030021_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Division of Water Resourc
Facility Number - Q Division of Soil and Water0servation j Q A
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: S" 2 j Arrival Time: Departure Time: F kj O D County: ��( Q.n Region: w5
Farm Name: , -j bt hE-7 bGLtf y FO_x-m
Owner Name: A. T6 t o _-) n II
Mailing Address: 02 I Ito 50 1ce-r- K i_-n 2e�d
Phvsical Address:
Facility Contact: A 0,P-h _-FO l Vlea 5 Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Phone: 33L- 6-9 7-- 026-9
intagrator+' &yA I-j b i Z43 1 Z61
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: 36 3 Of U In �Longitude: '3 I o 1 b" .3.2 'J
S5RN, Z-7��1{I Z-`f1 �S hlI N I� 5f 1�JCI WY �i N� L gleuLS©Q
Crete v— P-d . Fa rrk-
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 Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Dry Poultr}
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Design Current
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 ofthe State'? (if yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes. notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
9-5-
Dairy Calf
10
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
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes CR"No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 21412015 Continued
J,
i

/ Facili Number: - Date of Inspection: S
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 l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: llU���r7 rO
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 7-1
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'?
Yes
9
❑ 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
[P No
T
❑ 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?
NrYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ 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
AJ
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers. setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
9 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 SPAN > 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): l /�-1�LJ 1•d��,�.0 l'.�u+�'�� t
13. Soil Type(s): v J
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No CS�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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Renuire Rc ords &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:
g
eePStocking
need'provement? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
eekly Freeboard Waste Analysis o• Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
Rainfall Crop Yield ❑ onthl and I" Rainfall Ins e s 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 W NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection: ,2 D
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ElYes 4 No❑*NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No A ❑ 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
C� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
T oj
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
0
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
1� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comritents (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use draK ings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
01 T: -= CrI i.J/� o�.L Qc LL
SKID g-
e lac t wee n t� a i l boo-x-A 5 g S-tr u G-�-u r e_ rye e i 5 4-& b e-re-p1a c&_J F
F01 �{ N �0 h K e �� 5 P r�r� al +r-u c�� �ta ki e. C.o_L i b v ca -� ec 10
v2! ! "�5�5 C1ur✓ 01
qnt►\ i►�L �'sctaber o2GL$.
P EA 5 e— Con v) ue_ `� r�►h e O �5 O I d t� O 5+e_ �r o1 �-o;
a• 1 P Q-se_ u 5 e u5"Lt_ as e_S " t«. �ouv- re'C_or- 5 C5 LuR-' z-} ,
C\\k
SMcjL o,r 6 ✓x C D ve re. r�e.t VJ �W c.� CI- 5 M Vc� t\ i +'roge.r� Q b
Z Smda- g+�a,1\ t5 N T k 0_3rvp_5ted 1 tq zs l �C3s. PAN/Acre- 1S cZlib
11 -2-1 & ­- -7, q 4f, V2_011-7= 9"'01
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur
Page 3 04
3
Pli!, loll Vvlcttk415 3hs- to/.5'
Phone: _13 6 —176 — g b j 1
Date: fLd l g D j�
2/4/2015

r,
W Division of Water Resource
Facility Number - O Division of Soil and Water t ervation 16 / 1 A
O 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 O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: ( Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: ®County: A�7 Region: 11]I50
Farm Name: n i n&:5 1)aAru �( ,r M Owner Email:
Owner Name: �j-�pjfp, A . J Q m P 5 Phone:
Mailing Address: Ak6b aJ &_r T0+ N O 7S"
Physical Address: a/
Facility Contact: Title: Phone: 7 to of �7J
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified 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
Certification Number:
Latitude: 360 3Q' 0 6" Longitude: u 1 0 ro / 302 ft
Design Current - Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Myer
Non -Laver
Dry Poultry
Layers
_Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Pouits
Other
Design Current
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 DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Z
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
\
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ONE
M
Page ! of 3
21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment �[
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes lk No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes �❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE '
Structures I
Identifier: W 3 1
Spillway?:
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Designed Freeboard (in): _
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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? T❑] 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 [VI No ❑ NA 0 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): C1111,
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
CS 1KA
❑ 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required
19.
Records &Required Records & Documents
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:
fRainfall
es record keeping need provement? If yes, check e appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [� No ❑ N ❑ NE
aste Applica ' n ekly FreebLK
d Waste Analysis oil Analysis T' ers Bather Code
Stocking Crop Yield Minute Inspections Monthly. and I" Rainfall Inspections �,
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 ]NrA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 P n _ _ „ , - X) � A 21412015 Continued

Fac i lity Number: d - Date 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 CR-IQA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non-cornpliant 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 QdINo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No X NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes [ANo ❑ 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 9� 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 N�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes [Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Cbifi nents,(refer.to`question ##)i Explain. any YES answers -and/or any additional recommendations:or hy-,othericomments-'4"
additional,,pages
J Y
4
r1 t
UD5Ed
I r • j ,; t
A •,
• • i l) U7i I bw
r—)Zxju
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature.
Page of 3,31i3lfill L59q I�5 •��000 1009Il5-- 1-5p= "7.'�?�
Date:
21412015

•
Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
El Other Agency
Facility Number: 030021 Facility Status:
Inpsection Type: Structure Evaluation
Reason for visit: Emergency
Date of visit: 10/05/2015 Entry Time: 09:20 am
Farm Name: Joines Dairy Farm
Incident #
Owner Email:
Owner: Steve A Joines IeAllr .�,•_ ie S— 1 Phone:
Mailing Address: `1 1 Spicer M60niam=Rd 1�_TSpatta;WC 901 75
Active Permit `iWG030a21 -❑ Denied Access
Inactive Or Closed Date:
County: Alleghany Region: Winston-Salem
Exit Time: 9:50 am
336-372-5580
Physical Address: 2116 Spicer Mt Rd Sparta NC 28675
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36' 30' 06" Longitude: 81' 10' 32"
Bledsoe Creek Rd. approx. 4 miles north from Sparta on NC Allegh any Co. road # 1135.
Question Areas:
Waste Col; Stor, & Treat
Certified Operator: Allen W Joines Operator Certification Number: 21417
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Allen Joines Phone
On -site representative Allen Joines Phone : 49
Primary Inspector: Melissa bro
Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Nspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
On September 24, 2015 the waste level was 20.5 inches below spillway. Waste level was 12-13 inches above maximum liquid
level today and 4-6 inches before coming out spillway. Wooden wall is leaking today but has only traveled a few feet and wall
appears to be holding. OIC plans to pump onto Crouse Farm land (CP3-57 hay) this weekend if soil conditions allow. May transfer
waste to Greg Gambill's WSP (#03-03).
page: 1

i
i
•
Permit: AWC030021 Owner - Facility: Steve A Joines Facility Number: 030021
Inspection Date: 10/05/15 lnpsection Type: Structure Evaluation Reason for Visit: Emergency
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Waste Pond WASTE PONDI I I _T
4.00
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑ ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
M
❑ ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
page: 2

r�
Division of Water Quality.
Facility Number - O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance inspection Operation Review p Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Vis?Reason for Visi : 6/Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up Q Referral 0 Emergency Q Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ,o.;dp ,,, Departure Time: Z.' j� County: ; g Region: 'kf SL
Farm Name: ; it CL 1r-7� Owner Email:
Owner Name: v� A , Jd,'u� Phone:
Mailing Address: 5 i'c.44- WA, r7-
Physical Address: l l f
Facility Contact: eA_ p,'ne.,e Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Phone: 6 5-7 - O2—(a S
Integrator: I
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36. e 3(7 /Q 6 1! Longitude: 91 C 147 1 2-
4,4� 2I rJ., L 31 ej ave_ C.r .lc 1 , L �S,(her 41- 1.
i
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 Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
I E] I I Layer
Non -La er
Layers
Non-L
Pullets
Other
Poults
Design Current
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1.%js.any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
130
(.5--
Daia Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ N&Ado ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? JXYes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts o^potentiat adverse impacts to the waters Yes [—]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

1
Facili Number: ( 3 - Z I lie Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Structure 1 Structure 2
We
YLS
Structure 3 Structure 4
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
DNA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes ✓ t No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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? jo
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? Xyes ❑ 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) 7o
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 0 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):
rn
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the 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
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
r
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes j No
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check Yes ❑ No
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists [:]Design ❑ Maps [:]Lease Agreements ❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. 0 Yes ❑ No
❑ Waste Applicatio&1� ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Sto king ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections 0
Monthly and 1 ° Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No
Page 2 of 3
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
ONA
❑ NE
❑NA
[]NI✓
❑NA
❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ NA ❑ NE
X NA ❑ NE
21412011 Continued

t.
•[Facility Number: 03 - 2 Date of Inspection: S AV
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 1 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. P�
❑ 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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ 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
0
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 A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes YMI
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 recommend 'ons or any other comments.
Use drawines of facility to better explain situations (use additional naffes as necessarv).
> i �� SK�►"'I'� ���c�*� a`� �►�f��
4.
'LAC, ids[ 5 Wry,- l�p,tfS `iur rel�EL �1 r1J �,li Ah
4VpF��K1'IJS lK�i 1 Ufa
4- per`,. >~ e • -.-�
r rJ C��AS .
2� & �.r� --l�, 11e,,,k �e w� r� aiiv4i . � �
[Aa t� s I� ��.� nt,G r r 2-0 t b I
\le►i f� �� on sp !fir ` < R-�-1 t w vi r
�j: 1'-?•eP "F�t C�vic��.�{, L�at- �I` 5���- �)�- �cs� `ice � 4�c��er �^ �tri ��lalS �J��ertr e. o
WS l �►'�" s r lid! rip/p� t o 66L.-t"ej
Wyk A Lf
Soo"�r� ,�►�� ^
- 4 w5p
Ilw ,1,47 Pb rJ
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
= 6.2-& I6J 2-1r57= P-r7 It- +�J 1/15-- S-1I I b d
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
NOD
NOD-2DIS- Yc--012-3
Phone:
Date:
21412011

%ivision of Water Quality
Facility Number b 3 - Z ivision of Soil and Water Coda ervatioq x
.0 Other Agency s.
Type of Visit: gCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: ArRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ! p0 Departure Time: I l J, r„, County: Region: WSKt)
Farm Name: J©;ruts biker 591 rm Owner Email:
Owner Name: _5 4vc A. •JQ,tj� Phone: —3 725.5_9'0
Mailing Address: 2.1 [ 6 5 p ra'f )\"+-t , IZ d , i � 12e1—, 4-
Physical Address: t l t t
Facility Contact: A 1 l e vv Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Phone: (-'5 7— 8ZG
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
f/ C ! �!�
Location of Farm: Latitude: 3G 3t7 Longitude: + 1
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 Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
Design Current
Dry Poultry Canacitv Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity 'Pop.
Dairy CowzL
13
Dairy Calf
Daia Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
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 gNo ❑ 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 l of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: d 3 - Z Date of Inspection: s
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? Yes ❑ No
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
Structure 1 Structure 2
� aPen�
Ye,!;
12— tie
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or env
ironmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ 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) kfNo
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ❑ 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
t2. Crop Type(s): "Fej cctie 4ZR;u�e_
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
L
❑ Yes Q No
✓✓✓TTT
❑ 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
Nf
❑ NE
acres determination?
?1�
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
1� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
it No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
XYes
777777�No
❑"`�Ej No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate x.
MWUP ❑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 Im Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
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 )kNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: 63 - 2-1= jDate of Inspection:M15—,-71
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ 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 property 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:
❑ Yes P(No
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes MNo
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? El Yes No
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes �[�No
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? Yes ❑ No
❑NA
❑NE
j NA
❑ NE
❑NA
❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ 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).
20. W,4F A o i P rfkzt+ 1 lverre, • 1�u 4b %,/� aV'kr i,--ble. 4 r tkJPccf 13� s ,
E.0 nejC'� �� 1lf rci, 20t(p,i_
Z s {rJ�J 't • qA M/n' Gllr�rR�h ��] C,GR117�T 201
!ell
I-
7ty
j e AAL,,,iC.Ae,�n _ Soo f\ ,
kvA5W
I/l al`� - 1, �2-? /6
V2cl 3 � . 3 z t6 tJ
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature
Wf/f'a &0-A.y5 -, "A,(rIrz� �, —C4" N,4*r vt;5x,—,
1z b,11,, Im,
Phone: (71allL -
j�
Date: $ / / Sly/_
Page 3 of 3 21412011

d- Division of Water Quality
,Sz
Facility Number - 'y Division of Soil and Water Con anon
i"i
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: YRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access,, —
Date of Visit: �L Arrival Time: Z' Departure Time: 29 ,� County: Region: f,•1 R
Ij
Farm Name: �D+nGS r��iY�/y"� Owner Email:
Owner Name: 5-6, A-, s ., Phone: _77L — 5.ET a
Mailing Address: zi t,, SP+car-r►, �r� Jfyf, N G 2-�ia7�
l i lr
Physical Address: ] —� / Y
Facility Contact: �� b t e,*1 d Q i /,�j Title: Phone: �v 7 �% — 2- � s
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Certification Number:
Latitude: ,3 a 3� Q , Longitude: I (�
1�_y 21 ,/ L Fledsoc Crrzk R-J-/ L SPiccr m1 , 9 d,,l F— an 11-1' ;
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 Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
I [ L
ayer
Design Current
Dry Poultry Canacitv Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Dischar es and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?~�
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
(}
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
��es
pYe❑No
[:]No
[DNA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page l of 3
21412011 Continued

0
•.
t" of f'f
",max r
f1^

t
Facili Number: - 2-ti Date of I n sp ection: J !
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA 0 NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structures I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: d1_11k.. Ph
Spillway?: Yt�
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 30"
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ 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 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
[DNA
❑ 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�No
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop [3 Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application
Outside of Approved
Area
LWindow p
12. Crop Type(s): �lGr,.e ILw� TG?14C'W-'e_ —
—
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
70 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
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:
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 T ansfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking Wrop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
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? 0 Yes No XNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

• Facility Number: 03 - 2 1 16 Date 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 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
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?
0 Yes
�E(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). t,
Z /3. �.o �f�C �a d` Wy o }bc t.c ��j _1S�t��x rq( t�_ `f�Gr-. - I �4 pl � "� j .4r� Tp i�or1. G�aiti
tv' � v�C. 1 ' w�►l�rtJ i}y' ; 4- w i til� dry/G l� it -� s
D/7,PA i"nCf w 93 -¢- fin:,,S G1 ICATA b ° rCL C'\, Ini�S� C'++•.L1q., ki
Lei tl✓,at W! 1 W `u - o vef Y'[.� i .1
tjr,f )ZJ— Ae"'r f �-� (c'c, C' llkc rrjkl-4 0T !b'�+�X 6'vfe o6/YJ G2� ��'r- e6k1
ff `j j ) `� ► lj__ �ICr�tn
MO W w �-c c�(►rc d +x yart cL ��r � ,.3�� �� p ►� 2 ''1'�`�
2 Jurt e-46rJ 4°f1�1GIdJ yin 1LGatal-f,
8%z01 3 7-
Reviewer/Inspector Name: ��} -/, [,� — , V. { Phone: C,336) rn/
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: /���-�� Date: 1 1 I0 C / -yo
Page 3 of 3 21412011

0
�
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 030021 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC03QO21 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Follow-u County: Alleqhgny Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 07/26/2013, Entry Time: 10:00 AM Exit Time: 12:30 PM
Farm Name: Joines Dairy Farm
Owner: Steve A Joines
Incident M.
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 2116 Soictr Mountain Rd a NC 28675
Physical Address: 2116 Spicer Mt Rd Sparta NC 28675
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36°30'06" Longitude: 81"10'32"
Bledsoe Creek Rd. approx. 4 miles north from Sparta on NC Alleghany Co. road # 1135.
Question Areas:
W Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Other Issues
Certified Operator: Allen W Joines Operator Certification Number: 21417
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Allen Joines Phone:
On -site representative Allen Joines Phone:
Primary Inspector: ' Patrick Mitchell Phone:
Inspector Signature: "'ter Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Melissa Rosebrock Phone:
Inspection Summary:
On July 26, 2013 WSRO APS staff along with Soil & Water and NRCS staffs visited the subject facility to review the waste storage
structure and potential corrective actions to maintain adequate freeboard. Also reviewed was the silage leachate discharge issue. The
waste level in the structure was still over the max level, but not overflowing the spillway. Silage leachate was still discharging due to
water movement thru the storage area. The weekly freeboard, precipitation and structure inspection records were reviewed for the
period of May 2013 lhru July 2013 and found to be complete on a calendar. Soil & Water staff along with NRCS staff is working on
proposals for potentially adding a new waste storage structure and properly abandoning the existing structure. NRCS staff is providing
technical assistance to the Permittee for possible short-term corrections for the silage leachate discharge issue.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC030021
Inspection Date: 07/26/2013
Waste Structures
s •
Owner -Facility: Steve A Joines
Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation
a'
R
Facility Number: 030021
Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
aste Pond WASTE POND B
Page: 2

Pennh: AWC030027 Owner - Faclllty: Slane A Joiner
Facility Number ; 030021
Inspection Oat* 0112612013 tna lon Type: Structure Evaluation
Reason for Visit: Followwp
Discharges & Stream impacts
Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge abserved from any part of the operation?
❑ in ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
Was conveyance man•made7
0 ❑ M ❑
aa.
. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (it yes, notify DWQ)
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached water$ of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ ❑ M ❑
2. Is thorn 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 discharge7
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 intognty of any of the structures observed i large
trees. severe ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, el
6. Are there structures on,site that are not properly addressed andlor managed through a waste management ❑ ■ 0 ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any at the structures need maintenance or improvement?
M u u u
8. Do any of the saucWros lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
dry stacks andlor wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑ ■ Cl ❑
revenant?
eiIssues Yes No NA NE
28. Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andfor document and report
000 ■
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional
ONO ❑
Air Qualify representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge.
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
freeboard problems, aver -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist a1 the fad0ty7
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field ❑
Page: 3
Perna: AWC030021
Inspection Date: 0712W2013
Other Issues
Lai IStorage Pond
Other
I Other, please spariy
Owner - Faclllty: Slave A Joines
Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP7
33. Did the Reviewarllnspector fail to discuss reviewfinspoction with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
facility Number : 030021
Reason for Visit Folli
Yes No NA NE
11
Page: 4

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 030021 — Facility Status: Active __ Permit: AWC030021 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: StruCture EvalUption Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Follow-u�County: Alleghany _ Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 0710-312013 Entry Time: 08:50 AM Exit Time: 09:30 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Joir)es Dairy Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Steve A Joines Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 2116 Spicer Mountain Rd
Physical Address: 2116 Spicer Mt Rd Sparta NC 28575
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant E Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36*30'06" Longitude: 811•°10'32"
Bledsoe Creek Rd. approx. 4 miles north from Sparta on NC Alleghany Co. road # 1135.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts jj Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Other Issues
Certified Operator: Allen W Joines Operator Certification Number: 21417
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Allen Joines Phone:
On -site representative
Allen Joines
Phone:
Primary Inspector: Patrick Mitchell
Inspector Signature: / �'
Phone:
Date:
q
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AWC030021 Owner - Facility: Steve A Joines Facility Number : 030021
Inspection Date: 07/03/2013 Inspection Type. Structure Evaluation Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Inspection Summary:
An announced site visit to Joines Dairy Farm (03-21) was conducted on July 3, 2013. The purpose of the visit was to review the waste
pond freeboard level and embankment. The waste level observed in the waste pond was estimated to be 8" above the max mark (this
is 2" lower than the previous site visit on 5/29/13, which was 10" above max level). Mr. Allen Joines is closely monitoring the weather
and land app. site conditions to allow land application events when possible to reduce the waste level.
The wooden portion of the dam continues to have seepage in numerous areas. Waste released in these areas was observed to be
flowing down the embankment as far as five feet. The remaining portion of the soil embankment was saturated and the stability of this
embankment is in question. The ditch/catch basins downslope of the waste pond had been cleaned out, improved and added onto in
an effort to prevent waste from bypassing them in the event of an overflow. It should be noted that these ditches had standing water in
them resulting from recent heavy rains.
On 7/08/2013 Mr. Allen Joines notified DWQ via phone call that the waste had overflowed the spillway and there was "major seepage"
occurring from the wooden portion of the dam. Mr. Joines indicated that the waste had not reached the ditch/catch basins yet. He is to
continue to update DWQ.
Page: 2

Permit: AWC03W21 0--Facipty: SI—A James Facility Number: 030021
IrSpecilon Data: 071032013 Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Reason tar Visit: Fill —,up
Inspection Summary:
An announced bite visit to Joines Dairy Farm (0121 ) was conducted on July 3, 2013. The purpose at the visit was to review the waste
pond freeboard level and embankment. The waste lave{ observed in the waste pond was estimated to be 8' above the max mark (this
is 2- lower then the previous site visit on 52S713. which was 10' above max level). Mr. Allen James is closely monitoring the weather
and land app. site conditions to allow land application events when possible to reduce the waste level,
The wooden portion of the dam mn0nues to have seepage in numerous areas. Waste released in these areas was abserved to be
flowing dawn the embankment as tar as five feet. The remaining portion of the sail embankment was saturated and the stability at this
embankment is in question. The clAcIticatch basins dowvnslope of the waste pond had been cleaned out. snproved and added onto in
an etfaR to prevent waste from bypassing them in the event of an overflow. It should be noted:hal these dilchm had standing water in
them resulting from recent heavy rains.
.On 7CM013 Mr. Allen Joines noted DWO via phone call that the waste had overflowed the spillway and there was'major seepage'
cccumng from the wooden portion of the dam. Mr. Joines indicated that the waste had not reached the ditchimch basins yet. He is to
continue to update DWO.
•
Page: 2
Permit: AWC030021 Q--Faciity: Slave AJovtes Facility Number: 030021
Inspenlon Dale: 07A32013 Impedion Type: Structure Evaluation Reason for Walt: Fdlaw-up
Wasla Structures
Designed Obeervad
Type Identiner posed Date Start Date Fr-b"rd Freeboard
asb Pond WASTE POND I I I .00
w
Allea�
(� S 7-6aq65—
Page: 3
Y.w

S:a6ud
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 6kwa5e awes Aq lrs!n dn-sollul a oanbal AI!tpet Ni sooa 'y£
❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 4aAnmuesaldal alls-uo qµx uonoedsupwa!nal ssnos!p of pul loloadsullleM o" aLn p0 'C£
❑ ❑ ❑ 4dKMV0 m pwwad mn So aouegdwoauow asneo LpLVA palm swolgwd teuon!ppe Aue elaM 'Z£
Apoads aseatd'lag1O p
❑ iN*
❑ puod e6wO1S f uoo6e1
3N VN aN •.A sonssl LaLOC)
11--wj 1lsln loL uosretl unto w.3 o,npwlS :adA.L—Ipwb l it071ewo :aLeO uogoad�vl
LZOOLO : .q.nx Alllp°A souof V analS :A4!ll3RA - j—o IZDDCOJMV :11--d
V :e6ed
❑ pIB!A uo!leogddV
solaq xoq oleudwdde oLA joago 'saA 11
■ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4A19IOet aql Is ls!xa sulelp alq aoepnsgns oO LC
luopeo!ptdu-lano'swolgwd pieogaail
❑ ❑ N ❑ 'a6i-r-ip '.e !) O"ad Aq pal!nbw se wogena,s Aaua&ewia to OM0 Iuvg6el Atgou of pet Al!Ipey W p0 -OE
Alalelpaww! eltileluoswdal Algeno ny
❑ ❑ ■ ❑ leua6aA a PujuO 'seA 11 ,Wa Aigenb nu to lopo un asod Al!pnei NJ p!p uo!loadsu! ago to awlq aql Sy'6Z
,sales lewum peaoxe Ielp sales At lel a
❑ ❑ ❑ LNdav pus wuww Bp lolpue smog eL uppu slew!ue peep to osods!p Apadold of pet Apinet aql p!0 'gZ
^ iluawanaldw!
❑ ❑ ❑ to aoueualu!ew annbel samnnlls olses 9g1 uag laglo walsAs luowa6euew asses oqI to ued Ave 5eo0 '6
(S,l ems I— lo/pue "Dels Alp
■ ❑ ❑ ❑ s,d pal— of algeo!Idde lON) G1luuad Bql Aq pall nba se slalllew elenbape noel sa,npnns eql to Ave o0 "g
❑ It ❑
i1uowaAwdwl to aaueualwew poau salnln"s Nip Ave oa'L
iueld amsop to
❑ ❑ ❑ Iu.wa6euew asses a g6nolgl po6euew lolpue possalppe Apodwd 1ou we leg= ells-uo swnlowls amyl eltl 9
i( ola 'aBudaas 'uolswe
❑ ❑ ❑ wanas'soall .Biel 1 o 1)
penlosgo swnhnlls oql to Auu to AIIl6olwl oql of slewgl .lwpaww! Aue wags wy S
i
ipjeogawl lwnhnils Mul Ional asses sl'saA 11
❑ ❑ ❑
ialunbepe uugl ss.l AI!oedno 66e-js sl 'y
3N YN aN s-A
luawtea.11'y o alols luollaepo'J alsum
466-4—p a wort
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 uegl aeglo alMS oql to s1.leAA of sloedw, eslenpe le!lualad to sloedwl Us OApu algenlasgo Aue alagi alert C
❑ ❑ ❑
�.ogwsdo aLO to Ued Rue woll nb,egns!p lsed a to aouappo alagl sl' Z
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
(OMO Algou'saA p) iwalsAs Iuawa6euew olses aql ssedAq a6 eLps!p seo0'p
6(suolle6) alelS NI p slaleM pN3usi legs awnlOA pelew1115a Bql sl JEW B
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
(OMO Apt -'-A I!) iotelS aql to s -IeM goeel aEuapsp pO 'q
❑ ❑ M ❑
iopew-uewe eAanum seM 'e
'= ❑ - `
laglO
❑
pl.! j uo!Ieo!lddtl
�
BmlorulS
7e poleu!Bua a61e1ps!a
❑ ❑ ❑ S
iuoieledo oql p ued Aue wwl paniasgo o6legos,p Aue sl 't
3N VN oN s-A
sloedwl wea4S g sa6Aegosla
do-Mgpj itslAlotuosrad
ualogm3 wnpNS:sdAj-11-dsul ELVX&LD:aleOuoi,padwl
LZDOED :sa —NAITI!..j
LZO00O3MY:lluvad

rk
■ Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 030021 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC030021 n Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance In�oection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Emecgencv _ _ County: Alleghany Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 05/29/2013 Entry Time: 02:20 PM Exit Time: 06:30 PM __ Incident M
Farm Name: Joines Dairy Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Steve A Joines Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 2116 Spicer Mountain Rd Sparta NC 28675
Physical Address: 2116 Spicer Mt Rd Sparta NC 28675
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36°30'06" Longitude: 81°10'32"
Bledsoe Creek Rd. approx. 4 miles north from Sparta on NC Alleghany Co. road # 1135
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Records and Documents
Other Issues
Certified Operator: Allen W Joines
Operator Certification Number: 21417
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name Allen Joines
Phone:
On -site representative Allen Joines
Phone:
Primary Inspector: Patrick Mitchell
Phone:
��r�'�- �_/—�
/
f°��°/ ye"
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Melissa Rosebrock
Phone:
Page: 1

s •
Permit: AWC030021 Owner -Facility: Steve A Joines Facility Number: 030021
Inspection Date: 05/29/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Emergency
Inspection Summary:
On May 29, 2013 WSRO DWQ staff members Patrick Mitchell and Melissa Rosebrock responded to an emergency call received from
the Permittee/OIC for the subject facility. The OIC notified the WSRO via a voicemail message (received on 5128/13 at 5:30 pm)
indicating that the waste pond serving the subject facility had leaked over the spillway and discharged into the creek. It was reported
that the leakage was stopped as soon as it was noticed. WSRO also received calls from DWQ hotline for reporting by the OIC.
Through discussions with the OIC and onsite measurements made on 5129/13 it was estimated that approximately 2.5 to 3 inches of
freeboard waste from the waste pond had been lost during the release. An estimated waste amount of 20,000 gallons or more
appears to have entered the creek. The remaining portion of waste released from the waste pond was captured in ditches previously
constructed by the OIC to contain any overflow. In an effort to reduce additional impacts to surface waters the OIC had applied lime
onto the waste in these ditches and on any waste still remaining on the grounds surface prior to WSRO visit.
The primary area of release from the waste pond which resulted in the discharge to surface waters appeared to be from the spillway.
In addition, there were five or six areas along the wooden portion of the dam that had seepage occurring at the time of site visit. Waste
had traveled approximately 2 feet to as much as 6 feet down the embankment from these seepage areas. WSRO staff recommended
that the OIC contact NRCS/Soil & Water staff to discuss a site review of the waste pond for structural integrity.
At the time of the site visit it was estimated that the waste level in the waste pond was approximately 10 inches above the max level
mark on the freeboard marker. Review of onsite facility records suggested that the max waste level in the waste pond was reached on
May 20, 2013. The facility did NOT notify the WSRO of the freeboard violation at the time of occurrence as required by the permit.
WSRO staff believes the excessively high waste level in the waste pond is the primary cause of the release and subsequent discharge
to surface waters. In an effort to lower the waste level back into compliance and prevent further release the subject facility was actively
land applying waste during the site visit. WSRO staff discussed the required permit response and associated required timelines for
their completion with the Permittee/OIC.
There was an excessive fungal mat present in the stream. The fungal mat was present upstream of the discharge and is believed to
be the result of more chronic issues possibly from silage leachate and runoff from the barn areas. Additionally, there was groundwater
seepage occurring into the silage storage pit causing excessive runoff of leachate to surface waters. Samples were collected from the
subject surface waters to address the waste pond discharge and possibly the chronic issues as well. Results not returned to date.
WSRO will conduct a follow-up inspection and additional sampling if deemed necessary. Emergency Mgmt. report received. -
Page: 2

fl � •
Permit: AWC030021 Owner - Facility: Steve A Joines Facility Number: 030021
Inspection Date: 05/29/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Emergency
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle -Milk Cow 130 64
Total Design Capacity: 130
Total SSLW: 182,000
Waste Structures
TVDe Identifier
Designed Observed
Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
rite Pond WASTE POND AO
Page: 3

Permit: AWC030021 Owner - Facility: Steve A Joines
Inspection Date: 0512912013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at:
Facility Number: 030021
Reason for Visit: Emergency
Yes No NA NE
Structure
■
Application Field
Other
n
a. Was conveyance man-made?
n
■
n
n
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
■
n
n
n
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
20000
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
n
■
n
n
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
■
n
❑
n
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
■
n
n
n
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
■
n
❑
n
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
■
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (i.ed large trees, severe
■
❑
❑
Q
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?
■
& Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
■
n
n
n
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
■
❑
n
n
improvement?
Records and Documents Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
n
■
n
n
20, Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
n
■
n
n
If yes, check the appropriate box below
WUP? ❑
Checklists? Q
Design? n
Maps? n
Page: 4

Permit: AW0030021 Owner - Facility: Steve A Joines Facility Number: 030021
Inspection Date: 05/29/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Emergency
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Lease Agreements? fl
Other? n
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement? D ■ fl 0
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
In
Weekly Freeboard?
n
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
n
Waste Transfers?
n
Weather code?
n
Rainfall?
In
Stocking?
Crop yields?
n
120 Minute inspections?
fl
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
n
Sludge Survey
n
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
0
Q ■ 0
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
n
n ■ n
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑ n ■
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
n
n ■ n -
box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
n
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
r!
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first surrey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
0
■ ❑ n
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
n
n ■
vas
rj tie ul=
Page: 5

P
Permit: AWC030021 Owner - Facility: Steve A Joines Facility Number: 030021
Inspection Date: 05/29/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Emergency
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
28, Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report 0 Q ❑ ■
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional n ■ n n
Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge, ■ ❑ ❑
freeboard problems, over -application)
31, Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? n n
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?
n
n
Page: 6

1
t
f..� Di0ion of Water Quality a
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 030021 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC030021 n Denied Access
Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Other County: Alleghanv Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 02/14/2013 Entry Time: 12Q0 PM Exit Time: 12.45 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Joines Dairy Farm Owner Email:
&PS7_ S
Owner: Steve A Joines Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 2116 Spicer Mountain Rd I Sparta NC 28675
Physical Address: 2116 Spicer Mt Rd I SparrtahC28675 __
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: z Neer- Latitude: 36_"30'06" Longitude: 81°10'32"
Bledsoe Creek Rd. approx. 4 miles north from Sparta on NC Alleghany Co. road # 1135.
Question Areas:
ii Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Other issues
Certified Operator: Allen W Joines Operator Certification Number: 21417
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
Title
24 hour contact name Allen Joines Phone:
On -site representative Allen Joines Phone:
Primary Inspector: Patrick Mitchell Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Date:
Phone
Inspection Summary:
On February 14, 2013 DWQ made a site visit to the subject facility to inspect the waste storage structure. Mr. Allen Joines was
present.
A minor amount of waste was seeping through the wooden dam in several areas. Minor areas of ponding were present below the
seepage and there was no runoff observed at the time of inspection.
A containment ditch with step-downs has been constructed downslope of the structure in an effort to capture waste and prevent entry
to the creek, in the event of runoff.
Mr. Joines plans to land apply as soon as conditions allow to lower the freeboard level.
DWQ is to be updated.
Page: 1

4
Perna: AWC030021 Owner - Facility: Steve A Joines
Inspection Date: 02 I412013 Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation
Facility Numb- r D30021
Reason for Vlta: Other
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type identifier Closed Date Stan Date Freeboard Fraeboard
rite Pond WASTE POND 1900
Per ilt; AWC030021 Owner - Facllay: SIm A Joines
Inspection Date: 02MV2013 inspection Type: Structure Evaluation
Facility Nunrbar : 030021
Reason for Vlsa: hater
Discharges & Stream impacts
yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWO)
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons}?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? {a yes, notify DWO)
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge tram any part of the operation?
❑ ■ ❑ Cl
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the Slate 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 structifral froeboard?
IS
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any Of the structures observed (I.e,f large bees, severe ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)7
6. Are there structures or ile that are not property addressed andlor managed through a waste management ❑ Is ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? u ■ u u
8. DO any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or well stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
improvement?
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
28. Did the facility i to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report
❑ ■ ❑ ❑ •
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the locility, pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the fai ity fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e.. discharge,
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tfe drains exist at the facility? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field ❑
Page: 2 Page: 3

A
Peri AWC03OD21 Ownef-Facility: Steve A3oines
Inspection Date: CV1412013 Inspection Type: Sevcture Evaluation
Facility Number: 03W21
Ranson for Ylsh: Other
Otherissues
Yea No NA NE
Lagoon ! Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
It Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems roted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
33. Did the ReviewerAnspector fail to discuss reviewfinspecton with on -site representative?
110011
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency!
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
r�
U
7
Page: 4

f
Division of Water Quality
Facility Number Q� - 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation y
0 Other Agency 3
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: IVRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emer2enev 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: — Arrival Time: 2; p Departure Time: ,�, County: j� Region: WS40
Farm Name: -✓ o i AES I t Owner Email:
Owner Name: 5t01k2r Al ;1 al A,61 Phone: 372- — 5_S7e0
Mailing Address: SpiG�f� M
Physical Address: T ��
Facility Contact: Al i t&1 J 6,kA�j Title: Phone: 6.5-7 O 24-5—
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: 36 n 30, oG Longitude:
}{'^�� 2 j N •� L F l edsoc trt�c_k , L SP r M. �.� f r,�I an kt
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 Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
D_ischarzes and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potence adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Design Current '
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
d
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes Ix No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes ❑No DNA ❑NE
❑ Yes 0 No
Yes [—]No
Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

' Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: U i
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? Oyes 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: V,Ja on
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes XNo [] NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not property addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes gNo ❑ 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? 9yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes P(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 )4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes pn 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): f 7ere,5 r .
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?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
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 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 XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
'jErNo
[—]Yes [—]No
XNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ YesANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes Wo
D NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? if ye s, Yes XNo
I �J Wa to Application dWeekly Freeboard Waste Analysis S it Analysis ��
Rainfall b<ocking Crop Yield onthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes gN0
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 2 of 3
❑ NA ❑ NE
Bather Code
❑ NA ❑ NE
(XNA ❑ NE
21412011 Continued

Facili Number: d 3 - 2 Date of inspection: low
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No k 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 fait to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes 0(No 0 NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [:]No I YI NA ❑ NE
Other Issues XNo
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NI?
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:
❑ Yes /W/No
❑ Yes /KNo
❑ Yes 0 No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes
XNo
❑ 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).
Zy Oe-'Ab - zo I z,1 7/7_//2__vt Z.
I //
i11'-t.)4 C<'-" iced -�C>m b,,.,r1 � , J V'S
7 `ifn £-� a LSe "r,j t / c
04-4 we f k, Pn W/ Jo3 Wa �ht fz�
�Nf y ZotL jr r
Reviewer/Inspector Name: evj4 r24< M t 4L.L It___ Phone: ��r%l — 5-Z��S
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: �����7-P 1 �
Page 3 of 3 21412011

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number - Division df Soil and WaterVervation l C j;A4
0 Other Agency
l'ype 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:�_) VI County: 41 oI 1] Region: W�d
J
Farm Name j0 i n e :j Owner Email:
Owner Name: S t e V e, A To hey Phone:
Mailing Address: -21 (r, .5 jpl 6e f W-t • S66,17T4t1 N C✓ a 5S&- 7
Physical Address:
Facility Contact
4-6 t tie 5 Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Phone: 10,r- -7 0aZC-5-
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34,730 04P Longitude: Al l�-
v s q J4 bo NC: A I . L e + 0&0 6 I&A so e- Cree V_-
Lj•�5�
(:L+ S+O `P 5 1,90 - fav��� Ch rrq �•�-t
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 Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er:A
Non -Layer
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Dischar es and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Q
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non-Dai
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes 90 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
® Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - • Date of Inspection: �
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes )o 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
POD
Identifier: vjV J�
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
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 [Q 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? 1`91 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? 7T❑] 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? T'
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? T'
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):
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? 7�
17, Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes 14 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 tRLNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes V No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements El Other:
21. Does record keeping need ' provement? propriae-e� ❑Yes [No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ aste Applic tion [Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis Soil Analysis E3jA o e-�iartsf�rs ❑ Weather Code
Rainfall Stocking ❑ Crop Yield onthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
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 CWNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection: Q
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 E j No C'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?
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 V No
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes [A No
❑ NA ❑ NE
z NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
1P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
[DNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes Ej No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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).
a Kk& - 50IT&- -i- t e_efl w�* t e- e�'j �d -VrdNL r un - cSf >n�r lbar
N MoSt Conta\ n o r E"/-'6 Uci'e_ t 5 e ASO Qo
'T DS 1-5 (OIL iJ.:-" S P ? Lu I ( I r)E,0-4 +6 5+0-r + f~e)p t6L6 riq Q05+S co }1 CA L05 �
►'� u't-;-d
, 1 SO koa-l4,51 s Lcaq i L ex,-}
1�ot. .,t n A i Ickes I? .�-
�Cuq 6V-1eue^C_C'��S 5 � U� i�a�7-�e� � u�r�-�e�i1'�� � �O W l 1'1 q �l
o b5e.c-ve_A LoTS O_
Q i 2 a- a� roA
Chi 4�e� v`is-I+� l�
�1 e eA 1-6 S c.i a/�j
U y1 ad2l !1 tj_DaSe. 1 ,2, d r hs . M 1lnt-�n c&,,, o al ;a)1l = 9).)
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
/ 1 r
Phone: —n `<�-31
Date: S" C
21412011L)

F

I Type of Visit P Compliance
mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit YRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: b a Arrival Time: Departure Time: 5 County: Region: _b_:GQ
Farm Name: WAJ Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:?r�
Mailing Address: a' °2 s�
Physical Address: �
Facility Contact:Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No: (n _e;­7
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
®o ®� ®�� g ®o®1 Ls1�i
Latitude: 0 Longitude:
, r _ I C
/ 4 ` I C
:.Design
Current,
Design Current Design Current
P pulahon
Wet Poultr}y^apaciopation
C►at#le CapWean
to Finish
r
❑ La er
Dai CowWean
to Feeder
❑ Non -La er
Dai Calf
eeder to Finish
❑Dai Heifer
arrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
El Layers
ElNon-Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cowl I
❑ Turkeys
Other
0 Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of 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 IiNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
Cl NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
9Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Q — 0 Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 St r cture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA Cl NE
❑ Yes 4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 .were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? 0 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) 10
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? ,� j
1 I . Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. El Yes LXI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Excessive Ponding El Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.) , `
❑ PAN [__1PAN > ] 0% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
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?
�, Io El NA El NE
�.,G
L�,jNo El NA El NE
❑ No )6 NA ❑ NE
�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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):
♦_ r
• I � I C /� � y 'I � %'
k1a h.. !. t I r li9
Reviewer/inspector Name
5
Phone: 1 1 I —
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:`
Date: `�
a
Page 2 of 3
.,ram
c ,:12/28/
& Continued

Facility Number: — &of Inspection 0
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
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists [ ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. �este
rd keeping need Zec�kFreeboard
vement? If yes, check e appropriate box b ow. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Applica 'on Waste Analysis Soil alysis Waste Transfers t+e�tion
�Zainfhll Stockin Crop
Yield�7Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rain [ns ections Bather Code
V g P P Y P
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
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? (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?
Comments and/or Drawings:
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
3.
❑ No
No
l No
�No
VNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes [yNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
XNA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
O(NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
El NA El NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
0
t

O� WNAT Incident Report
Report Number: 201001107
Incident Type: Non -Compliance Reporting
Category: APS - Animal
Incident Started: • 11/23/2009
County: Alleghany
City: Sparta
Farm #: 003-0021
Responsible Party:
Owner:
Permit:— AWC030021
Facility: Joines Dairy Farm
First Name: Steve
Middle Name: A
Last Name: Joines
Address 2116 Spicer Mountain Rd
City/State/Zip: Sparta NC 28675
Phone:
Material Category: Estimated Qty: UOM
0 () v -;Z10 - PC, - OTS X
On -Site Contact:
First/Mid/Last Name:
Company Name:
Phone:
PagerlMobile Phone: 1
Reported By:
First/Mid/Last Name:
Company Name: T
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone:
Pager/Mobile Phone: I
Chemical Name Reportable Qty. Ibs. Reportable Qty. kgs.
DD:MM:SS Decimal Position Method:
Latitude: Position Accuracy:
Longitude: Position Datum:
Location of Incident:
Address:
City/State/Zip
Joines Dairy Farm
Sparta
\ Report Created 05/14/10 12:41 PM Page 1

r
Cause/Observation: Directions:
Action Taken: Comments:
Incident Questions:
Did the Material reach the Surface Water? Unknown Conveyance:
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
Water Supply Wells within 1500ft
Access to Farm
■ Structure Questions
Estimated Number of fish?
(Above Ground or Under Ground)
Unknown Groundwater impacted : Unknown
0 Animal Population 0 Spray Availability
Report Created 05/14/10 12:41 PM Page 2

.7
•
Access to Farm
Farm accessible from the main road?
Animal Population
Confined?
Depop?
Feed Available?
Mortality?
Spray Availability
Pumping equipment?
Available Fields?
Structure Questions
Breached?
Inundated?
Overtopped?
Water on outside wall?
Poor dike conditions?
Waste Structure Type Waste Structure Identi inches
Waste Pond WASTE POND 18.00
Plan Due Date
Event Type Event Date Due Date
Incident closed
Requested Additional Information
Report Received
Referred to Regional Office - Primary Contact
Report Entered 2010-03-11 02:25:42
Incident Start 2009-11-23 08:00:00
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No [DNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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 12:41 PM Page 3

t
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: 2010-03-11 02:25:42 PM
Referred Via:
Did DWQ request an additional written report?
If yes, What additional information is needed?
Report Created 05/14/10 12:41 PM Page 4

Div ision: of AVatersQualtht, t � .- �„ ;�r� ,• " +�sg}y ,��, .�;+:
Facility Number O`Drvtsi'on of S6il antl`W�aterK'Conservahona v+ 5 N
— D Other Ageric_v" 'ft'`
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ((Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: oZq Arrival Time: I 11
n O Departure Time: County: � Region:
Farm Name: O j ito—s Doi ry Fa » Owner Email:
Owner Name:L�J2 ► ` TO - I'1t Phone: 3
Mailing Address: - p l 4"e� a"L ' i .5af+-0. �x_ a g
Physical Address: f !
Facility Contact: { �TO I ne--S _ ._ Title: Phone Nu:
Onsite Representative: I�� .1 O 1 n e.5 Integrator:
Certified Operator: Ito 1.-O 1 nPS Operator Certification Number: ID q
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
N C_' a
Back-up Certification ]Number:
Latitude: [MO LLI_V Longitude: Ei�o
Le_ �f 4 nf0 5 (- L (2- p- Q�L+
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish ❑ Layer
❑ Wean to Feeder IEJ Non -Laver
❑ Feeder to Finish I I I - _ - -T-_
I
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other.
Dry Poultry
❑
Layers
❑
Nori-La ers
❑
Pullets
❑
Turkeys
❑
Turke Points
❑
Other
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'.,
WDairy Cow
❑ 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:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection 02 O
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I n tructure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
AElyes No ❑ NA El NE
Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes [;(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes )(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes [5(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [XNo ❑ 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 El NE
maintenance or improvement? ,
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement'?
❑ Yes PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
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) V
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes ❑ No [�(NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes o
ElNA
❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
ElYes 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):
OIL)
at& �
✓
Reviewer/Inspector Name} Phone: oZ $
Reviewer/Inspector Signature 010A MAZIDate: 't

i •
Facility Number: — a2 Date 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
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21, Does record keeping need improvement? tFpe�c we ❑ Yes No El NA ❑ NE
L]Y4Vaste Applicat on [eek reeboard Waste Ana Soil Analysis�/Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield onthly and 1" Rain Inspections V4Veather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
XNo
ElNA
ElNE
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
)dNo
❑ 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?
ElYes
;(No
El NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
EXNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
o
ElNA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
ElYeso
t
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
3 I.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
(ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
+•
7
12128104

I Facility Number
Division of Water Qualit1q
Division of Soil and Water
O Other Agency
(Type of Visitmpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit yRoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: Ea .County: Ce 1� Region: 5 �V
Farm Name: To'i nes 10_tr_U PQrM Owner Email: ffA,
Owner Name: f,eye A ' J hE/5� a Phone:L
Mailing Address: tD 'G Di G�'.l' i fl i �u ' 4 LU Ir VOL 2 -7
Physical Address: /
` P
Facility Contact: J 1 b f-•�nP Title: PhoLev",
W
o: ' ��`1'
Onsite Representative: Ai [�,rl___ �i �'r 11 Integrator: 57
Certified Operator: A f{ e,*, -Tbl ne 5 Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
mac. A., 1 91 N3d,—'Ale)
Varw cn rcdkt -
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: � ° ®� l07.l Longitude:il ° ©� ���
L� f on-fo 5 r 1I 3S-- Lefif cJ 5+a F 5j j n .
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
I' ❑ Non -La er
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
aDairy Cow
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)?
Dumber of Structures: F1 j
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?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes qNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: a — * Date of Inspection mpegll�
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 Stru ture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: N loes:L bn
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to t tntegrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes t$(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes 1XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need [3Yes X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
] I. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes bdNo ❑ 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)y
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes [)<i0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes IgNo ❑ 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 *No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes Vo ❑ 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):
. Run C)F•p fro Ca.1 v jai- -f- -ejj o+ c a" te- k)ah 1 �L��
�v-.T
uJI IL
Reviewer/Inspector Name f- ] Phone: ' s
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 0
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number:*Datec�
—�- of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Mans ❑Other
21. Does ecord keeping neeZeel.>Pffreeboarc
'rovement? If yes, �'WwasteA
the appropriate �Z2i_IA.
Blow. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
aste Application nalysis ysisw ` " srs ❑�ainfall Stocking Crop Yield ❑ _ons [jj�eather Code
he 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 ❑ NE
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
❑ Yes N ' El NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
0No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
�(NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
t�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ 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 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
/� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes
No
El NA
El NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Add' 'onal Comments and/or Drawings:
0 e-4 'Alt
cu( "-7b0P
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Qualitq'
Facility Number�27= Division of Soil and Water Conservation +D�
Other Agency 1
Type of Visit
Compliance Inspection
O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation
Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
V Routine O Complaint
O Follow up O Referral Q Emergency
O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ��Departure Time: � County: e CL Region:
Farm Name: �n j f%Q,,S _ a I C A Pa- Owner Email:
Owner Name: �T''}}�J��AI��e��_ - �0t no- j (� ,(� Phone:�qS
Mailing Address: Q Q 1 CP�r 1 r ITn t`u } �pQr��l t P� a o 75-
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: I t l l em n e_-)� Title: Phone No:&_ 7
Onsite Representative: A I l 141 e Integrator:
Certified Operator: Ito-ml�j Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: . ® 9 F Longitude: °
Ne, oaL Nor+- % From 5 part�a . Le�-� on46 5 2113S
i� e 5+*,p Stq r1 Foxm on rtq b4
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
!__ ❑ Non-Layet
Dry Poultry
l\VU1-
Pullets
Pouets
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
&2aia Cow
Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
ElNE
ElYes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: Q P-1
. Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): d 1 a-
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
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) threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ NA El NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
El Yes
;Zo❑ 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
M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
El Yes
Cu,10.
Cu' o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
I]. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
�dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > l0% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside
of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[TNO
❑ 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
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
fmNA
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
'm
[ 6o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft 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):
ALI
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: o�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: g oZ o2
k 12128104 Continued

Facilitv Number: gate of Inspection 67 •
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
the appropirate box. WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other �No
21. VWasteApplicati
ecord kee in need im wemenO I w. ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
S
n Week Freeboard WasteAnalysis J2Soil alysisainfall tocking rop Yield E_ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections eather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
P 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
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
'A"— "NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
Ill❑
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
XNA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
*o
❑ NA
ElNE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
ElYes
No
Y
❑ NA
ElNE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
5 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
a v 01 afpli Co`fi0n
-112,110-1 N�4-1-5703 J,a.9 165. N11660
12128104

Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 030021 Facility Status: Active _ Permit: AWC030021 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: aomvlianr�lnsoection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine __ County: Alleahany Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 1 11 12 0 Entry Time:10:15 AM Exit Time: 11 A5AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Joines Dairy Farm _ Owner Email:
Owner: Steve Ajoines _
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 2116 Spice[ Mtn Rd Soarta NC 28675 _
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 6"30' ' Longitude: 81°10'32"
Bledsoe Creek Rd. approx. 4 miles north from Sparta on NC Alleghany Co. road # 1135.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Certified Operator: Allen W Joines
Secondary OIC(s):
© Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Otherissues
Operator Certification Number: 21417
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Allen Joines Phone:
24 hour contact name Allen Joines Phone:
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebrock Phone: 11
Inspector Signature: Date: -Li
Inspector 0 (O
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
3. & 9. Vegetation in the calf lot area looks better. Continue efforts.
3. & 9. Must address sediment and waste run-off from rear of barn nearest stream. Suggest calling Greg Wagoner. Culvert? Fencing?
Seed?
21. Records are great!
11/15/06 waste analysis=4.1 lbs. N11000gal.
Follow-up:
Greg and David tucker visited site 1/4/07 and met w/ Allen Joines and suggested the use of filter cloth and rock behind the barn. This
should encourage cattle to use existing stock trail and decrease erosion. Check next visit.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC030021 Owner - FacllHy: Steve A Joines Facility Number : 030021
Inspection Date: 12113/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Q Cattle - Milk Cow 130 89
Total Design Capacity: 130
Total SSLW: 182,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
k1ste Pond WASTE POND 51.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWC030021 Owner - Facility: Steve A .ioines Facility
Number:
030021
Inspection Date: 12/13/2006 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?
❑
■
Q
Discharge originated at:
Structure
Application Field
Other
a. Was conveyance man-made?
0■
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
Cl
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
Cl
■
C3
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
Q
■
El
11
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
■
❑
❑
Q
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
O
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
n
n
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
I]
■
❑
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?
D
■
Q
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? Q
Hydraulic Overload? fl
Frozen Ground? rl
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWC030021 Owner - Facility: Steve A Joines
Facility Number : 030021
Inspection Date: 12/1312006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Ap lip cation
Yes
No
NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
In
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
Cl
Crop Type 1
Fescue
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Corn
(Silage)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑ n
Pian(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?
❑
■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC030021 Owner - Facility: Steve A Joines Facility Number : 030021
Inspection Date: 1211312006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
n
■
n
n
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
n
■
n
n
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
n
n
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
n
n
n
n
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑
❑
n
n
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
n
n
n
n
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AWC030021 Owner - Facility: Steve A Joines
Inspection Date: 12113/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Other Issues
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did ReviewerMnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number : 030021
Reason for Visit: Routine
Page: 6

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number Division of Soil and Water Conservation low
- - - 0 Other Agency
Type of Visit x
Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit VRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: I J0 f S7 Departure Time: County: Region: w J �0
Farm Name: S t r U FQryY1 Owner Email:
Owner Name 5 {-� V� / f ' _ S01 h�rr J Phone: -3-7 a S 5 a d
Mailing Address: 1 � �1 Lp� ! rLT' ' ► S t4 / t-3 C-- a 8 & 7 5-
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ��fi�P ��O L ��j Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: J61ne5 Integrator:
Certified Operator: , r U4'-) _' a f h eo Operator Certification Number: R141 -7
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Iv d, 14 u-3 y a
Foy M o n
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: F�0 c F-4-A`
P-,r' -t-q • lift o n S P2- It -5 S-.
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
i ElLayer
l 1E] Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
urkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharees & 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?
Longitude:
Le T a
o ®4 ® u
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
1130
Dair Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Daily
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: QD
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?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No
❑NA ❑NE
Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: ! Date of Inspection 0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Stvt�e 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 1 •
.1
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
ElYes
$�No
ElNA
❑ 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 0, No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? �No
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ElYes ❑ NA ElNE
ElExcessive Ponding ElHydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ElHeavy 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
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ 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?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
�J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
/ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NoNA ❑ NE
VNo <<❑ NA El NE
�o ❑ 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):
A,
Reviewer/inspector Name I O rock 1 Phone: 1-7 -Z! -
ReviewerAnspector Signature Date: - d
Pape 2 of 1212NO4 Continued

Facility Number: Q — 2 Qate of Inspection o2
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 El Other
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
El NA ❑NE
El NA El NE
21. Does "ecord keeping need imp vement.❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Does
Applicat' n -Vee ly Freeboard �<Wa_ste Analysis Ltd Soil An lysis 9 `1,,.9w :r_......r.._,
P Rainfall Stocking Ycrop Yield _ ;zthly and 1" Rain Inspections L44eather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
[:3 NA
ElNE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
I� NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
El Yes
fNo
j�No
El NA
El NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
r❑_No
XNA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
ONA
❑ 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
❑ NA
ElNE
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
XNo
El NA
El 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
No
ElNA
ElNE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
ElYes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
�Vo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
I?. g u h o f � Y✓ o ryt, 10 + ?
U
•
f o
4,) uj� A ..
7
jou
N(//1600
V • i' 4.
Page 3 of 3
12128104

t •
Division of Water Quality
[] Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 030021 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC030021 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Allghany_ Region:Winston-Salem
Date of Visit. .Q4/2812005 _ Entry Time: 01:QQPM Exit Time: 02:45 PM
Farm Name: JQines Dairy Farm
Owner: Steve A Joines
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Mailing Address:.2116 Spicer Mtn Rd ajarta NC 2a675
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compiiant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Phone: [phone]
Latitude: 1§'30'06" _ — Longitude:
Bledsoe Creek Rd. approx. 4 miles north from Sparta on NC Alleghany Co. road # 1135.
Question Areas:
j� Discharges & Stream Impacts 0 Waste Collection & Treatment 0 Waste Application
0 Records and Documents 0 Other Issues
Certified Operator: Allen W Joines
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 21417
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Allen Joines Phone:
24 hour contact name Allen Joines Phone:
Primary Inspector. Melissa M Rosebrock Phone: [phone]
Ext.383
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
3.and 9. Manure on concrete lot is entering the creek. Must scrape or berm. Approx. 600 feet of stream is also impacted as
evidenced by sludge mats and worms in the creek.Evidence of waste and sediment washing into creek. Must fence ASAP so that
vegetative buffer can be established. Check next visit.
15. Operator has applied lime to several fields.
19. Copy of permit needs to be kept with records.
21. Went over the new permit requirements. Otherwise records look great.
1/13/05 waste sample=9.7 lbs. N11000 gal.
Page: 1

• •
Permit: AWC030021 Owner - Facility: Steve A Joines Facility Number: 030021 '
Inspection Date: 04/28/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
0 Cattle - Milk Cow 130 30
Total Design Capacity: 130
Total SSLW: 182,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Waste Pond WASTE POND 42.00
-.. -.1 1 1
Page: 2

0
Permit: AWC030021 Owner - Facility: Steve A Joines
Facility Number: 030021
Inspection Date: 04/28/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No _ NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
moo
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0 ❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DW0)
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
■
Yes
❑ ❑
No NA
❑
NE
Waste Collection --Storage & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e.1 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
❑
0 ❑
❑
and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑ ❑
❑
improvement?
Yes
No NA
NE
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance 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 P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Fescue
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

Permit: AWC030021 Owner -Facility., Steve A Joines
Inspection Date: 0412812005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 030021
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Crop Type 6
Yes
No NA
NE
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?
❑
Yes
■ ❑
No NA
❑
NF
Records and DonumPnis
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
■ ❑ ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
■
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after :� 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
■
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
■
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑ ■ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑ ■ ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑ ■ ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC030021 Owner - Facility: Steve A Joines Facility Number: 030021
Inspection Date: 04128I2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
QMULL'af
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
Xes
❑
No NA
■ ❑
NF
❑
29, Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andlor document and report those mortality
❑
0 ❑
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M Cl
❑
32. Did Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
❑
Cl
Page: 5

i
l
` `Q'Dtvtsion of Water Qtialth .;� �
tq
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation f
k / p
0 Other Agency I I;
Number
i
Type of Visit
Type of Visit
C mpliance 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 El Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Farm Name:
Owner Name: _)TP/tlt. /'3
Time: Departure Time: � County: Region: _1-05 po
�u lr M Owner Email:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
I �
Facility Contact: A'i { Title:
0
Onsite Representative: �
Certified Operator: �� 6 ��O�TP�ti
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
0
Latitude: %il
Phone:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: _'0_�
Back-up Certification Number:
k Iy t�k Longitude: ®0 ®k . .k
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
i I ❑Non -La er
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turke Pouits
❑ Other
Discharges &Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: El Structure El Application Field ❑Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity PopulationEl
Awairy
Cow
Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: ED
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DVI'Q)
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 x No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12/18/04 Continued

. 9 f
I/D
Facility Number: Date of Inspection o2
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate'?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure II Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: l—a�
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes No WNA
rElNE
ElYes ❑ No ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes )(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmentaltreat, 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 KNo ❑ 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 El No ❑ NA [—I NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? XNo
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ElNA ElNE
ElExcessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ElFrozen Ground [IHeavy 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 Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) � ,
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
_No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
)KI'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 anv'recoinmendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
QUO b4 G�4
��,��- o
Reviewer</Inspector Name (A '2!� I Ph one: t1
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur % Date:
V�21j /04 ontin e
L-NOW-4mAd I

Facility Number: — Dief Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes A 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 appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design �,
g El ❑Other
21. Doe ecord keeping need iimm ovement? If yes, check appropriate box b w. ] Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
�rite Applic on ►(� Weekl Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis
ainfall Stocking Crop Yield s ❑ Monthly a �Rai:Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
x No
ElNA
ElNE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?,
ElYes
❑No
L� NA
X.
El NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
010❑ Yes
0 No
NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
P(NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
El Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No tVNA ❑ 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 X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes No
El NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
Ir
3 l .
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
`
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes XNP
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
1
i
1
13 tAL-u�
q -? 1 bs N//000
oy It- 11 = `- (- 1 h5. 12128104

T chnical Assistance Site Visit Rep
ion of Soil and Water Conservatio11111111111
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 03 - 21 Date: 10/19/04 Time: 13:00 Time On Farm: 90 WSRO
Farm Name Joines Dairy Farm County Alleghany Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 2116 Spicer Mountain Road Sparta NC 28675
Onsite
Representative Allen Joines Integrator
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Q Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
Q Response to complaintllocal referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
Q Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
Q Response to complaintllocal referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
13Q
93
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3. Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier WSP
Level (Inches) 24
CROP TYPES 10rchard Grass (hay) I IFescue-graze I IFescue-hay 1corn, Silage ISmall grain cover
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES CeB CeE WaE WaF
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

0 ' a
Facility Number 03 - 21 Date:
10/19/04
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer ❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Farms Need (list in comment section)
El
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. 21-1.0200 re -certification
❑ 1fi. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Latelmissing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
El Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation design/installation
❑
❑
❑ Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certificationfrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
®
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
El
4'
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5.
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
6
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

I r
Facility Number 03 - 21 Date: 1 10/19/04
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST IRocky Durham
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 101201041
Entered By: JlRocky Durham
03/10/03

} T vision of.Water Quality
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation,.. g
,O 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 03 21 Date of Visit: 6/3/2004 Time: 1010
Not O crational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: J.Qimf,s.Dairx.Fax.m........................................................................... .. County: Allcghan ........................................ WSR10........
Owner Name: Stye.Y.t:..A................................... joil)gs........................................................... Phone No: 3:I.Z-SSh.R....................
Mailing Address: 2.1.14. piper..NiQ.u�atai�a.lt��s1 ........................... . 2.5.6.7.5 ..............
SFar.14...N............................................................
FacilityContact: Allgiu.,lQlll a .................................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative:,A,llfrn..,IRiw.................................................................................Integrator:
Certified Operator: ,A,lleal.W................................. JjQiJjC5 ................................................ Operator Certification Number:2,1.41.7 .............................
Location of Farm:
Nedsoe Creek Rd. approx. 4 miles north from Sparta on NC Alleghany Co. road # 1135.
[3 Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 30 06 LL Longitude 81 • 10 f 32
Design Current
Swine Canacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 0
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer IN Dairy 130 40
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 130
Total SSLW 182,000
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes OR 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 -a[/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 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ......Wasie.Pond.................................................................... Qr,
Freeboard (inches): 4.8j
12112103 Continued \

Facility Number: 03-21 Date of Inspection 6/3/2004
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, EI Yes 0 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 Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type 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 ® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
19, is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes ® No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Use. drawings of facility to, better -=explain. situations: use additional'; a es as necessa or any other comments
Comments_(refer to question #). Explain any YES answers and/or an recommendations;
( P g �) - Field COPY ®Final Notes
3. Area around the creek in the calf lot is denuded. Per operator, the calves are to be moved within two weeks (area where calves are to
be moved to was checked and is ok from a water quality standpoint). No cattle are to be returned to this lot until the crekk is fenced out
and/or a vegetative buffer established. May retain a crossing.
Suggest digging the diversion out above the waste pond, as it seems to have filled in and may be allowing freshwater to enter during
derate-severe rain events. Suggest digging out 6-12 inches deep.
Fall `03 and Spring `04 records look good. 2004 soil test results look ok, but a few fields still need lime.
3. Waste analyses:
10/9/03 LSD=6.9 lbs. N11000 gal.
12/17/03 LSD=4.1 lbs. N/1000 gal
3/16/04 LSD=8.I lbs. N/1000 gal.
5/19/04 LSD=0.77 lbs./ton--------is not representative, need to resample.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Meh p Rosebroc
Reviewer/]nspector Signature. Date:
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 03—ZI I41of Inspection 1 6/3/2004
Required 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? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Stocking Form [:]Crop Yield Form []Rainfall [:]Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
0
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
dditional Comments and/or Drawings
it
12112103

#Otvher
of Water Quality_vision of S©il and'Wate°r Conservation Agency
Type of Visit OLCompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of visit: Time:
10 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted [3 Certified D Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated r Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: .......T01 ..........i..!` `'.��......... t..w` rk.)........................ County:.. L..I.R �.......................
t 1.3 37d- S� �
OwnerName:.......... �..1..4.. r.. � .... ...... 0.1.1ag-5.......................................... Phone No:....................................................................�...............
}}
Mailing Address:'�_.1........... ...L.........Y}a'l.:-��'�.f ...............................
- 11 IU C� 7
r
Facility Contact:..................we,�............ Title: ............................................ Phone No:
.......................................................................
Onsite Representative:..._.. 1 .......Odlee."s ................................................. Integrator:
Certified Operator: ...... Alle-6 ......... 0.:.. .............................. Operator Certification Number: ..........................................
Location of Farm:
N -Fmni 5 Le-Ff oo-fo 5P 1l35 . faf-
( r
❑ Swine ❑ Poult cattle ❑ Horse LatitudEZID
'�� Longitude• ���-
Design Current W Design Current =Design Current
Swine =Population,,- tCatle--Ca acP.ouly . Capacity;" opulal in
4-
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Nuriniber of"Lagoons JtL
7'Hojdinyi Ponds I Solid Traps
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) El Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d_ Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes *0
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? Wes ❑ No
Waste Cotlection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes Xo
Str cture 1 Stru re 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ....... ....................................................... ................
Freeboard (inches):
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the i grity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion,
[] Yes
No
A
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑ Yes
XN0
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
X No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes
XNo
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
*0
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 A those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWW)?
❑ 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
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Commentstrefer to question.#): Explain a y YES�answers`anj or -.'a y recommend onsorAny,othercomments:
` ituitions. {ase:acldattonal pages as necessary): Field COPY Final Notes
. se' rawtn o . c to tter ex atn:s
.. .. .. _ - _..-.
r
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signal
Date:
I2/I2/03 6W,Ah�
Continued

Facility Number: t — of Inspection
0
Required
21.
Records & Documents
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?
WUP, design,
❑ Yes
(ie/ checklists, maps, etc.)
.,I(No
23.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
XNO
❑ 71te Application ❑ Freeboard Vaste Analysis ❑foil Sampling
24.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
No
%XN
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
El Yes
o
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
I
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
No
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
o
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
3I.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑Yes
❑ No
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33.
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
35.
Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall []Inspection After I" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
f ❑ No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit_ You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
dditi6 nal Coirimenti and/or Dravrtngs`.
A.
aCO4 6&4) &&w
�3 5�19/0� (,�ja�P o7 7 A� LQ4 q-7oz
jvcn — bonf u s& / i� 5e `FZ��
�o�q��3 L5� to •�1 /�5�(o
64 .� a
12112103

nical Assistance Site Visit Re
Divi-ORh•of Soil and Water Conservation I
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number a3 - 21 Date: 10/14/03 Time: 11:10 Time On Farm: 85 WSRO
Farm Name Joines Dai Farm County Alle han Phone:
372-5580
Mailing Address 2116 Spicer Mountain Road Sparta NC 28675
Onsite
Representative Allen Joines Integrator
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
Operation Review
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
O Routine
O Response to DWQIDENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by prod ucerlintegrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
O Routine
O Response to DWQIDENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by prod ucerlintegrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
i �d
IS Dairy
❑ Nan -Dairy
130
96
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
❑ yes ® no
5tructure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
dentifier WSP
level (inches) 36
i
:ROP TYPES jorchard Grass (hay} Fescue -graze Corn, Silage I Ismall grain silage
iPRAYFIELD
iOIL TYPES CeB CeE WaE WaF
17. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

AS
,7
IEW
Facility Number 03 - 21 Date:
10/14/03
PARAMETER
pp No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
El
El
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
30. 21-1.0200
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organizelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation designlinstallation
El
El
El Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
❑
❑
46. Wettable Acre Determination
Mr. Joines has covered the rest of the concrete
lot.
47. Evaluate WAD certificationtrechecks
El
El1
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
2- A stock trail has been installed at the end of the
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
barn.
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
El
❑
El
�� Mr. Joiner has installed curbing and a paved
ditch on the upper side of the barn.
52, Buffer improvements
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
El
❑
❑
❑
4. Mr. Joines has installed a maximum liquid
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
marker in the WSP
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
1-1
El
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6.
58. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

•
Facility Number 03 _ 21 Date: 1 10/14/03 I
COMMENTS:
Waste analysis: 7-23-03 LSD 1.3 Ibs.N/1000 gals. B, 4-29-03 LSD 5.5 Ibs.N11000 gals. Bf
3-05-03 LSD 6.8 "
Soil analysis dated 4-28-03 had one sample calling for more than one ton of lime per acre.
Mr. Joines is waiting for his waste sample to come back to complete his Fall application records. He is
Iso planning on hauling some more waste.
The roof, curbing, and stock trail improvements look good.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham IF
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 10/15/03
Entered By: lRocky Durham
3 03/10/03

N
ion of Water Quality
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation 40
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit p 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
t)utr Of Yivit: 07/02/2003 Time: 1200
Facilih_• Number 03 21
rO Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ------------
Farm Name: JAixFkVairy.Fatah........................................................ ......... County: AJjCghanx ............................... W,5RQ......
Phone No: 3.3C-72:55$4 - - - - - --- - - - - --- --
Mailing Address: 11�- ttictYr. Q.ulntaivt►..Roan.......................................................... SvavA.Ac.............. ................................................ M.6.75 ..............
Facility Contact: A11PU 1QiWA_ _................................... Title: ............................................... Phone No: ......................................
Onsite Representative: �1fA,T9�ineS_--------------------------------------- Integrator: ----•--------------------------------------•
Certified Operator: Al11rm..i. ............................... biftc* ................................................ Operator Certification Number:2 417......
Location of Farm:
Bledsoe Creek Rd. approx. 4 miles north from Sparta on NC Alleghany Co. road # 1135.
[]Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®' 30 ° It Longitude 81 ' 10 6 32 f[
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 ® :Dairy 1 130 - 89
❑ Non -Layer JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 130
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 1 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges R Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Dischari*e 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? (]t 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 5 Structure 6
Identifier: __..Waste_Pand---- ..--•--------•--•--•--•--•---•--•-----------•--•------------•-----•--•--•----------•--•--•--•--•--•--•--•-- ---- •--•-----•--•----
Freeboard (inches): 48
05103101 -Continued

Facility Number: t13-21 ]late of lnspcction 07/02/2003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees,severe erosion, 0 Yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ® 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 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?
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
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 a and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
ngs ofnswers
Use drawifacility to better explain situations. (usea ii pages as necessary}: ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
3. Calf lot - creek buffer looks great since cattle have been removed from this area. Need to repair fence before replacing cattle in this
Ak
lot.
5. Wooden wall of waste pond looks good. No leaks or seepage. Need to concrete between posts. No engineering inspection needed at
this time.
8. Operator plans to complete coverage of concrete lot with roofing. Waiting on dry weather.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Meliss Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 t Continued

Facility Number: 03-2t D* Inspection 07/02/2003
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 property 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
k ona ' , ommentis an or. rawtngs: 1.- - - e
19, 2003 soil analyses look ok. Records look good! Waste analysis: �►
11 /26/02 - 8.1 1 bs. NI1000 gal.
316/03-6.8"
129103 - 5.5 "
left blank are not applicable to this facility at this time.
J
05103101

Pry
Division of Water Quality
ivI lion of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit P Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of' Visit: 2 Time:
0 Permitted C ertified © Conditionalh• Certified ❑ Registered
-*- ' -11% - ;`- - -
Farm Name:
Owner Name: Af�P� 'I no _�;
Mailing Address: I �� ' r
0
Facility Contact: D Title:
Onsite Representative: 0
Certified Operator: Alffi aq�uie,!5__
Location of Farm:
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
County
_ Phone No: �� - --
Phone No:
_ Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: OL14 11
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®' ® " Longitudes
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine _ Ca aciry . population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Fee.._ .. _.....,..,,,,,,,. der faDairy
❑ Feeder to Finish 10 Non -Laver I Non-Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean El Farrow Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total .Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
[] goy Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons 10 Subsurface Drains Present Al Lagoon Area {❑ Spray Field Area j.
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 q(�,No
Discharge originated at: El Lagoon ❑ Spray Field El Other
,
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes XNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? El Yes ANo
Waste Collection & Treatment !!!! �wv
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes IVNo
true . 0AA Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 6 Structure 6
Identifier: re
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion.
❑YesTo
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
❑ Yes
>(No
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
�No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Yes
❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
)(No
11. Is there evidence ofoverapplication? • El Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
Yes
El Yes
� O
12. Crop type T o i i � AA
13. Do the receiving crops differ with tho esi a ed in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
ElYesjNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
ElYesNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
ElYesNo
15, Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ YesNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
'ONO
lie uired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
NO
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the C ified Animal Wast anagement Ian readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) � 7 �
❑ Yes
No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrtgation,'fre 5Var . wast111e///analvsis & 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
El No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems. over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
>5o
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
XNo
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 andfor any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations: (use additional pages as necessary): Field Conv �❑ Final Notes
SW fl (1U�•'�-'�`� Wes{ �_" �� O
s n
o74
ReviewerlInspector
ReviewerAnspector Signatur OITADate:
05103101 1 —V )V Continued

Facility \umber: — Date of Insprclion
1q .
fq
p.
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?
29. is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation.. asphalt,
roads, building structure. and/or public property) 4
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. vl'ere 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?
1 Additional Comments and/or D
y�aw�o3
❑ Yes XI\'o
❑ Yes �RNo
❑ Yes '�K\o
0
SYes X\ o
d
8•I I6s-1N
[cob
s.S
O5103101

~ rsrorraf ��'ateQua,lrts t p r
Visron`of Soihand NV,ater Conservatroni _.
'Other 'Agency'
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up Q Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facilit` Number 03 21 Date of Visit: 4118/2d02 'rime: 1300
Q Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted M Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: ................ ...... County: AIIIzgUilY........................................ R'NRU........
O-v►•ner Name: S.tur.A Jluitncs........................................................... Phone No: 33.6-3.7.2-55$Q...........................................................
Mailing Address: 21.�b.Sp.i cx..1�1Qe�ntt. izt.Itoasl......................................................... S ; r.>a..:�i.................. ..................... ...................... 2.8.6.7.5 ..............
Facility Contact: All.m.40itlea.................................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No:......................................
Onsite Representative: Alit -a_ oiincs................... Integrator:
Certified Operator:A,hark.W.................................. J.0.j'Qg'5................................................ Operator Certification Number:2.1.4.1a.............................
Location of Farm:
Bledsoe Creek Rd. approx. 4 miles north from Sparta on NC Alleghany Co. road # 1135. +
El Swine El Poultry M Cattle [I Horse Latitude 36 ' 30 06 Longitude 81 • 10 32
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 110 Dairy 1 130 182
❑ Non -Layer I I JE] Nan -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 130
Total SSLW 182,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present JJEI Lagoon Area JE3 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes M 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 Dj' Q) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? M Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? M Spillway ❑ Yes M No
Strucnire I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure J Structure G
Identifier: ...... WasicTond............................................... ......................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 42
05103101 ` 7 / Continued

Facility Number: 03-21 Date of Inspection 4/18/2002
f= s
5. Are there any immediate threats to the into,y of any of the structures observed? (ieI trees, ere erosion,
❑ yes
® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑Yes
®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12. Crop type Fescue (Hay)
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
N 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?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
N No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
N No
20_
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® 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?
(iel 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?
N 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
3. Checked dissolved oxygen (DO) in creek as it leaves heifer lot at intersection at end of road. DO was 6.22 mg/L. Other creeks in area
were 8.0 to 8.13 mg/L. Per Allen, area is to be re -seeded again to help filter waste and sediment run-off.
3. Hole in wood curbing has been repaired. New concrete pushoff ramp has been constructed.
10. Creek bed and pasture beside freestall barn is denuded. Owner has an EQUIP contract for drainage, fencing, seeding„ and water
axes. This should help situation if approved and installed.
19. 2002 soil samples need to be taken.
25. T-519 F-1 (15.6 acres) and T-543 F-1,2,3 (34.9,15.8,10.3 acres).... Operator has maps but'these fields STILL need to be added to the
CAWMP by technical specialist.
Reviewer/Inspector Name llgeli Roseb rock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 03-21 D f Inspection 4/18/2002
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ❑ No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ❑ No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No-
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional omments and/orDrawings:
05103101

Type of Visit V Compliance inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation !�j ti�1t�j ��C•�"' PM
Reason for Visit `Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit:D Time:
Ocerfified
C Q Nat O-erational- Below ThresholdsJ3 Permitted 0Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold•Farm Name: .....1. .��..:DA..d.Ay........L...a.-M ............................... County:.I..f�le:....�an,V. ......................................
Owner Name: v� .. Phone No:3.......... ° S —OQ
`...`.,.,....fl.......... Q..1..r.............................................. 7.......................................-.....
Facility Contact: .....1 bG .......:lj.n .................... Title:................... Phone No: ....................
Mailing Address: t� ! ! `c' }. G2X.....11..1.. i.n.a '...1..... J i`"�CL i� .......................... ..."``.. :J.........
e ..... .... ......................)....
OnsiteRepresentative:.A.i � ,...... d.i..he�...................................................I.... Integrator:........... ...................................................
...............
Certified Operator:... ..�..� t1..,: 0tft!C Operator Certi cation urnber:p5.�...1..__ _�
_...
Location of Farm: wo
113r-om 5 par-o> o sp U 35- GeSlap 5� ,
-Farm an 60 h+ =�
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry 9 Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' ®° `� Longitude • ��
Design Current
Swine Canacity 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 [}
❑ Non -Layer I ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 3 �}
Total SSLW oan
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ID Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System =
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'? ❑ Yes} 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, notifyDWQ)
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
Str ctu{ I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
n Identifier: , 9i"; .P0.ri ................
1
�reeboard (inches):
5/00
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
ry
es XNo
es ❑-No
❑ Yes )� No
Structure b
Continued on back

Facility: Number: — Date of Inspection
'5. Are there an immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? Oe/ treeT, severe erosion, es N Y ❑Y ❑ o
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes ERNo
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes P(
No
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
�fNo
Waste Application
��//
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
[ No
11. Is there evidence o over applications ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
X No
12. Crop type __IJIALU� aA,
13. Do the receivin crops differ with those Aesignated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
XNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
9No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
XNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
KNo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
XNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
9No
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.) / / % El Yes No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, f TbmM, 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) -9 Yes
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 X No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes XNo
N6.1 iblhwris;or- deficiencies were h ed- O&iitg �bis;visit. • Yoii will-teeeive 0.6..f.
6 furthgr • ; •
corres�ondence. about this visit.. • . • . . •
Continents (refer to question#) Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations orany.other comments` c..-I� ,�I', .',
2
Use drawings of facility;ta better"explain situations (use additional pages as necessary) �f r
3 �C) 0511-
�
[AA (�, urn ,S. 3� �L.��
Reviewer/Inspector Name e � S. � • • - '`rrt�--- ;„
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5/00
IA

FW-Aity Number: — Oof Inspection
Odor issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ❑ No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes .2fNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ❑ No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional Comments and/or rawines:
ALt
,
.1�
414'pa I"J- �'k6�r
1-2
SO
t�
r
5100

vision of Water Quality
F " ,isionof Soil and Water Conservation3
® 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 03 21 Date of Visit: 8123/240t Time: t0:t0
0 Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
E3 Permitted M Certified [3 Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ........ ..•...
Farm Name: daim.Palry.]Fairm........................... County: A1199bau........................................ W.$RQ........
OwnerName: $.teyt'.A................................... J14itoes........................................................... Phone No: 3.7.Z.5,58.R....................................................................
Mailing Address: 2Z.l4.Spicer..r7SlUAltai�n.R4.a................................
FacilityContact: ..............................................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: Allert.dai 9.5................. Integrator:...
...................................................................................................................................................
Certified Operator:Allelx....................................... J.Q.Wes................................................ Operator Certification Number:2,l.41.7..............................
Location of Farm:
3ledsoe Creek Rd. approx. 4 miles north from Sparta on NC Alleghany Co. road # 1135. +
qW
I -
El Swine ❑ Poultry M Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 30 06 Longitude 1 81 10 10 32
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 L^
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps C
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I M Dairy 130 77
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 130
Total SSLW 182,000
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JE1 Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Disebarg-0 & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes M 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 M No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? M Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes M No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Stricture b
Identifier: ............................................................................... .... .................................. ..............................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 24
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 03-21 Date of Inspection 1 8/23/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the into, rty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tree0ere erosion, (:3 Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? El Yes ®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid 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 Timothy, Orchard, & Rye Fescue (Graze) 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
® 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): (tj Field Copy ®Final Notes
# 3. Still has curbing to be installed to prevent runoff from the concrete lot. Part of the diversion ditch above the milk barn has been
constructed, but there is still several feet yet to be installed. Also, Mr. Joines indicated that the roof of the new free -stall would be
extended over the remaining concrete lot at the low end of the lot. I suggested guttering the buildings to eliminate additional raimvater
rom entering the waste storage structure.
# 8. Still need to repair ( even temporarily ) the hole in the wood curbing of the push -off ramp.
# 9. Recommend a graduated marker ( every six inches ) with top of dam and max. liquid level located for the general permit
requirements.
# 10. Heifer/ calf lot has some vegetation coming back. The creek has not been fenced out.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 03-21 Dare of Inspection 8/23/2001
Odor Issues
26. floes 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)
24. 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 permanentltemporary cover?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional omments and/orDrawings:
Waste analysis: 8-15-01 LSD 5.6 lbs.N/1000 gals. BAL
Soil sample SJ 2 is calling for 1.4 tons of lime per acre.
J
0510.3101

Wision of Water Quality
vision of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
(Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit • *Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facilih_' Number 03 21 late o1' Visit: 5/17/2t}pI 'Tillie: a930
0 Not Operational tt Below Threshold
Permitted ®Certified ❑Conditionally Certified Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: 1,01.0.99.....
Farm Name: hims.Dairy.1airinx .................... .. ... County: ANgghany ................................. ..... WS.RQ........
OwnerName: Stle.yc.,A.................................... JQjncs.......................................................... Phone No: 3.7.2-5580...... ....... ....... .... ............................................
Mailing Address: Z1X.4..Sp.Isre.C.R�t�ttmim.R�.atA.......................................
„Title Phone No:
Facility Contact: A►All�71..�tlAlte�....................................................................................................................................................................
Onsite Representative: ..................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:Allelk....................................... ................................................ Operator Certification Number:21.41.7 .............................
Location of Farm:
Bledsoe Creek Rd. approx. 4 miles north from Sparta on NC Alleghany Co. road # 1135.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Norse Latitude 3b ' 3I} L ®41 Longitude 81 • 10 1 32 1L
Design Current
Swine CaDacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacitv Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I ® Dairy 130 74
❑ Non -Layer I IIO-Non-Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 130
Total SSLW 182,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & 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
Wastg Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? 0 Spillway [--]Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ier: ......Wasle.Pomd....................................................................................................................................................... -.............................
Freeboard (inches): 36 '-,..
05103101 Continued � �

Facility Number: 03-21 Dale of Inspection Sh7/24I0I
is
0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement'?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Timothy, Orchard, & Rye
r. r
[:]Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
IN Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
IN 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 IS 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
10 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
3. Heifer and calf pastures are denuded and in need of vegetation. New barn should alleviate some of the problem. Operator plans on
encing calves out of creek and providing a watering bo.r.
3. and 8. Facility is currently under construction for anew lounging barn, roofing, curbing, and stock trail. Alleghany NRCS staff were
onsite at operator's request to discuss construction options and cost share. Waste runoff from ramps and concrete lots is being addressed
through current construction and future construction plans.
19. Suggest keeping each application form by crop. Corn, pasture, etc. should be kept seperate since nitrogen values (PAN) are
different. Corn-120, Pasture-200, Rye-70
Reviewer/Inspector Name +Melissa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Q
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 03-21 1) X Inspection I 5/17/2UU1 Printed on: 5/17/2001-
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
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
f " �tiona C �omments7an o�� _r� �Ings:
19. Will need to keep freeboard records once permitted and Certificate of Coverage has been issued.
Need to add application fields to WUP that have had waste applied to them (i.e. T-543)
110/01 Waste analysis=5.2 lbs. Nitrogen/1000
2001 Soil test results are back and look ok.
05103101
rA

ft qI a, vision of Water. ality� ?�
?Division of Soil and Water Conseiwation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit N 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 Dale of visit: Time:
10 Not Operational JR Below Threshold
0 Permitted �Certiified © Conditionally j�Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:...UP.� . _
Farm Name: 'To.Itne �4..I ).r..... ..+...Q1` m.. County:.�"l..tJer.q..k h.. .......................
. ........ .................................................. .. ...........
Owner Name: .�4r. A .......... e�..........................................Phone No 33.�..... .... z......-�...�.."..�................... ........ . ...... .........
Facility Contact: �� w.j6ti..qe? ...Title: ...... Phone No: ................................................... ............. ......... .... .....................................................................................
II II�� CC l / --7
Mailing Address: .....................1d4�...`�....!. e-r .... �.� l.f 16 �.1 T2...... . j.... St� fig.... L ;2..... 6....l..5..........
�`� r J...........................
Onsite Representative:... Aj.1eA...4..,.1..Q.I. �:�.a5..................................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator: ....... A litn........L.e?!-! .... ,.J. l nQ ........ .... . Operator Certification Number:.. v.4... .............
..... .......... ..... ..
Location of Farm:
a
[]Swine ❑ PoultryCattle ❑ Horse Latitude �' �� ®G° Longitude ®• �
Swine
Design Current
ranarity Pnmilation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current
Design Current ;
Poultry
Ca0acitv population Cattle
Capacity,:,Popalaifon `A
❑ Layer
Dairy
P
130
❑ Non -Layer
Non-Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
1,30
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons JE3 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area w_
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes P�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 KNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? x Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? W Spillway ❑ Yes WNO
%Sttrruccturej�Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 0t'.;."fz,..f.!..dj n.-P".tj...........................................
Freeboard (inches): -
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 7 Printed on: 1/9/2001 0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the iRegrity 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 maintenancelimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic OvedoAq , ..
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with (hose designated in the Certified Animal Waste
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?
❑ Yes X
No
❑ Yes YNo
❑ Yes A No
Yes i�No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
P Yes No
Plan (CAWMP)? LYYes VjNo
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 Yiola iQtzs:or dgiieiencies i re itotea•during s.visit; Y6 wiii-feed. 0 fu>rthit
. • ,correspondence. about. this visit.
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes id No
❑ Yes bdNo
❑ Yes JXNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes No
Yes 9No
❑ Yes K
No
❑ Yes No
ClX
Yes No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes V(No
❑ Yes P No
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or`any other commentsA' TW
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):..
ti f)e'ec �t��p -fir -rd ��ccx-ds ©n ern�(-��� y
� .
10 10 .1 u-)ousfe a nos 15 s a d k5 N
0
M4A&t1 ~Lo:
e
1 � 19 th rnO r,A+s ) n u P -? ✓Ti aye s J etc s i n �u 4' ��, `� - sr
Reviewer/Inspector Name e
p
Reviewer/Inspector Signature Date: 5100

Facility Number: 6 3)-I ] is —
Odor Issues of inspection Q Printed on: 119/2001—
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below ❑ Yes [ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? T�
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes 9No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ElYes No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
///��l
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes XNO
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?
• a . I► � e �
� J �' I b +f � •
Ly a670-1
a4L4 RfVN
.&i
5100

---- vision of Water Quality - — -- —
•ision of Soil and Water Conservation
,D ther Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
hate..l' Vi;iI: ll/14/20t)0 'Time: 9:47 Prinlvd on: 4/8/2001
Facility Number 03 21
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
0 Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ........................
Farm Name: .[oimcS.RalrY..ajant.................................
OwnerName: Ske.Y.CA ................................... J.0im.5 .............................................
Facility Contact: ..............................................................................Title:.............
County: Afif gha>ntx........................................ WSRO ........
Phone No: 3.71-35.#3R....................................................................
Phone No:
....................................... ..............................
Mailing Address: 1 jC.Spifiet.MRuntt;�i�t.Roali......................................................... Sx1Arta... N.C............................................................. 2.4.6.7.5 ..............
Onsite Representative: xt;�e.,�jlga,J911gGS.................... Integrator:
..........................................
Certified Operator:A,Itfint....................................... J.QJ[tl* ................................................ Operator Certification Number:21,4.1,7 .............................
Location of Farm:
Bledsoe Creek Rd. approx. 4 miles north from Sparta on NC Alleghany Co. road # 1135.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry N Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 30 06 Longitude 81 • 10 32
Design Current
Swine Canarity Pnnutatinn
❑ 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 N Dairy 130 30
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 130
Total SSLW 182,000
Number of Lagoons I I ❑ Suhsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area JEI Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps I 1 I ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges R Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N No
Discharge originated ar ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. 1f discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Waler of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If dischar<e is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a Ia000n systein? dfye.s. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? N Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge'? [:]Yes N No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes N No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .................................... ......................... .......... ................................... .................................... .................................... ....... ............................
Freeboard (inches): 50
5100 Continued on hack

Facility Number: 113 -2l Date of Inspe(•tion 11/14/2000 Printed on: 4/9/2001
J
5. Are there any immediate threats to the grity of any of the structures observed'? (ie/ trialevere 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 Timothy, Orchard, & Rye 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
® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
I& 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
21
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:abouf 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):
Facility currently only has around 30 heifers on pasture and no milk cows on the lot, but he doesn't want to come off the certified list.
� 2. Need to repair the hole cut into the wood curbing at the back push -off ramp. Evidence of past discharge here.
� 7,8. Need to get rid of groundhogs and back -fill holes.
Phis facility still needs curbing andlor roofing on the concrete lot near the rear of the facility to prevent runoff of waste.
Waste analysis: 6/21/00 LSD 73 IbsN/l000 gals. B
1 1/08/00 LSD 10.6 IbsN/1000 gals. B
3/20/00 SSD 10.6 lbsN/ 1000 gals. B
ReviewerAnspector Name Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5100

`Facilit0.Numher: 5;:7 ) 1it'Inspection 11/14/2000 Prinlcdon: 4/9/2001
Odnr Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation'?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ❑ No
30, Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s). inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
J
5100

2
38vision of Water Quality
vision of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit Q+ Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date u!' 1 i�it: 6/1/2000 I'imr: 1025 Prhiled din: 6l212000
Facility Number 03 21
Q Not O erational Q Below Threshold
0 Permitted ® Certified E3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered pate Last Operated or Above'I'hreshold:.........................
Farm ;Fame: ,IAIlesPaIrY.Earju.................................................................................. .... County: Uggtxalotx......................................... W5RQ........
OwnerName:$.ftyt.A................................... jultm...................... ..................................... Phone No: 33€Ir.3h2-Sys$Q...........................................................
Facility Contact: A tro. R1m.,%....................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: 2114.SPisea.Niaaunttaun.RAa.........................................................SR;tra... N.C.......................................... .. ................. M675..............
Onsite Representative: Allcr>jud.51m.J.91m........................................................... Integrator: ............................................................................
Certified Operator:AIl It.YW................................. .IOIt14................................................ Operator Certification Number:,.A.1,7.............................
Location of Farm:.
t....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Ak
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 ' 30 06 Longitude 81 • 10 & 32
Design Current
Swine Canacitv 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 Population
❑ Layer I 1 ® Dairy 130 96
❑ Non -Layer I I I[] Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity F 130
Total SSLW 1 182,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 111 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps I ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
l&charces A 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. ]f discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the Stale'? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ® No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? Not measurable
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?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: ....... aste.Boad.......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 8
❑ Spillway ® Yes ❑ No
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Continued on back
9fiv��

Facility Number: 03-21 Date. nl' Inspecti(n) 6/1/2000 Printcd on: 6/2/2000 _ � `
5. Are there any immediate threats to the0.1grity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trosevere 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 Timothy, Orchard, & Rye
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
t4. 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?
t6. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
0. No violations:o'r:dehe' Iencies,werepoted during• this: visit-:You,will _recei*e4no-further•:
cotrrespotidertce about this' visit. :: :: ::: ::: : :
1. and #2. Discharge coming from middle of wood wall, midway down on west side of waste pond.
5. Loose boards allowing discharge?
7. Need to mow vegetation around waste pond.
4. and #9. Difficult to determine freeboard ... no marker or painted area visable.
18. and #25. Need to add insect/odor/mortality checklists to WUP. Need to request a copy of these from NRCS.
22. Would be difficult to see discharge due to vegetation.
24. Need to recheck in 1-2 weeks.
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
Reviewer/Inspector Name 'Melissa Rosebrock 7 Q
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. J Date:
- n4-04

1. Facility Number: 03-21 1) & Inspection 6/1/2000 ® Printed on. 6/2/2000
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

13. Division of 4lnd water ConserVatloII _ Opi ab i
O'Dtvision,4 ndhWater;Coaservation Compliance ion a c , visions
of Water. Qiiaiety, -'Compliance Inspection _ r �.p�� _
Y_
-" 0 Other Agencys7 Operateion Review .9t
URRoutine Q Complaint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number 1 03 a Date of inspection MA24hr.(bh:mm)
Timeof Inspection
© Permitted 0. Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered JE3 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: s Q(Gn. ..... ct1 r..........F �............ ... County:... ..1..�.....h?-,Ct.1�........................................
...... ..Owner Name. _.SfA-...A.........b �.i�................................................... Phone No:>���P�.�..'..S.`S.d............................
Facility Contact: .......................... Title:..................... Phone No: ...............
Mailing Address:2.J...........S..................`....".Qunla .t1 Tr
'............. .... ....... ........a36 .............................................
Onsite Representative: ... Alf:!n....... J-QI:..� 5.......................................... Integrator: .............. ..ron (,....................
Certified Operator:..A.J..1.,eD.... .'... O! ne ............................................. Operator Certification Number:,,,,,,a.... ......................
I
Location of Farm:
A tinrnV_M, _ rnnn r1NIt M twhanu s
... r. o.....:......................... ......................... � .......................". �
Latitude ®�° IJ`� Longitude
Design. Current Design Current Design Current
.Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle :Ca aci ` Po ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer Dairy d
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
Farrow to Finish - Total,,Desi n Ca acit
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total'SSL` W
Number 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 ❑ No
Discharge originated at: Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance than -made? ❑ Yes No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If ycs, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes xNo
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (li'yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: koa,4a_pogA
Freeboard (inches): ....... ..........................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
nab- MQQSurcp
❑ Yes Po
4 Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes IINO
Yes ❑ No
Structure 6
9Yes ❑ No
Continued on back
l

Facility Number: — a of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are no properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ w h those designated in the Certified Ar
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?
Management Plan (CAWMP)?
Reouired Records & Documents
IT. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? N 1 A
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?
U.Iio•vioiattt?ris:ojr iieficier_ctes were.
noted• doting this:visit' - Y:oil Will. •teegive 1i6 rufthgr
correspondence. abaut this visit. • • • • . • • • • • • • • •
AYes ❑ No
❑ Yes '�No
4 Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes dNo
❑ Yes Wo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes [ KNo
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes ❑ No
[Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes YNo
❑ Yes tNo
❑ Yes *o
Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
t�No
�] Yes
❑ No
Yes
No p
Comments' (refer to gttestiion #} Explain any:YES answers andlorany recommendattons orany other comments. T
Use;drawings`gf faeilt- , o better exoWn situations: (use:additional pages as necessary)
41.paa Vk 5e_1ha_re clom*Irmm nit end le O ' WOC4 Uja� (1 rn� d t
oY) �M4- S - d e _Aj , k a f b vrlocAD v eja_fi+o vJ PO nd n
aa, �IDsvrlol-r' Q_ dic_u�� �-� See dve - 1l ge .'iofl
#S; LQase Gtt1owlrL. ?5C,a ?
de eF&I I ne -Pree — n o 4y- 0
_
Reviewer/Inspector Name - - _ �' g ° �_
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur 4A UI� 4 , N A Mx!{ �A A,' �p � _ Date: ()jp (' j too

Facility Number: — al I & f Inspection Q t71 CfJ
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below-EJ-Yes--[37o
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? OMtr - 9�M
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 PkNo
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 xNo
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 X,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? 0 yj 1 T1 01606. o
Additional Comments and/orDrawings:
heck —an turbin� around to+.
� l qo' PpPlIed Si nc� &Jqq ? 7,qg? Iolgq o, 3.I60.
If j4dd ed insect- /vJ5r� m or-�-al i check- —f Farm s ehe ►, c
�t S � 0
f1L�dofeC�2o-� tVW f4 0.dd +n5eC /4r-4or1rv�or4-aI
��A -f�
C' CV -I t 5ts fo u P • ue5 -
V"rom

i
tti E3 Division of So=And Water Conservation - Operation Review,
Q Division of d Water Conservation - Compliance Ins n
0 Division of.� e'Q
uality uality - Compliance Inspection x
0 Other Agency - Operation Review
10 Routine Q Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
f I o Date risection 11-9-99
Facility Number 03 21 Dap
Time of Inspection 9:00 24 hr. (hh:mm}
0 Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered [3 Not O erational Date Last Operated: ............
Farm Name: J.QJ9C5.D?01ry.f*jrjR ...................................................................................... County: Uggh,axw........................... .............. WSA. 0........
OwnerName: S.tey.c.A................................... Joia s........................................................... Phone No: 33.6:-3.72:-5.M.Q ...........................................................
FacilityContact: .................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: 21i4.Spices. aunttairt►.itQ.asi......................................................... SvArta...N.0 ............................................................. 2.8.6.7.5 ..............
OnsiteRepresentative:........................................................................................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator: Alirik...................................J.Q.jMV5 ................................................ Operator Certification Number:2.i.4i.7..............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 36 ' 30 ( 06 .{ Longitude 81 ' 10 { 32 ..
Design Current
Swine Cataacity 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 Po ulation
❑ Layer ®-Dairy 130 104
❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 130
Total SSL W 182,000
Number of Lagoons I I ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps I1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discha= & 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 I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 1
Freeboard(inches): ................ 3,Z............... .................................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ....................................
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 11/9/99 qr

FFacilitIt
Number; 43-21 D I f Inspection 11-9-99
6. Are here structures on -site which are not�perly addressed and/or managed through a wananagement 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 Aanlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
IN No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
® No
12. Crop type Timothy, Orchard, & Rye
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 ]and application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment`?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No

a Division of Soit and. Water Conservation .,Operation -Review
0 Division of S �d Water Conservation,- Compliance Inspn
© Division of Quality - Compliance Inspection
0 Other Agency - Operation Review
10 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-ue of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number 03 21
Date of Inspection 6/7199
'rime of Inspection 9:45 24 hr. (hh:mm}
Permitted 0 Certified [3Conditionally Certified 0 Registered 1E3Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: .io4Atj:5.D?airy..F.arm...................................................................................... County: Mcgharty ........................................ !'['SRQ........
OwnerName: S.te.Y.!*. PA.. ................................. jojfkes .......................................................... Phone No: 72 :S,$,0 .................................................................... .....................................
FacilityContact: ............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: z116t.SpieeX.i�lRuntt�ti�n.ltAasi ............................. ............. Sputa ... N.0 ..........
2$6.7.5..
Onsite Representative: k�x �oeil�. till!~�1..�Qila�Si.................................................... Integrator:.................................................................
Certified Operator: Alluk.w................................... J-0jays ................................................ Operator Certification Number:1i.417............... ..............
Location of Farm:
.............................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
litedsa�t..Gx.�trl�.Rtl�.a �tax...4.aiuile.fxatn S act aa.�iG..�the 11<a>ut .....
Latitude 36 • 30 06 Longitude 81 • 10 32
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Pnnulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Ca acity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer L Dairy I30 95
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 130
Total SSLW 182,000
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area JEI Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® 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 CQllection 8 Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches):­11-1-a6 ............................. ........ ............ ....................... .................................... .................................... ............. I......................
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 11/8/99

Facility Number: 03-21 Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not poy addressed and/or managed through a wast0agement 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 Fescue, Orchard, Tim. (hay)
617/99
❑ 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 & DocumentA
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? Ge/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21, Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'?
24- Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
0:N6 vMatioris:or deficiencies-were:noted:duTing•this:visit'.-:You:Wi11 recewe i dA rthec-:.
.. correspondence aboUA this .visit. .. . . . .. . . • . • . • . . . . ............... .
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
8 The concrete lot needs to have curbing installed around all of it. Need to have tech. specialist look at lot and see what can be I A6
19 Owner said he has not applied since July `98.
Ian needs insect control, odor control, and mortality checklists. Also need a farm site schematic
Reviewer/Inspector Name lRocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Printed on 11/8199

Division of Noll an ter [conservation - operation Review
; p Division of Soil an ter Conservation -Compliance Inspectio'
_ _ .
Division of Water Quality - Compliance' inspection
p Other Agency - Operation Review
I* Koutnte p (.omptalnt p 1'UIIo\y-up of Dwd Inspection 0 t•o
■
Facility Number
0 Registered 0 Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted
Farm ~Nine: Joimes..Dairy.Farm.................................................................
NV -up of"IWNNV J review a l)ther I
hale of Inspecllun
;!'inre of inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Not peratlorla Dale Last Operated:
............ Cuunly: Alleghany WSRO
Ownerfume: Stcve.A,................................. Jlauucs.......................................................... Phone No: .17.2-S5.80...................................................................
Fncilily Contact:
A"lailin- Address: 21.t6.Spiccr,Xlautn1ain..Kcta,d.......................................................... Sparta:..NC...... ...... .............................. I ..... .............. Z8675 ..............
OnsiteRepresenlalive:.......................................................................................................... IIIte0I'll tur:...................... .................................................................
Certified Operator:Allezt..Wh ...............................Joints................................................. tperator Ccr•titlealion,Number:2,1.4.i.7..............................
Location of Farnt:
Rle sow:- re atxprox,::..:pP.. :..ram:...)? xxa:.:.:...:...... c anx::.. p-:F ...:..::..................................................................................................... .
:€
Latitude ®� ®' ® Longitude ®�
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
p Feeder to Finish
p Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finis
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ ayer N airy
p Non -Layer lo Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 13=
Total SSLW182,0=
Number of Lagoons / Holding Ponds ❑Subsurface rains resen p agoonArea
p No Liquid Waste Management System
p pray le
rest
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
p Yes
N No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon ❑ Spray Field p Other
a. II'd ischarec is observed. was the convevanec man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b. II'dischar,c is observed, did it reach Surtacc Water:' (Ifycs, noliiy DWQ)
p Yes
[]No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated slow in ,a]/niin?
d. Does discharac bviiass a lapon system? (]t'ves. not ifv DWQ)
❑Yes
p No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
®No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
®No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/liolding ponds) require
❑ Yes
®No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
N No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
® No
7/25/97

a; t ity limber: 03_21 D"Ite Te0ion
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on sfithich need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes ® No
titrnctures tL:r��oons.11olctin�� fonds. Flush fits, ctr.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? lj Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 SIRICtnr•e 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
ldcntilier: l
Freeboard(11): .............. 2.ft..............................................................................................................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes N No
I l . Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? p Yes ® No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(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?
Wasw Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .......C.urn.4,Sllac.&.Gxain.).................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Focilities Qnly
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 A WMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
t ..:o.viar tions. or deficiencies -were . uring this visit:. as willreceive no,further. _ .
:•:cojrre$po.ni�e�ie�ab�tit.t�iS•YiS��:�•�•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•. � .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
®No
p Yes
®No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
M No
p Yes M No
p Yes ® No
p 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):
AL
r
Reviewer/Inspector Name "Jenny Rankin
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: q q qg

• �a^- ir.+s� .- :. to T......��:....:........ "����-
13 Division of Soil Water Conservation 13 Other A g=
Division of Wat Quality `-i
air -
40 outne p Complaint p Follow-up of DWQ inspection p H
Facility Number
® Registered p Certified 13 Applied for Permit 13 Permitted
Farm Name: Joines.J).airy.Fam.
ow -up of DSWC review p Other
Bate of Inspectinn
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
p notzrperationa Cate Last Operated:
County: Alleghany WSRO
OwnerName: Stexp_.A..................................jnines.......................................................... Phone No: a72-.55BO ...................................................................
Facility Contact: .Allemlnines..................................................... Title: ............................................................... Phone No: 9.1ja-372,5,730 .......................
Mailing Address: 2116.Spicer.Mauntain..Fwad.......................................................... Sparta...I1EC...........................................................:.. 2805 ..............
OnsiteRepresentative:.......................................................................................................... Integrator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator: Allen ....................................... doin.es................................................. Operator Certification Number:2.1.417..............................
Location of Farm:
................ —
Et
Latitude E= ®® Longitude
estgrr .. urren estgn - : urren . - t esign urren -
Swine ". Capacity Population .-PoultryCapacity, Population ° Cattle Capacity, -Population ._
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑Layer ; ® Dairy
p` ❑ Feeder to Finish «❑ Non -Layer ❑ on- airy a
-� ❑ P arrow to Wean-
} r ❑ Farrow to Fee er ❑ ter t
❑ Farrow to Finish - e Total Design Capacit}," so
❑ Gilts -
❑Boars Total. SSLW. 112,01
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
2. 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 Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If dischar_>e is observed, what is the estimated flow in Lalhniit?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (]fyes. notify DWQ) ❑Yes ❑ No
3. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? []Yes ® No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
5. _ Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require p Yes ® No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ® No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes ® No
7/25/97

act 2 y Number: 3_21
8. Arell_zre lagoons or storage ponds on sohich need to be properly closed?
p Yes
®No
Structures a oons Holdin Fonds Flush Pits etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
p Yes
® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: 1
Freeboard(ft): ........ :...4 ket ..........................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
[]Yes
® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
[]Yes
N No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
N No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
p Yes
® No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
Yes
® No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ....T.imothy.,.Orchard,., .Rye ...............:..........
16. Do the receiving crops differswith those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
p Yes
p No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
® No
.18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
[]Yes
® No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
p Yes
® No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
[]Yes
tg No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
p Yes
® No
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
p Yes
ig No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities On1v
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
p Yes
[]No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
[]Yes
[]No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
[]Yes
[]No
Q .1N.o •vzarlanons. or a eucrencies'were.noteci zanng in is visit:. Y ou. win xee.etve nY Curtner .
:: o rr.....e...about:t�iEs,v...................................:.: .
`Reviewer/Inspector Name
IReviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

14k
/ f . (. 10-03-1997 1 1 ; 08AM FROI#411TA F I ELD OFF I CE 1 910 3721&5
P. 6
DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review
DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
faint 0 Follow-up of DW
facility Number
Farm Status: J@ Registered Ij Applied for Permit
0 Certified 0 Permitted
ollow-up of DSWC review
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection LLELO �4 24 hr. (hh:rnm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
(ex; 1.2S for I h r 15 min)) Spent on Review
or inspection (includes travel and processing)
LEI.-,'otoperationai-1 Date L25t0pellted . .................... I....— ....... ­ --- - ------ - - - ---- . ....... . ........................................................................
Farm Nae- .:��.kvc . ....... 7-516�_f nt� ......... .. I .......... 541r.m ........... County-.Alh4l.q
m.t.l.t....................... .......... . ..........
Owner Name: Phone No- .7.ZO ..... ............. Facility Contact: lle.p....... .....................itIer ......................
'Muna dress: ffiM......
.... sa. ...... ............ T ---- -- ------- .................
Onsite Representative:411C..!, .... Integrator - ----------------- I ............. ­­1 ................ I ........ I ......... ­ ...... %S__Q - - 9!�_S .................. 21
Certified 0Verator.,.A-flt.A__ - - ---------------_- ....... .... . ..... Operator Certification ............
Location of Farm:
0
-�.A
.
..... . H.W .. ... . ...............&y 1, .... ..............................
.... ............................................... ­­­­.."..., ................. . I- ... . ............ . ..................... ­......­-, ... ............................. I ....... I., .......... I ........... .... L:.:=
Latitude 9 Longitude 0 4 ;9
Type , of Operation Design . Cuirent
Swine -.CapacityPopulation,
❑ Wean to Fecdcr
❑ Feeder to Finish
ED Farrow to Wear
EJ Farrow to Feeder
Q Farrow to Finish
El Other
Design Current
Poultry:, Capacity Population
E0 Layer
10 Non -Layer
Total Design Capacity
Total .SSLW
Design.
Cattle Capkity' Populatipp,
I[] Non-Dairyl I
area JU Spray �Fjeld�,trea
Numbeir"o"f1agooni.1 Holding, j ds�.] �1[3 Subsurface Drains Present FO Lagooti
n
General
I. Are thcnc any buffers that need rrmintenance/improvernent?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Dischar�eoriginated at: C1Lagoon E]Spray Field 00ther
a. It'discharge is observed, was the conveyance inan-made?
b. If dischargc is obscrved., did it reach Sot-Lacc Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c, If discharge is observed, Mint is the estimated flow in
(A. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (11` ye's, notify DWQ)
3. IS there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the witurs of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any parr of the waste management system (other than lauoons/holding ponds) require
0 Yes fWN0
[j yes 0 N o
El Yes El No
El Yes ONO
0 Yes ONO
Cl Yes CKNO
❑ Yes X No
Yes ER No

10-03-1997 11:09AM FROM SPARTA FIELD OFFICE 1 910 372 464S
Facility Dumber,
b, Is facility not in compliance. with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Strticiures_Caio4tn: anclL�r 1~Ir�lding Fonds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'?
Freeboard (ft)= Structure. l Structure _
Sinicture 3 Structure 4
.......................... ..... ,......... _.-..... ........
10- is seepage observed from any of the structures'?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
P. 7
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
[] Yes
No
Structure 5
Structure G
❑ Yes
NJ No
Ll Yes
4 No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(if any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequatc minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste ieqtir n
14. is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
r
co•
15. Crop ttipe -11-----...s�l...� ��..t:.r.... ,...�x 4..��...�4i'.,�.�9.,,......
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment'?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For Certified Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AAW?
24- Does record keeping need improvement?
4,v�
❑ Yes G4 No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
j No
❑ Yes
® No ;
❑ Yes
M No
0 Yes
0 No
❑ Yes
X No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
J
Reviewer/Inspector name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature.
��`
Date:
— 9:Z