event Date Due Date
Incident closed
Requested Additional Information
Report Received
Referred to Regional Office - Primary Contact
Report Entered 2010-05-11 12:15:34
Incident Start 2009-11-23 08:00:00
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Plan Recieved Date Level OK Date
Comment
Report Created 05/14/10 12:12 PM Page 3

Standard Agencies Notified:
Agency Name Phone First Name M.I. Last Name Contact Date
Other Agencies Notified:
Agency Name Phone First Name M.I. Last Name Contact Date
DWQ Information:
Report Taken By: Report Entered By: Regional Contact:
Melissa Rosebrock
Phone:
Date/Time: 2010-05-11 1215:34 PM
Referred Via:
Did DWQ request an additional written report?
If yes, What additional information is needed?
Report Created 05/14/10 12:12 PM Page 4

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number d Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation o9z . 3Q
Other Agency
Type of Visit 19XRoutine
Coompliance Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: WZq Arrival Time: Departure Time: j OC)� County: Ad Ct? Region:
Farm Name: -6 F6t_rno Owner Email: F i I t5
Owner Name: t &l C' Phone: .S 7 P cX cl �� ^�
T - ,�, rr 2
Mailing Address: 3 dd $ S • I �,rp Q �_[ ^ ` �_C-
Physical Address: �.lUyiL-P _ _ . _
Facility Contact: Z r Title: Phone of
Onsite Representative: i C A _ integrator:
Certified Operator: _1� �I IQI1(_ F. Operator Certification Number:
b yBack-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ° a Longitude: 3
4zo Ky" o h [ � 1 aL lvt � to 5
50 u-(-� o-� 17-`fo / r. -7 .
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder I
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
❑ La er
❑ Non -La er
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Pouets
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design / Ourfent
Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes
El No
El NA
El NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
D(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
xw No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — O 6 1 • Date of Inspection .
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:Wi 51e,OVA
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental thr at, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes L� N El NA El NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑yes Oes No ❑ NA El NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) ,��
4. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require El Yes R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes EVNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes n'-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[:]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable
.Crop
/Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) Lei .A_tc o -
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes *o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes ❑ No
Yam' NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes A
❑ NA
El NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
El Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
AL
Reviewer/Inspector Name l (� cv- Phone: T1 — �a S�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date:

Facility Number: *of inspection
•
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes Wio ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. D es record keeping need im rove ment? ❑ Yes 6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
P g
Waste ApXockin�
fion W kly Freeboard Waste Analysis W Soil Analysis ste Prattsf2rs rnr•
Rainfall Crop Yield []Monthly and I" Rain Inspections Weather Code
t ---
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No [4NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No D�NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues ,,�
28. Were an additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the pen -nit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes LYNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Y P P P
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes YNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes 2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by ❑ Yes V No ❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes ��No
o El NA El NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? El Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
FZ aooa -Le_5+5�)
6
i. SDI°� �5�.� ,-�c��d-5 ? • �/� p�
al r-Qkn no+ hay-veastejj *4 C.vleCIV ney-t VrIScf
ds
a4ol Soh = 7-ss At
k
Page 3 of 3 12128104

i ivision.ofWater Qualit
I . ] I FaCtlltyNt>imber Q O Division of Soil and Watei' 'onservation fa yy�
`' 1. Other Agency ` �" r
Type of Visit ACompliance
Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
(Routine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: I 1 ]�f Arrival Time: Q Departure Time: County: �� Region:
IT Farm Name: � a Owner Email:
Owner dame: t Phone:
Mailing Address: :366 2 �[' q���Q-lijig , &X_ a-) 30da.
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: jM'� �p . j 1,e-e— Title: Phone No: to 316 q
Onsite Representative: �IJI 1 i 1 ,}.I4R
. , Integrator:
4 11(�lllA It__ r Operator Certification Number:
Certified Operator: W
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
I-4O 6&s4.
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: c
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er I I --d
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: El Structure El Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Q Dairy Heifer
❑ DEZ Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
I
Number of Structures: U
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharger_
❑Yes
No
❑NA
El NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 14 No ❑ NA LINE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continuer!

• Date of Inspection B0
Facility Number: e)
— Dfp
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
Cl Yes
0No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes. is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
tructure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
+e-
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier: ,YV �R>
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No ElNA ElNE
K
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�(No ElNA ElNE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
El Yes
No ❑ NA El NE
El Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload El Frozen Ground El Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
r
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window El Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination:
❑ Yes
❑ No
KNA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or.any other comments: R
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
. way r� Pond dosea 7 parlte.- 5e-+
Reviewer/Inspector Name F1 V —�1_� Phone: —1 -7 _02
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: , Date:
I- r - 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 61 Oe of Inspection
Required Records & documents
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Otherthe appropirate box. ❑ WUP Checklists
21. Doej
d keeping need it ' Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Weekly reeboar Ste Analysi ❑I 7nthly
sis❑l ❑ cking ❑ Yield ❑ and I" Rain Inspections WWeather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑Yes ❑ No NA ElNE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ((((((❑ No XNA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in c arge? T)e 9 ab0� ❑ Yes ,�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
C.�a�s I.Y� �tlet
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLA ) cent icagon? � ❑YesXNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28, Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes J*2No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ YesNo ❑ NA El NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes 0No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) �
32. Did ReviewerAnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes L]a No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes NrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
d 5f CC l , re cor& ? D �!
a I aCo-7 +a 05K so i t test res L) 1+S
a ��1 o� ? t5 te- 04) a_l 51 S Nc* b b� l K e. d b 1 Ll 1 �/ a66Z .
C-ro _l -g.0-S e Las+on e- , n t o l arm
Lq &I.
/ r
;�J
_ o

Division of Water Qualit)qp
Facility Number © ® 9 Division of Soil and Water Conservation a
0 Other Agency +
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit I Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1 Arrival Time:
Lio()M
Departure Time: F1_1 I � County:
-Region: IL .�
Farm Name: o r
Z>r1C o
Owner Email:
tL
Owner Name:
Phone:Qy
Mailing Address: b UQ S_ °
z
Physical Address: :5a W e
Facility Contact: K-tchae-1 tee—
Title:
Phone C �r - 3
Onsite Representative: RIC'ba-ei
Integrator:
Certified Operator: 1 `h a 1n Co V l
76 o
Operator Certification
Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ° � 03
Longitude: °
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
ZDairy Cow
Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifej
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures:
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes JV1No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State ❑ Yes �(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: O — (� � • Date of Inspection 7
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: Vlliq�;L pjqn
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan? {
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental t eat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? El Yes No []NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
Yes
❑ N El NA
El NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9_ Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
El Yes
//
9 No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable
�Crop
�}Window ❑ Evidence o/f� Wind
,�Dri, fl !❑ Application
lOutside of A,reaa-
12. Crop type(s) �VJIiUA_J�(f � /1j At lY� ! 14 Au 1 ri-/i WJ i A!%
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes VNo
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes Info
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes ❑ No
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes VNo
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ;Q No
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
d
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
VNA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
El NA ❑NE
(�)j CA�hp wig tl� ne- C-0 r Is

Facility Number: — tate of Inspection "?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropirate box, ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists [/] Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Doe record keeping nee4W,/kly
proveinent.
E Waste Applic ton Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis
['Rainfall E60cking Crop Yield
AikS
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes N"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
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 phosphorus loss 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 the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
1 Comments and/or Drawings:
+
Y
1 1
f ,
' v
❑ wit
Weather Code
❑ Yes ,VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
NA
El
El Yes
�NKo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
�4 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
X NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes OrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0jNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
)No
❑ NA
❑ NE
v
12128104

N Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 01 0 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC010006 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: C9mpliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine — County: Alamance Region: Winsto - alem
Date of Visit: 01/31/2006 Entry Time:01700 PM Exit Time: 02:00 P_ Incident #:
Farm Name: Covington Derry Farm Inc
Owner: }lyilliam F Coy'naton
Owner Email:
Phone:336-57§-2993
Mailing Address: 3008 S NC t19 Mebane NC 273028168
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Hwy. 119 south - about 2 112 miles south of 140185 on left.
Integrator:
Latitude:36°02'39" Longitude: 77"19'34" _
Question Areas:
jj Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
W Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: William F Covington
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 21579
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Michael Lee Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Michael Lee Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebrock Phone: [phone]
Ext.383
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
3. Suggest re -trenching or adding dirt to contain leachate.
21. Need to record freeboard levels ech week.
21. Don't forget to record wheat yields this spring.
Records look good in general.
1/30/06 waste analyses: LSD=2.2 lbs. N11000 gal and SSD=3.8 lbs. N/ton
Page: 1

Permit: AWC010006 Owner- Facility: William F Covington Facility Number: 010006
Inspection Date: 01/31/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
O Cattle -Milk Cow 300 70
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 420,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
aste Pond WSP 33.60 48.00
Page: 2

•
•
Permit: AWC010006 Owner - Facility: William F Covington Facility Number: 010006
Inspection Date: 01/31/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
Cl
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
c. 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 (Led large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWC010006 Owner - Facility: William F Covington
Inspection Date: 01/31/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 010006
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
is PAN 7 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
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 2
Fescue (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 properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
0 ■ ❑ 0
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

•
•
Permit: AWC010006 Owner- Facility: William F Covington Facility Number: 010006
Inspection Date: 01/31/2006 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 Farm (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?
❑
■
❑
❑
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 concem? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑
■
❑
❑
Quality representative immediately_
Page: 5

•
-.
Permit: AWC010006 Owner- Facility: William F Covington
Facility Number:
010006
Inspection Date: 01/31/2006 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 reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑ ■
U
❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ■
❑
❑
Page: 6

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number Division of Soil and Water Conservation
- - - Q Other Agency
Type of Visit �.91��mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit GQ. Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1 a Arrival Time: +� oDeparture Time: County:Region: 5 P-0
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name �l ►� Phone:
e&
Mailing Address: -_, do �-'j N� 1 �9 IY 1�r.J~t f L� 1 V� zk
Physical Address: ZAA4 W 1
• -� [
Facility Contact: t �%k L�� Title: Phone No: 5 - 3 l'-� 1
Onsite Representative: 11 4 it Ag jr � � Integrator:
Certified Operator: Yy l 111 Q �. CO VI ] Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ^ o I 4 I ��k;, Longitude: f� o [jT i u
td
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Laver
�, ❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Dischar2cs & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
00
Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — © Date of Inspection "p%e
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
[[[[❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure h � Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
S
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No []NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
PqNo
❑ 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 acre determination ?
❑ yes
❑ No
)( NA
Eq NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
O
Reviewer/Inspector Name r
A Phone: (] 01D
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur M'
Date: 0
Page 2 of 3 V 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Qate of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No El NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check El Yes
Ilrr�__No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does r cord keeping need im rovement? If yes, check the appropria box belo K] Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
aste"'Application Weekly Freeboar ❑ Waste An s ❑ S 'Analysis
❑ Rainft' ❑Stock ❑ Crop Yield El Monthly and 1"
Rain IkSpections El
Weather
Cs9
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
WA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? Oc—+. Ob ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
*o
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No )KNA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes JANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
*o
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
IX No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
l�3ojd� LSD = 55� 3
G
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: G10006 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC010006 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Lompliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: -Routine County: Alamance Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 9811812005 Entry Time: 12:00 FM Exit Time: 01:30 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Covington Dairy Farm Inc_ _ Owner Email:
Owner: William F Covington
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: ,3008 S NC 119 )Mebane NC 273028168
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Hwy. 119 south - about 2 112 miles south of 140185 on left.
Question Areas:
0 Discharges & Stream Impacts
0 Records and Documents
Certified Operator: William F Covington
Secondary OIC(s):
Integrator:
Latitude:36°02'39" Longitude: 79°19'34"
0 Waste Collection & Treatment
Q Other Issues
On -Site Representative(s): Name
On -site representative Michael Lee
24 hour contact name Michael Lee
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature: "
Secondary Inspector(s):
0 Waste Application
Operator Certification Number: 21579
Title Phone
Phone: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Ext.383 g&�—
Date:
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
14. Still need to add T-3558 F-1 & 2 to "pasture page" in the WUP. See tech specialist.
21. 2005 soil tests results are ok.
21. Need to record all precipitation events, not just weekly total. Other records look good. Suggest calculating PAN balance more often
so as not to go over the allowable PAN.
5111105 waste analysis=4.5 lbs. NI1000 gal.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC010006 Owner - Facility: William F Covington
Inspection Date: 08/18/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Humber: 010006
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
0 Cattle -Milk Cow 300 225
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 420,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Waste Pond WSP 33.60 1 58.00
Page: 2

11
e
•
Permit: AWC010006 Owner - Facility: William F Covington
Facility Number: 010006
Inspection Date: 08/18/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
r)'sr.ha[gQq & 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) ❑ IN ❑ ❑
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?
❑
Yas
■ ❑
No NA
❑
NE
Waste COIIP.Ction, Stowe & TrealMent
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 (Led large trees, severe erosion,
❑
■ ❑
❑
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑
■ ❑
❑
closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? {Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑
■ ❑
❑
and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■ ❑
❑
improvement?
Yes
Ng 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)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge 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
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

• i
Permit: AWC010006 Owner - Facility: William F Covington
Facility Number : 010006
Inspection Date: 08/18/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
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)? 00
❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
0 ❑
No NA
❑
NE
13e(-ords 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?
❑
N ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
Cl
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
0
❑
❑
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?
❑
0
❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
Page: 4

Ll
•
Permit: AWC010006 Owner - Facility: William F Covington Facility Number : 0100D6
Inspection Date: 08/1812005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Vislt: Routine
Other IcStjps
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
Ye.-
❑
No NA
■ ❑
NE
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andlor document and report those mortality
©
■ ❑
❑
rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality
❑
■ ❑
❑
representative immediately.
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 on -site representative?
❑
■ ❑
❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Page: 5

Factl><ty��Num�er:
Q �
Cp
DIviston of Water Qti'ality
Divlsioii of�Soil a"'Water G�rvation _
father Ageiicy 11�1,�
Type of VisitCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit C]I! Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: l Arrival Time: [Jln.j� Departure Time, County: &M (3 nC-Q- Region:
Farm Name: CD V'I.no EOifri y��� QI Y` 4 E2Lf lYlner Email:
Owner Name: ? 1 �� W V l Vl Li T 0 Yi Phone: S-7 — 2 q 9 2�
Mailing Address:
Physical Address —
Facility Contact: 1Y 1 �'.rl��! Title: Phone No: (D
Onsite Representative:, '1Y1V,>�� Integrator: ;
Certified Operator: `&J 1 1'jo rn F. Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
r- Iff/40 EaA.
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: Mc l U M Longitude:
N 4wy 1 9, 5 o � a 11a m i 1es,
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Laver
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Dtrr.vr_0rl0
Design Current
4 Tattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

, Date of Inspection l
Facility Number: f] — D 61
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
yNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
W �fe__ P.rj
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?: 2
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
/
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�yVo ❑ 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
KNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
O(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13.
Soil type(s) "
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
4No
ElNA
ElNE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
ElYes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination,[]
Yes
❑ No
((NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
El Yes
No
/❑_NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to,better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
010 5 �, (�S . N f oat
r�
Reviewer/Inspector Name M 1(' Phone: 11
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date:
12128104
4W Wit_- 3 3
Continued

Facility Number: Q — DioInspection 0
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Pen -nit readily available'? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? Iryes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does cord keeping nee7tim ovement? If yes, check t ie appropriate box b ow. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
ste Applicati ekly Freeboard 'aste Analysisotl Analysis n11-�`._Rain all tocking Crop Yield _ ❑ Monthly and I " Rain Inspections Weather Co e
A Corn 11)0
22. Did the facilit fail to install and maintain a r� gauge? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23_ If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
1
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit'? 04. 0 b ❑ Yes 14 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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 phosphorus -loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
❑ Yes ❑ No
XNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �(No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
IxNA ❑ NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
ElYes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
a � �
T- 3 s� ` m po-s4u re-
1 IV& � tr�
Soy Sa.u�.� le�s u I ej 4r aaos e+ y? 4vk
12128104

ston�off�V�ter Quality
Q� tvtston'of;Sotl,and Water Conservation,
dother'Agency
Type of Visit © Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit OO Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number O1 06 Date of Visit: 2/19/2044 Time: 1000
0 Not Operational 0 Below'1'hreshold
Permitted M Certified 13 Conditionally' Certified 13 Re-istered Date Last Operated or AboveThreshold:
hreshold:
harm Name: ................................................... Count': AjA=jDrjt ------------------------------- WS.BO__....
OWHer ,Name: �lU - - - - - --- - - - - G9va]1gtRD - - - - - - - - - - - - Phone No: 3 (t 78.1223---- ----- ----------------
Mailing Address: 3.QjQ11..$..N.Cj.j9..................................... ... Mgba.Ile...N.C................................... . Z7.3.02..............
Facility Contact: Mirbtael.Lee.......................................`Fitle:............................................... Phone to: 33.6,516.3.759 .................
Onsite Representative: Mlshae�l.eeIntegrator:__._----------------------------------____-•
Certified Operator: WAUAMY ............................. C.Q.yJ1tgt.Q.F0x ................................. Operator Certification Number: 21.5:79................
Location of Farm:
Hwy. 119 south - about 2 1/2 miles south of 1 40/85 on left.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 02 39 Longitude 79 ' 19 34
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 0
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I ® Dairy 300 200
❑ Non -Layer JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other 771
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 1 420,000
Discharges & Stream Iml2acts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'?
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in galhnin?
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
Ide tf;6-0 IV—t� P�tud
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
as...................... -- ----------- •--•--•-
Freeboard (inches): 56
I2/12/03 Continued
13,1"7 r `�

Facility Number: 01-06 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes OR No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ® No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes ® No
elevation markings?
Waste Applicalion
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
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Graze)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14, a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes (9 No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes ® No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
23. Need to keep track of the bedding waste given/sold over the course of the year. Per Michael, it's about 2-4 loads per year
(load=approx. 2 tons).
23. Need to record available freeboard each week rather than 1-2 times/month.
23. Waste applied to Tract-3458 F-1 during Sept. 2003 did not have an accompanying waste analysis within 60 days.
** 11. and 29. About 90lbs. PAN was applied to Tract-3437 Field 3A (25 acres) during September through November 2003 and no crop
as established to take up the nutrients. Approximately 40 lbs. PAN was also applied to T-3423 F-2 in November 2003 with no
receiving crop ever established. Additionally, T-9694 F-19 received about 9 lbs. PAN in November 2003 and a receiving crop was not
]anted.
29. In Spring 2004, corn is to be applied to T-3437 F-3A and T-3423 F-2. These fields are not listed in the WUP under corn. Fields
need to be added as soon as possible since owner plans on applying animal waste to these fields and planting corn.
Y
Reviewer/Inspector Name Yleli>s Rosebrock
Reviewer/inspector Signaturei� Date:
12112103 r - v T r Continued

Facility ,Number: 01-06 104 I nspection 2/19/2004
Re uired Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available'? ❑ Yes ® No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below, ® Yes [:]No
® Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ® Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
® No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33.
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? [f yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form []Rainfall ❑ Inspection After V Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections []Annual Certification Form
[] No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
12112103

Y on of Water uality i Q
vision of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency:
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit QX Routine ()Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Q Time: O Q O
10 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted Certified D Conditionally Certified [Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: ----- �_.... `r...Q, r. �?` r ?..�. County: .....L..L�Q_rr .R.�.....................................
qq
Owner Name:.. .............I
Phone No:......��...Jk..-.�..7.............�........... 3..........
Mailin Address: �N11 ivC. a �30 Z
g�./.}............f...M.......................................9..........._._....... _..........1Cn h ..n �.......�....�.........-.. --.... _..... ................-..------I----------------
Facility Contact: �. !...1..�[..1_._�..._....._-_ e.... Title: Phone No: 33�0 Sj tP o 3 �9
..................................................................................................
l }
OnsiteRepresentative: ...�.�.1..,......l�.e_.-... ._..... ................ Integrator: ... -.................................................................................
Certified Operator: --_ . �...� -�[ �(1V� ....... T.............Ccl i...... ..... Operator Certification Number:
..........................................
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine []Poultry Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 3ia ' D 2� 4 44 Longitude • 4 64
Design Current"
`, Sir`i>rte .. ,. _ .� Caaaeity 'Peiniilatien'
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ soars
Design Current Design - Current'
Poultry , _ ,Ca act :P.o elation Cattle;:, ;Ca actt , Po utatton.
❑ Layer 11 Dairy 3001O
❑ Non -Layer Non -Dairy ;5
❑ Other
C
Total Design Capacity ..300
-Total SOctA'
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: ElLagoon ElSpray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
�10 b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes [INo
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 to
o
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes
Waste Collection & Treatment All
4. Is storage capacity {freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?pillway ❑ Yes No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 4x
Identifier:..'t�1p.i...T................... .................................... ................................... ......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): -'s-0
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: --� . Date of Inspection h,J/
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
)3(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
�kxo
& Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes
A<o
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
�o
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
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with thos designated in the CerdfiekAriimal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
Yes
ANO
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
0
�C
Odor ]sues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
[]Yes
XNO
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
XNo
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
XNo
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
Air Quality representative immediately.
.Comments (refer to quest{6p�#) Explaru a- 'Y-J S awwers and/or any.recommnsendahaor.an_y:'other:comments.
..�
Use drawings off facility to_rn better-exglasrtuat10ns:,(iise additional pages.as necessary): & Field Copy ❑ Final NotesALI
Y
�4 3.3 lb-5 M11000 r /
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
12/12/01 Continued

Facility Number: — re InspectionL�
Required Records & Documents
21. FaiI to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ W` P, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application ❑ Freeboard A 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?
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes �Vo
❑ Yes /4W(O
X'Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes o
ElYes TNo
❑ Yes JC No
El Yes //'` No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes X—No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
34, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? L ❑ Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appro ate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After I " Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
ddtti6nal�Commentsand/or_Drawings.---. - -:
V*t'-_* 9 0 1& • �. PAN w2.�--C� u� �� 3,9
T-
34 �3 -r- Z-
aq.�voV. no �.
PJJ
414 P.
MAA
F- I � &ta�" �� 9 1 pi� N
12/I2/03 a 0 0 3

-~ �l ,)ivision of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 01 06 Date of Visit: 03/19/2003 Time: 0920
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: ....................... ................. ....... County: Alamxm ......................................... NV.SRQ ........
Owner Name:>3iAl............................................ �t?.Y,i1�gt0rt................................................. Phone No: 33.6-5.7.8-2.99.3 farm...............................................
MailingAddress: ..1,.1.9...................................................................................... Meba►a�.. Q..............._.......................................... 2.7.3.0.2 ..............
Facility Contact: M.l09e.1.LV0.................................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No: 3IM1.6.3259........................
Onsite Representative: .............................. ........................................................... ..... Integrator:.............
Certified Operator:}..YJ]Ual[nf............................. GRyigg1<Qzt.ar......... I....................... Operator Certification Number:2.15.79 .............................
Location of Farm:
Hwy. 119 south - about 2 112 miles south of 1401$5 on left.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 02 39 �� Longitude 79 • 19 34
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ 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 IN Dairy 300 215
❑ Non -Layer JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 420,
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 1 JE1 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
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 0 No
,Vaste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Stricture G
Identifier: ...... Wasie.Pond................................................................................................................................................... ...................................
Freeboard (inches): 24
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 01-06 Date of Inspection 03I1912003
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?
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
■ ►5 a
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement'? Yes 1 o
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
N No
Waste_ Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11,
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
N No
12.
Crop type Fescue (Graze) Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
N No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
N No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
N No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
Reauired Records & Documents
I7.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
N Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
N No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
N Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
N No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
N No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
® Yes
❑ No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
N No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
N No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
8. Keep an eye on the diversion ditch above the WSP and the dry bedding leachate getting onto the diversion.
17. Could not locate copy of the COC and permit in records.
19. Don't forget to use PAN and acres from the CAWMP when completing records. No overapplication noted.
19. Waste analysis for Jan. 2003 applications was slightly outside of the 60 day window. Don't forget to take waste sample for dry waste
on concrete above waste pond.
22. Evidence that waste has been up to the spillway but is 12" below the max. liquid level now. Need to call WSRO when waste level
goes above. max.
26. and 29.-32. Not applicable to this facility at this time.
w
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melissa Roscbrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 01-06 *e of Inspection 031191Z003
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, mussing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanenthemporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Cl Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Add itiona omments and/orDrawings:
10/11/02 ALD 4.4 lbs. NI1000 gal. +
119. Don't forget to request copy and zinc analysis when sending in soil samples to non -USDA lab.
wJ
05103101

. 0 q A*.
Division,of WaterQuality
Q Diszslon of Soil and Water.Conservation
0 Other Agency "
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: �. Time: =-F-�=—�
Facility Number
10 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
NPermitted P Certified U Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: _
!Farm Name: J1 CQ F&rroL Count: a l6 b10 nLe
Owner Name:
Phone No:
r v W,
-71, �i�`Q ram.
Mailing Address:
0 6
l _n j
y —7`30 2—
Facility Contact:
tit
t1 on
Title:
Phone No:
Onsite Representative:
Gi a Integrator:
sr� 3757
FQ'non
0 �� I �n
Certified Operator:
Operator Certification
Number:
Location of Farm:
w;,l ►I1 Sou
, �, a
R mI le
5oLi+�0
❑ swine ❑ Poultry
Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude
' ® "
Longitude EETI• E3
Design
Current
. Design Current
Design Current
Swine Caaciri• Po ulahon
Poultry
Ca aciry Pao elation Cattle
Ca acih Population
❑
Wean to Feeder
❑ La er
I
Dairy
tan
❑
Feeder to Finish
10 Non -Laver
I I
❑Non -Dairy
❑
Farrow to Wean
❑
Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑
Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
300
❑
Gilts
Total SSLW
2_6 Q00
E.
Boars
Number of Lagoons 1 ' 601 - [L Subsurface Drains Present jLI Lagoon Area JLJ Spray Field Area �
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If ves, 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?
«'ante Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway
�truco#re i Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: ` V
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
❑ Yes kNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
-VNo
❑ Yes
'KNo
❑ Yes
XNo
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: - a Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
El Yes
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 anv of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
N$No
$. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
XNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
�*o
Waste Application
10, Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑Yes
No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
No
12. Crop type 66 y-. Ue-Vue)it 5MA11 6r-ai
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the ertified Anima! Waste Managem t Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
o
14, a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
ElSINo
No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
El Yes
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
K►No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Xo
Reguuired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
Yes
❑ No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Man age ant Plan readiljv available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists. design, maps, etc.) Jtf
ElYes
No
�.�
C'l
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigezen, free oard, wart anaUlysis &soil sample reports)
b ea
Yes
rr�
❑ No
20- Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ YesLANo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
Yes
❑ No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
�io
25- Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AR'MP?
❑Yes
/
*o
W No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers andloi.any, recommendations or any other.comments.
Use drawings of facility' to better explain situations. (rise additional pages as necessary): Field Conv - ❑Final Notes
Kqa.AJ &-k-)
IAL�tA &AWA
H,
Reviewer/Inspector Name [)
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date:
05103101 I y
Continued
3360 �­7I. q�es

Facility Number: Q —06 hate of Inspection ' �J
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below---Eq -10
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during, land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? Yes
30, Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate co►'er? �o
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? E9-Y s 0
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
c4 3�. No# ri C le— `
�j
d
"#Ov�
O5103101
YA Al Foy M

stun of Water Quality
fil—Wision of Soil and Rater Conservation -
d Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit © Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other © Denied Access
Facility Number O1 6I r Date of Visit: i 1/21/2002 Tine: 10:00
ro Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [] Conditionally Certified [] Registered Date Last Operated or Above "Chreshold: ...............
Farm Name: ............................................................. County: Mamarkvg ......................................... NY.tZQ........
OwnerName: dill ............................................ QYl�igto[1....................-............................ Phone No: .-5.7.8.-Z92............................................................
MailingAddress: .O.R.$.S.N..11.9...................................................................................... Mv.baw_NK............................................. ............. 273101 .............
Facility Contact : .................... —............I......................................... Title:............... ........ Phone ,No:......
Onsite Representative: JB.ill.Ca.Y.i>xg.IA.n................. Integrator.............
...........................................................................................................
Certified Opera tor:NN'IllUa7R F............................. CSty7liw1oj1J1'............................ ..... Operator Certification Number:2.15.7.Q....... ......................
Location of Farm:
Hwy. 119 south - about 2 112 miles south of 1 40185 on left. +
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 02 < 39 �6 Longitude 79 • 19 34
Design Current
Swine Capacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I ICK Dairy 300 23D
❑ Non -Layer I I JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 420,000
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps I 1 JE1 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharaes & 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 mail -made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure ] Stricture 6
Identifier: ...................................................................... .
Freeboard (inches): 27
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 01-6 Date of Inspection 11/21/2042
5.
Are there any immediate threats to the i grity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑Yes
No
seepage, etc.)
6.
Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
El Yes
No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
S.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement'?
❑ Yes
® No
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12.
Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Graze) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Ycs
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
®No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
The certified operator has been very sick the last five months. Application records will be completed as soon as he is able. Dates and
locations, and corresponding waste analysis were provided for waste applications.
_
* Remember to request Zinc and Copper indexes on soil samples when sending to a private lab. (required per permit)
Mr. Covington is planning on applying waste as soon as field conditions allow. Still has to complete small grain planting.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
Revie►verllnspector Signature: Date:
O5103101 Continued

Facility Number: 01-6 Daaf Inspection 11/21/2002
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
0 Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surfwce of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
❑ No
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan bfade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
®No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
® No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
❑ No
A ittona omments and/orDrawings:
Waste analysis: 10-11-02 ALD 4.4 1bs.N./1000 gals. B
J
0510310I

l ^ivision of Water Quality
ision of Soil and Water Conservation
0 ther Agency
[Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 1 06 Date or visit: 2/6/2002 ,11me: 1330 .
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified (3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ................
Farm Name: CRxxi>gtQm.t? �Y..kOX�tth.t�c......................................................... ............ County: Alma= ......................................... 1'!',SRQ........
OwnerName: Hill ............................................ CoAngtou ................................................. Phone No: fi-S.7. - 9Q...........................................................
MailingAddress. 39N.S.M.119...................................................................................... lY1ebAnc..N.C.......................................................... 2730.2---..-----...
..Title Phone No- Facility Contact: .et0.LQ�l.. Q.Y.tltllgtlJtl....................................................................................................... .. ..........................
Onsite Representative: F..en1oxk.Co.yjngtoa.....................
Integrator:... ............................................
Certified Operator:.Wj Uaim..(k'enl;0W.............. Cminglp7 Ur................................. Operator Certification Number: Z157.9..... ........................
Location of Farm:
lwy. 119 south - about 2 1/2 miles south of I 40/85 on left. +
r
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 ' 02 6 39 44 Longitude 79 • 19 6 34 C{
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponidatinn
❑ 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 300 206
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSL W 420,000
Number of Lagoons ent 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Pres❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
L
olding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 1 JQNo Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1'. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
[]Yes ® No
[]Yes [-]No
[]Yes []No
❑ 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 IN No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ®No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ...... Wasle.P.ond..................................................
Freeboard (inches): 48
05103101 _ / Continued
_

Facility Number: 1-06 is Date of Inspection 2/6/2002
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trosevere 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?
�,
❑ Yes ® No
[]Yes ® No
[]Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
It. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes . ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
Reouired Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
Oe/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
Cl Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
® No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any: recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings. of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ®Field Copy ®Final Notes
Waste analysis dated 10/23/Ot was for 8.6 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Me] •ss Rosebrock / }
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu J//j7f Date:
05103101 Continued.

h acility Number: 1-4b Dr` of Inspection 2/6/2442
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
ngs:
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
[:]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ❑ No
At
05103101
J

e
Division of -Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit VRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Dare ofvlsh: eO=Not­dj
Time:onal Below Threshold
Permitted OCertified Q Conditionally Certified [31 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: 0,0vinafoln1 ru ' County: A tarn an C e-'
Owner Name: ]��. I I 2,z U 01 Phone No: 733 � . S 7 gCi f,3
/� (� � I ,, f ^�
Mailing Address: {Jb� v 119, tt r n'Jt�� r f� '-77,30G
Facility Contact: n 'Oz. n Phone No: 3 '✓ �' �� *' v 7-
Onsite Representative: +�n
"0-o V "tr)C4 fo rrj Integrator:
Certified Operator: 1 W �1 Operator Certification Number: jai
Location of Farm:
y I1Sou 1 0�t�.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude' ��� Longitude����
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Ca aclty Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
JEJ Laver I
I
Dairy
7r12
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
Total SSLWQ
Qdj
❑ Boars
I Number of Lagoons ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ I,a oon Area JE3 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps 11 IDNo Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Imnacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? [Spillway
f Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: � V
Freeboard (inches):
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
[)(No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
Structure 6
I\
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection
5.
Arc there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
No
seepage, etc.)
6.
Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure
El Yes
No
plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
XNo
7.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
8.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
XNo
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ YesVo
Waste Application
10_
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
XNo
11.
Is there evidence of over application? . ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
ONo
12. Crop type AIn4 i
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
.0No
No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Required Records & Documents
'�*<o
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
o
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ` /
❑Yesro
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
o
to
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
El Yes
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
-boo
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
Cl Yes
PCNo
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
o
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
ElYes
No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or an Other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
r r
Reviewer/inspector Name I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:.
05103101 L T ) f Continued

Facility Number: 0i— Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes $No
El *CS f-I-
Additiional Comments and/or Drawings:
it
R
05103101

'Wrvtsion of Water Quality
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation 0
�I O Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation f
Reason for Visit *Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 7l24/2t)01 Time; 090o Printed on: 7/24/2001
Facility Number O1 06
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified Q Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ...............
Farm Name: Uylu;ltoat.Ralry.Fagan..lnc.......................................................
OwnerName: OIll............................................ CoxingtoR ...................................
Mailing Address: 310.08-S.M.119 ........................................................................
Facility Contact:.W..illi,�llAt.11'�m1RA1).Gax1111Q1u..................Title:...........
Onsite Representative: jFg9QX a11d.U11L.i~Oylltt,gXQR....................................
Certified Operator:.Wjjj iaIDp F............................
.. . RSA[lg]iR)tl..........................
Location of Farm:
Hwy. 119 south - about 2 112 miles south of 140185 on left.
County: Mama= ......................................... 1'4rrSRQ........
Phone No: N-578:199............................................................
Wb a nti.. N.0.......................................................... 2.73.02 ..............
Phone No:
............................................................................................
Integrator: ......................................................................................
Operator Certification Number:Z1S7.9.............................
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®• 02 • 39 44 Longitude 79 • 19 ®"
Design Current
Swine Canarity Ponulatinn
❑ 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 300 200
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 420,000
Number of Lagoons 0 10 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges R Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier• Waste Pr nd
. ...... . .. .....................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 82
05103101 Continued
j`D � �

Facility Number: 01-06 Date of Inspection 7/24/2001 •
anted on: 7124/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes ®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Wheat Sudex (Hay)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question;Fj, Explain any YES answers andlor any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility t-o better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑Field Copy ® Final Notes
7. Continue efforts to control and repair animal burrows.
8. Continue efforts to divert silage leachate around the creek. Operator has begun digging diversion below the silage trench to keep
leachate from potentially getting into creek.
27. Dead milk cow noted near upright silos. To be picked up today by Etheridge Animal Removal Service.
Sent requested information to Mr. Fenton regarding 1217 guidance and state statutes pertaining to silage leachate. mmr 724/01
Reviewer/Inspector Name :Melissa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:A!ULPA&Z_-Date: Q
05103101 f Continued

. Facility Number: 01-06 • of Inspection 7/24/2001 Printed on: 7/24/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
[:]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ®No
[:]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional Comments and/orDrawings:
05103101
05103101

7111
� Division of Water Quality. it ¢ 4' ! � w ' .Ap e.
0°Divisioi of Soil and Water'Conservation
Q Other Agency a �
w :m
W
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint. O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility NumberDate of Visit: Time:
__ O Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted Certified [3Conditionally Certified [3 Registered
'` 11
Farm Name: �avl.n�....1.nn .....+ ..y..... arm.....10C_..'.....
Owner Name:.... .�.1........... .U.�. .. .... 6n.......
Facility
Mailing Address:..---.3 ....... .........1.. V..4 ........�.. .................
Onsite Representative:...7.. W.i.1'Q. .............
Certified Operator: f . .
Location of Farm: �J
y 119 5� , a%o�+ a- a rn l S
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
County:...l...................................
Phone ..................
[on......................... Phone No:. , S7e..Q /S
-------------------- .3.....
Integrator
.... Operator Certification Number: ,,,,�,ta---73..........
an !e �4,
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry 4(cattle
❑ Horse Latitude ®•®+
`� ��� Longitude• ®�«
Design. Current Design
Current
Design ,Current '=
Swine
Capacity Population Poultry Capacity
Population C de
Ca aci : `:Po "ulatfon
'"
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
I
Dairy
I
❑ Feeder to Finish
10 Non -Layer
I
Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
d�
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
Namber.of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
.
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps. ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes kNo
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 bKo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes WNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway
t� truct rc l trudture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Y..\,,
Identifier: Wasle'.. h.......................... ................................... ......... I .......................... ....................................
Freeboard (inches):
5100
❑ Yes XNo
Structure 6
Continued on back

Facility Number: ' — �j • Date of Inspection "51 Am
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes bNo
(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/impruveinent? ❑ Yes *0
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes VNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes Vo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ONo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes )'No
12. Crop type t [Z 4 J `
13. Do the receiving crops differ with thosYdesignated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes o
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes 15LNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes VNo
Reuuired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑
Yes No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes X No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes VNo
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes o
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes X.No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes X.
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes VNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes o
Ko yiolati�gs;oi it fcieucies were pQte� d4ttifng this;visit' • Y;o> willl• eeeire f)o; curtiv • . _
icorrespondeirce about. this visit.
Comments (refer to question' #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or,, any other comments ;;
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
`7 - ( abr99
i rwe e-�45r+s -Fo hole-s/a n't ma1 S .
S°i
l2e�a�-e., l�+-ti'o u tici
e�ree.�-m operafor has be �di �n ve,rs`Iav�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: `% #_ P j AA 4_ 1• —4 d/j 1 L nrl- P j Date: V U I 5/00

Facility Number: OFlete of inspection .
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below -f5-Y`O'No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes KNo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes'-kNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? — FYes--[�]'No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ���, �No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?--B-);es—;].No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? —134vv-- —No
-�. � da:►rv� cow Hared r1eo� v pr; �- - s i Ios e Fog -
To bt P
V
b To N1 E4,er.iAn► ma I Remo �� I
01,A1
5100

xrvision of Water Quality
ivision of Soil and' Water Conservation -
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit © Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date or Visit: 3!6/2001 Time. 12:So Printed on: 7/23/2001
01 b
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
0 Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:..............
Farm Name: Caxxt�gxala.�iaxry.kax .tmC.............................................................. .. ..... County: Alamace ......................................... WS.RQ...---..
OwnerName: Dill ............................................ �A.Y.I!<1�tlDtf ............... ............... .................
Mailing Address:R48...�...................................................
Facility Contact: .............................................................................. Title:
Onsite Representative: F.ej1.t01n CAyittg1Q11....................................................
Certified Operator:.Willtarn.................................. Gaxin 0ja........................
Location or Farm:
Phone No: 3.3fr.S.7&2,92 ..........................
M.0glim.N. .
Phone No:
..................
Integrator:......_.
... Operator Certification Number:21579.
2.7.3.0.2 ..............
iwy. 119 south - about 2 1/2 miles south of I 40/85 on left. +
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 ' 02 1 39it Longitude 79 ' 19 • 3464
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I Dairy I30p
❑ Non -Layer I I❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 420,000
Number of Lagoons I I JEI Subsurface Drains Present I ❑ Tagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps 1 1 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? IN Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Identifier: ................................... .......................................................................................................... ..........
Freeboard (inches): 48
05103101
Continued

Facility1.
Number: 01-6 Date of Ins cction 3/h/2001 a ti
� P 0 �1 Printed on: 7/23/2001 '4
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes ®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Wheat Corn (Silage & Grain)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reouired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ 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.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ® Field Copy ® Final Notes
9. Current marker is not graduated, but it has the max. liquid elevation marked.
Facility and records look good.
o application to crops this Spring, to date, except commercial fertilizer.
Reviewer/Inspector Name ;Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: 01-6 ol' Inspectinn 3/6/2001 Printed on: 7/23/2001
-1 &
Oiler Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
❑ No
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
® No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
❑ No
- ' tttona g � ommen .an
0510310I

M
ivision of Water Quality
vision of Soil and Water Conservation
Cher Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit . O+ Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date Irf' Visit: 8/16/2000 Time: 1015 Printed on: 8/16/2000
O1 06
0 Not Operational 0 lie] ow "Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ................
Farm Name. Quingluxt.D.&Y-Earm.ttxc..............................................
Owner Name: Hill ............................................ C.O.Y.jingtma ........................
Facility Contact: ECIAt M-C.Q.Y.4Alg OD.......................................7'itle: .
Mailing Address: 3QQ..$.5.NCJ..................................
.............................
Onsite Representative: l'.nGQD„Cyyj�gtgpi ...........................................
Certified Operator: j?j Mj jam.F....................... Q9.yj9zjoj3.Jr
Location of Farm:
County: A►laAtlarme......................................... W RQ........
Phone No: ..........
Phone No: Z7........................
................ M.O.w1c...N.0 .......................................................... 2.7.3.92 ..............
Integrator:......................................................................................
Operator Certification Number:Z15.7�
3wy. 119 south - about 2 1/2 miles south of I 40/85 on left. i
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse latitude 36 ' 02 1 3911 Longitude 79 • 19 34 «
Design Current
Swine Capacity 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 r0lbairy 300 ❑ Non -Layer Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 420,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JO Sprav Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Di •char • Rr tream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ElOther
a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes. notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge'?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: .......WWaste..Poad............................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 84
5100
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Continued on back

Facility Number: O1-06 Da IC of Inspection 8/16/2000 Printed on: 8/16/2000 -
5. Are there any immediate threats to the irlilgrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ treavere erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or.
closure plan? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
8.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
® Yes
❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
® Yes
❑ No
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ® PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
® Yes
❑ No
12.
Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Hay)
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
IN No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
IN No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
B.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
0: NoM6Ntions:or :deficiencies•were;noted during•this: visit.• :You:will r&ieive-no-further .
correspondence about this.visit: : : . ..... ...... . .
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
S. Need to contact NRCS about possible diversion near silo trench.
9. Need to put in a gauged marker.
19. •Need to start keeping weekly freeboard as of today.
V,
f
Reviewer/Inspector Name 'Melissa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: f / ,tJ �1% / Ja Art Date: 5100

• Facility Number: O1-06 D: c of Inspection S/1G/2000 Printed on: 8/16/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at./or below []Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? []Yes ® No
28. is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
ALI
J
5100

Itivision of Water Quality
i vision of Soil and Water Conservation 0
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit aCompliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit V Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:Lix Ti[nr: LF=�—� Printed en: 7/21/2000
Facility Number
0 Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
�] Permitted 0Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold
Farm Name: ...... flll . ..... 1rrCYi....��..x. County:....n� n.L'....................................
Owner Namc: i.�.......... �. .%�... Phone No:
...3..- s3..S.... a�' R
Facility Contact: W.....�.�.���m..........�.1.Q�i�.....`IV�.� ��.................................. Phone No•.........�,.)......1...f?........t�.�7S
cc �I �t
MailingAddress: ................]�t....................................... I.......................... ..........................
V1.1.91 .....................................
Onsite Representative: Q,i�„.„. { jn... ................. Integrator:...................
J/
................................
Certified ...1-�(,� ed Operator:... ........ •.... .t....... (�. j` r' Operator Certification Number:.... c9 . t( I........
Location of Farm:
ITC07 lla mi le-5 cow, of -
J
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry 9Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude �•°°
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer I I d
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Other
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area I0 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes xIo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon El Spray Field El Other
a. If discharge is ohservcd, was the conveyance man-made"
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. II' discharge is observed. what is the estimated slow in gal/rnin?
d. Dees discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes No
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? i(spillway [:]Yes �INO
Sit-ucteurp 1 ulucture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b
Identifier: ..s... b........................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): It
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: Date of Inspection Printed on: 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to thewrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, ,severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan'?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11, is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponnding PnA�N❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type C_8 5110 dge F2S C U e 1 w_
13. Do the receiving crops differ with tt ose designated in the Certified Animal
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
Management Plan (CAWMP)?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design'?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit'?
(ie/ discharge, freehoard 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?
�' ,6o violations oil, dCiclenCif°S were nofe'd' 8tt'-ring't:his:visit; • Yoii ' iil -receive trio; further
�corr6s�6ridence: about: this :visit. :::: :: . :: :. : : . : :.:: :. : :
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes Xj No
Yes ❑ No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
XYes ❑ No
❑ Yes 'P!rNo
❑ Yes *0
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 5XNO
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes XNo
El Yes �10
XYes io
❑ Yes '�(No
❑ Yes �iwo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes "kNo
❑ Yes fq&o
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
8 � IUd+ N a/ t4 ✓ "Sl o n
n 51 )o 4nmCA
q . Ne-e-d
1a-t�P_Qa_
Reviewer/Inspector Name O C,�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: -"' p �,(Q 1 Date: d14160/p0

Facility Number: D c of Inspection Printed on: 7/21/2000
Odor ISSUe5
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or Flow E) *as__F-:] bh
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes )KrNo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes No
roads, building structure, and/or public property) r/
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes XN 0
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes )fNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? T ex `L -ifas--No
c.xC-�UC.3
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? [rJ1'n'-t5-Pdb
ngs:
5100
J

ivision of Water Quality
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
);Ile of, Visit:4/b/2000 Time: L—= Printed on: 8/15/2000
Ol t5
Q Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [a Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .......................
Farm Name: Gaxingloa.D.a1iry-Falrm.intt~................................... ............................ County: Alamllcc ......................................... WSRO........
OwnerName: URI............................................ CQYWO.Q.11t................................................. Phone No: 336-57:299..3...........................................................
Facility Contact: ..................................................................
]Mailing Address: �OQB.S.�iC..119...................................
Onsite Representative: F.mtom-Cayington.................
Title: ...............................
Certified Operator: }?yil>iaat` E........................ rag ..... Iasi tQa.J>L............
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
......... M-chaae-N.0 .......................................................... 2.7.3102 ..............
........... Integrator: ......................................................................................
........... Operator Certification Number:ZX5.79 .............................
iwy. 119 south - about 2 112 miles south of I 40/85 on left. +
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude 79 • 18 30 •
Design Current
Swine CaD7CitV Pnnulation
❑ 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 Po ulation
Dairy 300 22
9l Layer 99
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 420,000
Number of Lagoons 1 1 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps I i j 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any pan of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State`? (If yes, notify DWQ)
[_-]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[]Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in uallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: ......................................................... ........
Freeboard (inches): 60
5100
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Continued on back

Facility Number: 01-6 Mite of Inspection 4/6/2000 Printed on: 8/15/2000 �� "
5. Are there any immediate threats to the *ty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ treovere erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan'? []Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? [:]Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ®No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Fescue (Graze) Fescue (Hay)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Rev i ewerA nspec tor fail to discuss reviewtinspection 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?
El; No -or deficiencies-were;nbted during -this: visit.•:Y6u:wi11 receive�no-further.:
correspondence: abouf this.visit: : :
❑ Yes IN 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
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
t 7. Continue efforts to get rid of ground hogs and mow around waste storage pond.
9perator was informed that since he was now permitted that he needed to start keeping weekly freeboard records.
(Z/u 14L/
Reviewerinspector Name 011ocky Durham jy� �53 6 tc s)
R n s•
Ext-r-
eviewer nspector gnature.
A DL-45� 3008 Pkt e 119 S

Faeiilty�hlumber: 01-61 a of Inspection 4/6/2000 Printed on: 8/15/2000
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i_e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
PP P Y Y q g
❑ Yes
❑ No
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
® No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
❑ No
ALI
J
5100

a - © Division I andWater Conservation - Operation Re
© Division 001 and Water Conservation Compliance It etion
ivision of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
Other Agency - Operation Review
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow -tip of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Anti ection jZZ
Facility Number �► p
Time of Inspection UL-40 1 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Permitted 41certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered JE3Nlot O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: W...... .M.5 .. n 5................ County: ..... .- �.... .............. ........
OwnerName:....." ....... b V,i 4.D..................."............................."..... Phone No:............""..."...p.""...""....................."..
Facility Contact: .... F�f kk...... . PY.i0at40V) Title: ............................... Phone No: ...""5.�.4"".-a99,-3...
Flailing Address: 30�
N ✓/1JI ..1�....0.....". a 7 Q Z
,,,••„•,••,,,,•,,,, .........""...".." "........................
Onsite Representative: F;; NL n CO\,t l V)
...........................j....................... Inte;rator:.."....."............................................................."............... Certified Operator :...... F;ero f O.0........ [-.. �.�%11 %.. ,r6. ............................ Operator Certification Number:., t "� �7�
Location of Farm: '
:... ..... 54511 ..x.�.......-.....�..�..-"...................................................................................-.......................... �
.............................. ............"."..........................."................. ......... ........ ....................................... ................... ....................... ............................................ ...................... I...........
Latitude 3(Q • pZ ` dO Longitude �(9 • ®` ®"
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Population Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
JE1 Layer
Dairy
1 300
❑ Feeder to Finish
`
❑ Non -Layer
❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design CapacityOC�
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons JE1 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ A.agoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Pond's,/ Solid Traps 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ElLagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d" Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 'Bpo
[:]Yes WNo
❑ Yes] No
Structure I - Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure h
Identifier: Be-)'[1V1d kf-jlS
Freeboard (inches):--.......5.0.e1 .......---."...................
............................................................................... I......................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ®'�lo
seepage, etc.) �
3/23/99 Continued on back
9

" Facility Number: OI ` CX. • �te of Inspection 99 IZZ
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or manaked through a waste management or
closure plan? El Yes .41No
(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 t; No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes RNO
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes )jrNo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes )<No
11, Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes ,NrNO
12. Crop typedoq -� r
13. Do the receiving crops differ ith those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes &No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes _v No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes .WNO
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ,�No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes WNO
16, Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes <No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes. o
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 N"�io
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis so�p?reports) ❑ Yes ❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time o❑ Yes 2i�No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yess)NrNo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes -& No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes *To
24, Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes , o
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes"6No
N(V yigl'atigris:oir deficiencies were nofed- di�r:ift Ois;visit: • You :will re.ed*J6 futthO
correspondence'. about this visit .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coiitments (refer t6;questioa#): Explain any YES answers andior.any recominendatiions_or any other co-Mments
of facalit to better ex lain situations ttseaddttio i?se drawin s y p ( nalpages as.necessary)
g ,
a � _
Iq, P+?r oPAWQ}or 5011 5aryLp' Ie.+-e5f +0 be per-'orrnej nexf u-3eeK�
ter q5 SDo n 0-ts Wea4)ey-
Reviewer/Inspector Name e'i�C. afire
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 1 j1.lj di" AW] Date: j 2 %a /17
3/23/99

O+Division o it and Water Conservation - Operation Rey- v
O'Division I and Water Conservation - Compliance lotion
Divi i 'ter Quality -Compliance Ins ection
� son of ON Q yp
O Other Agency - Operation Review
10 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number 01 pf, Date of Inspection 12/21/99
Time of Inspection F 12:40 24 hr. (hh:mm)
® Permitted ® Certified r] Conditionally Certified [3 Registered 0 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ..................................................................... County: Alaniam ......................................... NV5RQ........
OwnerName: Bill ............................................ COxintolt.................................................. Phone No: 336-17$-Z99.3.............................. ..........................................................
Facility Contact: FCMl:.QU.C.R.Y.iWQj1)........................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
MailingAddress: �Qil#.S.�iG..1�'...................................................................................... M.v.b;anc..N.0 .......................................................... 273.02 ..............
Onsite Representative: ................................................................. Integrator:..
Certified Operator:.yyiliJ]lalplKK............................. Uxington..ire................................ Operator Certification Number: Z1579.............................
Location of Farm:
........................i'---............---it"--------1'---......'_--...................-.........-.......--.........................................................................................................................................
.................
Hwv. 1 19 cnnth - ahnnt 2 1/2 milrc cnnth of i dlllRS nn IPft-
Latitude 36 • 02 L 4044 Longitude 79 • 18 L 30
Design Current
Swine Cauacitv Pooulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I ® :Dairy 300 1 240
❑ Non -Layer I I JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other I I I
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSL W
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present I ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Fuld Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
DischaEgLs K Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originaled at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. ]f discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. li'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
Wavle Collection R Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: Behind Barns
Freeboard(inches): ...............60................ ............ ...... ............................. ..... ........-............ .......... .................................... ....................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion. ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back
Printed on 12/21/99

Facility
Number: 01-06 a of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which areoproperly addressed and/or managed through ate management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Fescue (Hay) Rye
12/21/99
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'? []Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
®: No'violatitilis:ordeficiencies were noted dtit41g4 i* : visit. ;Y6p:rviII �eceive-n6-ftirttier.
. •.. crirresnondence. ahnuf this _visit. - . -
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
9

Routine Q Complaint 0 Follow-up of D
Facility Number
Follow-up_ot'DSWC review O 0ther j
Date of Inspection t3
Time of Inspection , 3 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Registered [+3 Certified 0 Applied for Permit ❑ Permitted 10 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: „L.,Al1.L-.:}.rLj.......!�.gl .........Fft!` ?......1.!t!'- County:.....1 .�7.T.4... ...........
OwnerName ............................................................. Phone No:..............................................
Facility Contact : ....................................... .......... Title:... . Phone No:
MailingAddress: ........................ �-........ .................... ....... ........... ....................... ......... ................... MFz��A ............... ,r
L).iIntegrator: ............................ ............R99A'„C(nsi[eRepresentative:....��..........-. ................
Certified Operator; ........... ....................................... ___ ............... I... .......... Operator Certification Number:................................ ........................ .........
Location of Farm:
Latitude Longitude �• �� �
Design __' Current - .Design ,Current; D.estgn Current h
Swine v Capaeity Population ePau_]try; Capacity'. operation Cattie F" .Capacity Population u
3
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
(General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes EfNo
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ZN"o
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes. notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑'No
❑ Yes eNo
❑ Yes�No
❑ Yes
P�o
❑ Yes
0/No
❑ Yes
)Z(No
❑ Yes
❑ o
�r

" rJFacllity Number: — (v
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes No
Structures fLa oons,Holding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ❑�o
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .........
Freeboard(ft): ............................ ........... I ............. ..........................................................................................................................................................
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
ONO
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
E)1�10
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
P'Ies
❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
ZNo
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes�'o
(If in excess of MP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type" ................. �.1.. rl.................................. ......................................................................
_..............................................
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
�No
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
o
/"No
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
P No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
EYNo
21.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
VfNo
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
.YJ No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
EfNo
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
o
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
Zo
0 No. violations or deficiencies. vi ere' noted during this: visit. - .You.w'ill receive• no•ftirther : -
: correspondence ah:oiit this:visit ,' :
tf i
�C -r z 7 ,
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/[nspector Signature: Date:

"
. . . ....................
;�❑ DSWC An 1 Feedlot Operation Review ��
GrSWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site inspection
rtutine 0 Cunt laint 0 Follow-uE of MV0 inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection®
[:::Facility Number
Time of Inspection ' r 24 hr. (hh:rn
p'Registered Erclertified 0 Applied for Permit [] Permitted [3Not O eratitonal I Date Last Operated: ................
7
Faint \time:........... D...tJr.ar.c ..T.�r....... Q"Rl.....rfh rn..... .��.+�..... County:...... t . t e.................................
Owner Name: ..... W..F.... �J `�N T ."............. Phone No: .(�.. r ..T... ..............................
'� 4
Facility Contact: . W. .... ' ..�.. '. ..... ... `%.0.......:r�.� ..... �.i11..%O.nI...... �.U...,r./ (.�.r!.... Title: ........ ...... ........................... .... Phone No•
llailmAddress d p.. .. 1... G. �.l................. �. %✓. � .. ........................................ ......... ..........................
Onsite Representative ................. ......................................................... Intel rator:...............
Certified Operator,--..- - Operator Certification :umber:-- 21..S-Y..2..5.P------
Location of Farm:
tc�....1/.................... :.....$..f...., ._.%! 1t....!j Q........................ ......... ................................................ ...........-....................... I................I......
....................................................................:........................................................................................................................................
Latitude • o,Z 1 Longitude • ®4 3Q 4:
Design Current
Swine Capacity 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
❑ Non -laver
❑ Other �
Total Design Capacity o p
KDairy
d O 1,700
❑ NonJDairy
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons / Holding Ponds ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/in}provetile nt?
❑ Yes
M"<0,
2. Is any discharge observed froth any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
E9,NW
Dischar,c; originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a, If discharge is observed, wa: the Conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, dill it reach Surface Water? (If ycs. notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
c. It discharge is observed, what is the estknated flow in �.Ml/min?
d. Does d[sch:irge b}puss a lag:ron sySEcln'? (I1 )'CC, noUfv DWQ)
El Yes
❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
09No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
L 41*
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design'?
El Yes
,.,�
3-10
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes [1405'
7/25/97
Continued on back

Facility Number: O — d .
0
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed'? ❑ Yes
Structures (Lagoons,[told ing Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [d.. o
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: I.
-yCi o
f. r................ ....�...........................
.....
...............................
...........
........................
Freeboard(ft):..........................................................................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes 9-<o
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑Yes [a-?qV-
12. Do any of the structures need maintenancelitnprovement? ❑ Yes L9<O
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? ❑ Yes wq<
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes 1�1\'o
(If in excess of WMP. or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ) -�
15. Crop typel'e^'....c/.iPltl....f�Qas-fi��Se�?a1.1.4s�,�t....•��SQ. ............... ct.,T..-:..... P
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Manavement Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23, Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste ,Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25, Were any additional pieblems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
0 No.violations or deficiencies '?ere noted -during' this.visit..Yoil4ill receive no further
correspbndehce about this. visit. .. :.:... .
oRiments (iefer to question #): Explain any'YES answers and/or any recommendations or anS ofherccon
Jse drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary) , `
Wn
Q 7-; VeS
❑ Yes UPWo
❑ Yes [.,�-P-O
B ❑ Yes To
❑ Yes t o
❑ Yes [rho
MAI-s- ❑ No
❑ Yes O-Ko—
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name ;
A
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �„ ry— Date: y/o-7 9 �_�

10 Rrititine 'y0 Co-tn Taint"`O Follow-iiof DW2 iris cctiari'" O FolloW-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection /o
. =.-Facility Numbcr�-� D --•- � � . �--�-��
Time of Inspection i r s._� iJ 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: Registered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for I hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
Certified ❑ Permitted Tor Inspection includes travel and processing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated:......_... _ . ----_..... ...............................
Farm Name: 4.rd l ^! R� pa_'1 .. ,r.,ftlsl!x. ..... N..�.._..... County: ....�.�rr, A-�✓e �............. .......
Land Owner Name: l,,%1/r. _...._.11/.rVr..�ur/. S'�....._ Phone No: ,1b-%.1�-3............ ........ _...
Facility Conctact:
Title: ....................................... ......... Phone No: .... ............ -.... .......... ......... ...................
Dialling. Address:......... -- = — _ . /h� aL . N L ?3a Z
...... ---- ...._----•--•-•• _ � - .......................................
Onsite Representative: r.. ....7..-- ....... ....... ................ ....... Integrator:
Certified Operator:e'✓(u^� ( a✓i N� l �,�/....-. Operator Certification Number:
��-
_.. �......__.. ........................-- .. �....... o _.........._.... %... -
Location of Farm:
Latitude ®° Lam. D I" Longitude
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
""2k�+.: kai7"' _•r a *a,,',� -:Ez, r^"�. - °"at'a. € �EZ`f '.,�,
�� r �Destgn Currents `�� DestgnCuri entDes�gn'Current
Swyne =Ca aci o Iatioti� Poultry „Ca 3acitvPo" u lat o Cattle
�m.,•� �° Ca ac�tvPo ulat�on F
❑ Wean to Feeder ITI❑ La er ❑ Dairy -AQ-29
El Feeder to Finish ❑ Non La er . ❑ Non -Da
Farrow to Wean z' a k ;_�°IM:
Farrow to Feeder Total Design Capact O
Farrow to Finish i s tl q
.L a. _.. _ -� Testa 5L��4' Numlierof La Dons# x ❑Subsurface Drains Present
g /:Holding Ponds
..., I a ❑ Lagoon Area IM Spray Fieid Area
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d.:Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 . maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes �
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
[UXo
❑ Yes
[3DF'
❑ Yes
lcI- o
Continued on back

•�_ • Fa�slity Number: ® — O
8. - Are there ;lagoons or storage pondeite which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes (Ko
Structures fLa oons Holdin Ponds Flush Pits etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ❑Ko
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:'v ��:n �,...-�.................... ...........
Freeboard (ft):..........(g..:.................. ............................... ....................................................... .................................
...................... ......................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes L'1'No
11. Is erosion, or'any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes E rvo
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ! o
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or.maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes:+'s""
R'aste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
EINT
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
.(vl Fe
Crop type ............... . .-....s .........................................................
.................
. ..15.
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
El Yes
❑'N.6-
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑-l<o
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
Q<o
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[a'1 0
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[ , oo
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
L IK;
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
Pfpi�s
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
titer es
L[lo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
1z1tsCIN
No'violations'or deficien' de's.were-noted-during this:visit.-.Youa'ill receive'.no furiher-:-
-:•correspotidence:ab:oufthis:visit:•:•::�:�:•:•:•:•:•:•:�::;-:�:-:•:-:•::�:�:•:-:•:•;•;•:•: ::•:•:•:•
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: � /�,�._,� _ � Date- %o -Ay, 92

r
19 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number
Date of Inspection /o �y-
O O
Time of Inspection 0 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: Registered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:1 25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review O
Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection includes travel andprocessing)
❑ Not Operational /Date Last Operated: ................................
Farm Name:.... .......iS! 1Kl�.....k'... !�
Land Owner Name:.... _! !)/ .W. ...-/ay..N...�_.�f._ ..._._S C
Facility Conctact:
Title:
County: .... .f le.q.fi ete.....................
Phone No: .................................
Phone No:
Mailing Address:.... .... acl -F ... ....&✓ ........................_..., ...2.2 Z.
Onsite Representative:
�................. _............. :................. ........... -....... .......................... ....... Integrator: .............................. _.... _................................................
,
Certified Operato ,!,e%+ Lam!, C_Q ✓i N�' �� , Operator Certification Number: _._-z" S, ,2,2,.....
Location of Farm:
Latitude ®• U� ��« Longitude ®•©1 3� 1•
General
1. Are there any buffets that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field []Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 - maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes �-
❑ Yes EUX0
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
U-Ko
❑ Yes
[]did"
❑ Yes
0410
Continued on back

acility Number:
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes Ergo
Structures (Lagoons,11olding fonds, Flush Pits, etc.) ,_ , `�
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes EIKO'
Structure I Structure ? Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: e1tY,•n
Freeboard (ft):.......... 6...... .......................................
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
o
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
1 o
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
9<o
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
o
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
ls 4-
(if in excess ofWMP, or runoff entteriing� waters of the State, notify DWQ)
I5.
Crop t e ....... .......... .... ................................................................................................................................
P type t-�'-t-�,�.. .. ( ±--f...
J.......F.L'
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ N6-
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
,moo
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
,O
o
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
O'1-
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
21. Did Reviewer/Impector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑'Io
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
elgo
For Certified or Pennitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
s
LA'1Vo
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
Q�'es
MXO
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
&VI's
❑ Kh
Sr- No.violations-or del dencies.were noted during this.'visit: You:will receive noltirther
. • . - correspondence ab"oitt this:visit:• : -.
xptatnany YE5 anwers and/or any recomntencla tonsor anyother comments
.£- 3 t5a.•"m-''If
Use drawings of facthty t ttetter'explain sttuahons (use addtiional pages as necessa u €
IN
«._. _. -
AL
7/25/97
H,
Reviewer/inspector Name � .
��
i.I . n!u z6i
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �,;"V._22C=9_�Date:
l/ v

.TLJL-14-1995 15:34 FROM
TER Q$ L I TY SECT I ON TO WSRO R . 021OR
Site Requires immediate Attention:
Facility No.�
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: , 1995
Time: 10 ' Z
Farm NamcXQwm
blaming Addresfs: � c ivy i -� _ � %r—'-�= ?�
Integrator. Phone:
On Site Representative: ,11 m c� 1 _�'� Phone: ()(},..
Physical Addmss/Location:
Type of Operation: Swint Poultry Cattic
Design Capacity: C� - Number of Animals on Site: 6 c=
DEM Certification Number: ACE__•■DEM Catification Number: ACNEW
Latitude TO �'�_ _' �" Longitude: 2� _- / L ' Zs '. Elevation: et
Chrle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste L$gom have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 incbcs) Y�a or No Actual Freeboard: _:L �'� inches 5j A
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes v Was any erosion observed? Yes IN
Is adequate land available for spray? Yes or No Is the cover crop adequate? Yes or No
Crop(s) being utilized:
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Fort from Dwellings?(J;� or No
100 Feet fnam Wells? *or No
Is the animal waste smekpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes No ,
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line? Yes o2No .
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the stare by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes or if Yes, Please.Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific aamage with cover crop)? Yes or No
F.T. ..,._. .�....a�
Nameltgna
cc. Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Neede&
T/•1T/14 G 9210

OFURATIONS B-P-NCH WO Fax:919-71r'-604� Jul 10: 16 P. 04118
uOn
ImmCiiaw A
_12 V:sl-rA*.,LIoN RECOW3
DAT7.'
?
Owner L_-�.i 4 L,
COLM'Y-
IN 8C. It Visit;m g Situ _S" Lv��_ -r, 7
/*
cpc"at.0f:
cu Sit.- Rarrc-zrl U"Ovu:
Tyke r Op c4m Li rn.' 3vyinc
Z
G r v lz 4 J r N c
"W a?L Lugc_-n cuf-lic:ca -of :r,7cl -r-25 -2=x 14
_r t Oct
C N 0 f 3 v c c r li 3f1drS a c 7 0 n 3
C:'an' 17.1
'Jr 4.
�r�,2ff
Ll
F,3-7, o 19 7 S I
O