300003_INSPECTIONS_20171231

% ii� 3LC4 '' i!_l e' - M v i6k 4-7 Q
Division of Water Resources
Facility Number a - 0 Division of Soil and WaterO-ervation10A Xf
0 Other Agency 11
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: )6Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure 1
Farm Name: brxry )Ljkl V—eJ- F&y n/]
Owner Name: a- L2�
VV
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
te: County: bQ V )te, Region: 1�o
Owner Email: 5UV L"3 91 G v_� od. (��✓]
Phone: -3 )
LoLR_vl Ile- j mc-, a -I O 7"
Phone: S -k&q(3A) -I) 0 — T 7-7
c
Integrator:
Certification Number:
1C�ertifi�cation Number:
Latitude: �5 r v Longitude:
a
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Nan -La er
Design Current
Dry Poultry Caoacitv Pop.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turke s
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any pan 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?
p Vc 3,3 r SS
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes jNo
Yes 9� No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of'3 21412015 Continued

'Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment 9
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?
,2
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
.identifier: V, Aa!S �br►� ��-��
Spillway?:��
Designed Freeboard (in): 2 7 �'� , r= '� • p��_J ` q1 t1
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the_structures•ob een,ed?
(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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ONo ❑ 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? ❑ Yes ZNo ❑ 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 kes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes LyNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 5dNo ❑ 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): Les UQi o—kA Q Q Q,S J-Lj f-e--
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes P§ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes C'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes M 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 mprovement`: ❑ Yes No 0 N - ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis Soil Analysis [Weather Code
[Rainfall [Stocking �rop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Soil
yand 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No % NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

r
Facili Number: - Date of Inspection: b
a 24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste anon 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 CRf4A ❑ 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 C5No ❑;NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No gNA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
[:]Yes �<No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ YeSCNrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes D� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [AYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond Other: c Zt r
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or AWMP? f4 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes 4 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).
3 \Ne.- - we e r b r&AAC-1e\
a- � Pt l � Sri � (� 5 +r a �-e� 2 �r • `/`►�-�-� v t 5 i`f —"
a? Soi ( sue? Ie�s d �e 9:9t7i�o
a_(i b roL--ho v\ d utq_
sA-
�1-h T'ec'A\ 5(�C 1 L�� 15 -r ` o
t! o n-t ro e tc n. C'. �1L- �'1 7- i v t S i -� i v\ 5u me-4-',
Ioi fo` ToP e� Darn 4
twP = V� P C(o o� Tros.�ar- 7
Reviewer/Inspector Name: MP lI
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: t
Page3of3 T0D
L5W=
&Aav 9/,.S,7�
roc'K-
E5yW���`uCr�'
u,aX. q L • S
Phon 776 — 9 &q
Date: �tt 0 � ( -7
5ro-+n 7 Zo 1412015

r

_finivision of Water Resourc
-'.
Facility Number - O O Division of Soil and Water Conservation O
Q Other Agency f
Type of Visit: P rtompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review p Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: outine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Z Z Arrival Time: I I ; 051 Departure Time: a : Q2S County: btyl Region: W5 P-0
Farm Name: a- &4 r Burm Owner Email: , jzLhoo CO m
r
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Le -Al
Phone: /3-?& i `L � a - S 5_ .5 40
n r 1C—< V I to _ In) C, -2--i D 2- 75
Physical Address:
r/
Facility Contact: Lam_ Title: Phote: C3 3) 1 IS 7a
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: �Z
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
Certification Number: riAk_4
J
Certification Number: �°2l 3j1 zCI
Latitude: Longitude:
.S - 40 Val to 14 w y & q W 1 L a od 6ey P-
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 -Layer
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify 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
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non-Daiii
Beef Stocker
eef Feeder
3 00
L
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes D;�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [:)No
❑ Yes CRINo
Yes [:]No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412014 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 ❑ 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:
J
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
�To
❑ 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
[2(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
�ro
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
t;a�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
EN,�1Cfo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[)Jlqo
[DNA
❑ 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 l0 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
DTNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
D;FfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
ffNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
YNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
PTNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? l
❑ Yes WNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application eekly Freeboard Waste Analysis
Soil Analysis
E34Va� sbrs
❑ Weather Code
Rainfall 0Stocking Crop Yield [X 120 Minute Inspections
JMonthly and 1" Rainfall
Inspections
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes gno
❑ NA ❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes ❑ No
C"" ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412014 Continuer)

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes
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
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
24. 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.
4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No 1VA ❑ NE
[:]Yes CKNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
DNA ❑NE
PjrNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [ "No ❑ NA ❑ NE
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ 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 pe t or CAWW?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
J R 1 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
P!fNo
❑ 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).
11A I'
U e- r&6V(_'
a I 020 7 o� o Sao
? No t �—
3 %'Q S d��ec d PS�GGr a
�3orjcj n on j4;0
a! P~JP�.a.ae
aw
&J- _..L ��� 2
Reviewer/Inspector Name: f Phone: 7!7rP ' 6
•
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: LADate: ;2I2.3I .011
Page 3 of 3 21412014

40 Division of Water Resotirces�
Facility Number 3 d 03 O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: *Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review p Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: * Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: _ 5'- 2c1S Arrival Time: 4 toogrn Departure Time: 1 f7 `1%11 11 County: �a VI t- Region: �{/S
� Jj a l STas�1: S W '' `` 1
Farm Name: Wer1Y 6t/r Q t rn Owner Email: % gZ af�
f _ y od. llo'st
Owner Name: n /,t,/.t §e ✓ Phone: 3 3 6 — / 9Z — 5 5 6
Mailing Address: A13 7 6-Y If l 4p-oc. "Ile ;2 7D2 8'
Physical Address:
9I8=�727
Facility Contact: �6 �c� / t +� Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: S AC y �. 14eJiik Integrator:
Certified Operator: /' 'e ✓ Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Certification Number:
/ rr /r
Location of Farm: Latitude: � 653 yZ o / Longitude: FQ 39 55
'7= yo , TO //wy �y 4)
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
Fou
Other
Poults
Design Current
Discharm 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
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
34v
$ o
Beef Brood Cow
D Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ®, No
❑ Yes J,No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
21412014 Continued

_s
Facility Number: 3o - O 3 I jDate of Inspection:46
WV
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
SjNo
❑ 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: t')5 fre
Spillway?:s
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
Dq 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
jj4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
gl 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
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
54 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes `4. No ❑ NA
❑ 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): r�sCia�/sm�.�1 �ra�•1
❑ NE
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes a No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ,fo No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
0 Yes
a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes JEJ_No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes P�JNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps [:]Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑Yes EgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
JZ Waste Application PQ Weekly Freeboard 4EIHaste Analysis 1711 Soil Analysis 10 Weather Code
IQ Rainfall fgStocking Crop Yield ® 120 Minute Inspections aMonthly 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 jo—NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: 3 p - p 3 IS I Date of inspection: —S-
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes Jallo ❑ 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 JKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes _R 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 RNo ❑ 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 OL 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 afollow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ YesNo ❑ 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 ��>r Ca /• �p �,e., u e 7,014.
2 I • Soil sp •�►-� S o�uc :N 7015
T"O i. CA ���T Wtre
1 l.1 yl k F'ro� n ��` G•� �i c t�j
w 14—k 1 •e..
le- &,
P-
k -z.Iy k- 6L i(- 1G. 7
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
'/ C
Phone: 33�- 7761- 90 /
Date: O J ` Z a/.5
21412014

A. Division of Water Quality W
Facility Number ?� - O3 O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: PQ Compliance inspection O Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O_ Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: z ly Arrival Time: Departure Time: 2 : po County: . a u, t Region: WS o
Farm Name: (y �a hYf p F/y► Owner Email:54" Sw i yzj aLeo• "m
Owner Name: t-['} i y 6N EZ Phone: I% 2-
Mailing Address: )4,93 Ga A� rQ', . M 4 do V"i i e , G 27028
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 5-Ac, W"Jk't'r Title: Phone: t—q j,? p7z7
Onsite Representative: s '- kLt4,f WRI kew Integrator: ���� 45S-1700
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
'*'� :
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: —35'05-3 141 L // Longitude: 86 U 3 I ./ S.f //_.
+- H�y �, �pa�y lid,
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
Design Current
Dry Pnultry C'anacity Pnn_
La ers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharp-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)?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
'30Q
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes
/ l No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 1�.o
❑ Yes I x o
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - 3 • Date of Inspection: Z
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes A�'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? [] Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?: BS
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): Y Z A'
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 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 J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need [] Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? �C
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 > LO% 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): `C26 W%k'E:LZ ha
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
[3NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
I
❑ NA
❑ NE
l6. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
J
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?
❑ Yes191NO
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ 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 K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections HS
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 N No X NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: —30 - 03 � Date of Inspection: L
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 [O NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. T�
❑ 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?
24. 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 ONE
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?
❑ YesiNo
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawingsoffacility to better explain situations (use �additional pages as necessary).
/r~r . �. C� �►.� 2�rJ1 �.
CA,- vit{t I�nn�,�e� ' Ce '�e�e., !A — a � �� � �'►r�'� y t , n l �� d� ( l
21. (,civ �ne,��J�l I1Ck� G+ti� Y�y e/1� or �� ��UI•.�er—
( r pp �WGz r GfJr1/^ef[!7� I `Kf � aT d ti �! ! ,t f. r J
�'`� `1 �jy �a Jct►nc- 4`t� eJ n;,r 15���T �+ll►n
BIASTr I AW.T_s W�3 c 1 lzr 4t, be JeA oor��r (&Cflr aff Pil1811 d [�
�lzo�� = O, 11b►J 33G
3/2,014 = t9. �fG lb � 11. 3 /b d c�i1
Reviewer/Inspector Name: y_lq2 r iG-1� Phone: �33rs
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �— Date: z_ 'L_a f
Page 3 of 3 21412011

0 Division of Water Quality
Facility Number O Division of Soil and Water CA ation f
O Other Agency ! O
Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review p Structure Evaluation p Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: O Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: L 2 Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: �/�-�. Region:( JSP 0
Farm Name: �-� G(it rvl-�✓GvV tits Owner Email:
Owner Name: �t '{ Phone:
f�
Mailing Address: 10 3 �aj L V r Moe ps,�:1[6 N
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �jj� Title:
Onsite Representative: SILL kav
Certified Operator: Yft'itn ✓v1 Qi S4Y,y t/"� f ��+a'✓
Phone: �H� 12Z'
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
I -yow 1 iu1014W ; CT"i.IX-j ki
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
Non-L
Pullets
Other
Poults
Design Current
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dzy Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
[:]Yes E�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes E. No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: 3 o - ,) 3 • Date of Inspection: I j
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 Ej/NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ff No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
i
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify 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 [� 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 [3/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [:]Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): (we {s
13. Soil Type(s):
Fr
14. Do the receiving crops diff 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
t No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
CNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ZdNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required
Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes [7f No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes dko
❑ 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 Ef No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑
Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑.Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑
Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes Fd/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: rl - O -5 � Date of Inspection: -2-1 116
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? EVYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ff 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 [� o ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes YNNo ❑ 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?
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 E�No
❑ Yes dNo
❑ Yes &No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes EJ�4o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes D No ❑ NA 0 NE
❑ Yes [24No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to hetter explain situations (use additional pages asnecessary).necessary). D i f
Zvt 3) f /),/►r. r %1 iit, +��'�► b�l Ar r- I 1 , L o i i
jF ZJ
ei 17-.P ifs ;
�1 p,/1G{.� �Q� L��4i) r• �lW�t L .3 EvN>!t to la�'J
~f� Zoi5
- M,n 01440-•Ill/ W
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
r"
Phone: Jflr _f r1' 7Gij�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date: 2-
2/4/20II

U Division of Water Quality ' .x
Facility Number Q - Q '0 Division of Soil and Water Cu _ rvation w
0 Other Agency 5
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: dRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 116 a rrival Time:[ }} Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: Owner Email:�, ti $ 2 \4C-h as ' Cam
Owner Name: Phone: ` S55 6
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator
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
I
Latitude:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
Pullets
Other
Poults
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?
Longitude:
Cattle
Design Current .'
Capacity Poli.-
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Cow
—.Dry
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Q
Beef Brood Cow
.d2
❑ Yes _ NL ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No DNA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page l of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[�(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
[:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
gStructure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes �] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? %
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? 0
11. is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes o ❑ 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): U V I "
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 D NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable [:]Yes Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination? 77��
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
IS . Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
[DNA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
N
❑ 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
21. Does record keeping neWW
provement? I€ es l Yes ❑ No �A ❑ NE
❑ W ste Applicati n ekly Freebo d Wa71ons
it Analysis Weather Code
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute nonthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No MNA NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: Ds ection: O-
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste app1l 'on 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 j� NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. �'`�
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately. 0
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) 0
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [)n No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
LAI
AAt
Cam^-' `-^"�,. �� ter— ✓w `L/4 L%�' O
m-" Chem &'_ f�..-Ao /
_raj
1
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
O S7 T-1 -
N�/voo
Phone: 2
Date: d
214,12011

! F
Division of Water Quality"
Facility Number 3Q - W O Division of Soil and Water Cc, ervation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: VRoutine
pliance Inspection O Operation Review p Structure Evaluation p Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: D ! Arrival Time: Departure Time: a® Countv: 0a t1 ;tr Farm Name: �Le-oy W a Wa :� rm
Owner Name: fy Q! {<&r
Mailing Address: �f 3 w46�y gC r ,
Owner Email:
Phone: ! ! Z ` SrSS6
d C�[tS lJrrl f L° O c- 2- (0 -9
Region: KLS RO
Physical Address: ,5 0i.v, e, Ii -
Facility Contact: L4-e= l rb lj Al a _Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: t +fir WelIt� Integrator: ~�
Certified Operator: 146 rN '1-� 5+"C-y W'A Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
1r � ii
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35' c� r 'Z- Longitude: O ., 3 � S�
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
G ilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -Layer
Ury Poultry
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 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
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Nan -Dairy__
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
�jbO
Beef Brood Cow
I
❑ Yes �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 ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes i q0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes 6�rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: O - 0319Date 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):
Observed Freeboard (in):
Structure I Structure 2
W �i',S• D
❑ 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 j� 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 environm ntal 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 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? )JO
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes j 'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? �i'
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?
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 Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage &Permit readily available?
❑Yes
1
❑ 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. D s record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Waste Application ✓Weekly Freeboard Q Waste Analysis oil Analysis
��
Lm Weather Code
Rainfall �ocking Crop Yield 20 Minute inspections onthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
��
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
qo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
A NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Q 3 Date of Ins ection: 10 r
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applil�'on equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes VCI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No 0NA ❑ 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
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
2$. 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
IX I 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? ❑ YeslNo
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes ❑ 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).
Z Z D/a
ZI, 21010 as;/���y�tf e . 11 SUMP ,
2' Rom/ 2a 1 I : I� erc-t Zo t 3
r lee,�4L'10-
�I
�/os/ro, I•z l�N�ro���l � (f�/+�/roe
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
qClW111ao94! W;J = Z.S-f1A
Phone:
Date: (' Z 4 t
21412011

N
aa0�,'1VAr11 0 Incident Report
G
Report Number: 201001662
Incident Type: Non -Compliance Reporting On -Site Contact:
Category: APS - Animal FirstlMid/Last Name:
I n`c i de nt'Sta rte d: 02/02/2010
—.. Company Name:
County: Davie Phone:
City: Mocksville Pager/Mobile Phone: 1
Farm #: 030-0003
Responsible Party: Reported By:
Owner: First/Mid/Last Name:
Perrnit:� AWC300003 Company Name:
Facility: Henry Walker Farm Address:
First Name: Henry
Middle Name: L City/State/Zip:
Last Name: Walker Phone:
Address 1493 Godbey Rd Pager/Mobile Phone: 1
City/StatelZip: Mocksville NC 27028
Phone:
Material Category: Estimated Qty: UOM Chemical Name Reportable Qty. lbs. Reportable Qty. kgs.
DD:MM:SS Decimal Position Method:
Latitude: Position Accuracy:
Longitude: Position Datum:
Location of Incident: Godbey Road
Address:
City/State/Zip
tti Report Created
1
1
05/14/10 12:49 PM
Page 1

�J
,�i
Cause/Observation:
Action Taken:
Incident Questions:
Did the Material reach the Surface Water? Unknown
Surface Water Name?
Did the Spill result in a Fish Kill? Unknown
If the Spill was from a storage tank indicate type.
Containment? Unknown
Cleanup Complete? Unknown
Directions:
Comments:
Conveyance:
Estimated Number of fish?
(Above Ground or Under Ground)
Water Supply Wells within 1500ft : Unknown Groundwater Impacted : Unknown
Access to Farm . Animal Population Spray Availability
Structure Questions
Report Created 05/14/10 12:49 PM Page 2

•
0
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 2010-05-11 01!49:34
Incident Start 2010-02-02 08:00:00
❑ 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
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Plan Recieved Date Level OK Date
Comment
Report Created 05/14/10 12:49 PM Page 3

Standard Agencies Notified:
Agency Name Phone First Name M.I. Last Name Contact Date
Other Agencies Notified:
Agency Name Phone First Name M.I. Last Name Contact Date
DWQ Information:
Report Taken By: Report Entered By: Regional Contact:
Melissa Rosebrock
Phone:
Date/Time: 2010-05-11 01:49:34 PM
Referred Via:
Did DWQ request an additional written report?
If yes, What additional information is needed?
Report Created 05/14/10 12A9 PM Page 4

0 Division of Water Quality W
Facility Number 3 D 0 Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation r
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit P Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 4 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Q Departure Time: f1o0 County: 1)0.0 I e- Region: i0s12n
Farm Name: HearU 100-1 ILE-IF Farm Owner Email:
Owner Name: e.4 rk d )& k Y—Q-T I f Phone:
Mailing Address: (Sod 2d • L � (e__
Physical Address: q/
Facility Contact: — Ig W r U _ 030L �L Q-. — Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative:., r i j 60 Lem integrator:
Certified Operator: ✓ U°f5 f 1aC kly%Gt LL2.r Operator Certification Number:
Back-uPP - O erator• Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
I-40 W
to U5 Coy 2Xt+
Latitude: o � Longitude: $Q °
n to (� �l w at 1� le-1 a fo od by 41
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La er
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Dischames & 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
Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non-Dai
❑ Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
O
El Beef Brood Cowl
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104
Continued

-,e V-A -0Ki'
E
eC4-f'r v V - , P
r
u �

I~acility Number: 3 Q — 03 . Date of Inspection I a g 6
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: 051f- pIko
Spillway?: W
Designed Freeboard (in): dua
Observed Freeboard (in): q
40
5. Are there any immediate threars fV a integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
LN�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? El1� Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes Wo ❑ 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 Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance/improvement? ❑Yes 0�No
No ❑ NA El NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ElYes ElNA ElNE
❑ Excessive Ponding ElHydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ElHeavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
Xyes
d No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
Of No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
❑ No
P�NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
PdNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
0Yes
❑ 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):
l k zed 7
St�e.r�-m
rvv�`
i
Reviewer/Inspector Na 2 i
Phone: -D L S_Q $9
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
Date: o '
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Q — Efate of Inspection al $ I 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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Doe `ecord keeping need im vement?af e sly � - ❑Yes No A ❑ NE
W � Applicat' n Wee ly Freeboard aste Analysis SViIAnlysisRainfall Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspectionsnthly and V Rain Inspections Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
X NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
P Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
Q�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
�No
❑ 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
[XNo
El NA
El NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately/,/
�f�
3 1 .
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
ly(J 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
�KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
adoa 5 U 4 s
SoCld �a�ibra�-ion 7 rQat \1 e-+
tc
/aGoj 7 g3lasNl,00o TZOLP
�655 D,5145.N/T-0A)
l;t o . qI 1195 . nJ C r000
A,ttC� v P ,
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Facility Number p
R_ Division of Water Quality _
Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation [� l"F ►,
O Other Agency _j
Type of Visit _*Cpmpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit C�Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: l +� Arrival Time: Ljr] Departure Time: j U County: a\i Region:
Farm Name: 14P n" . 1,L)a � �' Y YY1 -� �-Owner Email:
Owner Name: 12 s r u �,LP�r I Phone: —C 7,0? —
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: �Y Facility Contact: �je*A'La LX Le-+� k,Title: Phone 17 oyT
Onsite Representative: Hen r w W O J K'e'� ,.Integrator:
Certified Operator: S +OIQC-�j 1 ��r/ Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: L �� �' g� Longitude: ®° ®I
I
�..-qo west- to u5 Coif ey-1 le-1 d-j­k� (0 Werst- e4+ on
6C�A10 4 n.,
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
❑ La er I I :::::]
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Poults
❑ Other
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dar
❑
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
L
El
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: FI
Discharges & Stream Impacts
t'
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
*No
[] NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: El Structure El Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
El Yes
❑ No
ElNA
❑ NE
s. 4
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
f-
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State,,(gallons)?
- r
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? -(If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
1yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued
r

Facility ]!'umber: C —
• Date of Inspection a
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier: _�-Orj
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate thre s tontegrity of any of the structures observed?
El
No ❑ NA El NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
No ElNA ❑ NE
4
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
1�No El NA ❑ NE
'"'No
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
El Yes
r-(111
Cat El NA El NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No ElNA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
0 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
IT Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
E 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):
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: 5 y
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: on
12128104 Conte ued

Facility Number: - Dvof 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. ❑ WCP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other ,_, ,
21. Do record keeping need im rovement? r ❑ Yes L13'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
W ste Applica n ; �;�eky Freeboard rite Analysis Soil A 1ysis
Rainfall Stacking Crop Yield 20 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No gNA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? I� Yes El No El NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? /❑Yes ❑ No PdNA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes O(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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?
❑ Yes No
❑ YesiNo
No
El Yes
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
El NA El NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes )?fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[--]Yes )] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
AdWtional Comments and/or Drawings:
2 soi+q`� rr
1
PSI .
L, GA
4='h
PRn1
64S4� 4L;t�
,age 3 of 3
_�n.�-ter-- ' n/�;�♦.-.�—•.. ��'/
� r r.

WATc� Incident Report
�oF
Report Number:
200702939
Incident Type: Complaint
On -Site Contact:
Category: APS - Animal
First/Mid/Last Name:
Robert Walker
Incident Started: 09/24/2007
Company Name:
County: Davie
Phone:
[phone]
City:
Pager/Mobile Phone:
1
Farm #:
Responsible Party:
Reported By:
Owner:
First/Mid/Last Name:
Tim Moss
Permit:
Company Name:
Facility:
Address:
1361 Davie Academy Rd
First Name: Robert
Middle Name:
City/State/Zip:
Mocksville NC 27028
Last Name: Walker
Phone:
[phone]
Address 2064 Davie Academy Rd
Pager/Mobile Phone:
1 [phone]
City/State/Zip: Mocksville NC 27028
Phone: [phone]
Material Category: Estimated Qty: UOM
Chemical Name
Reportable Qty. lbs. Reportable Qty. kgs.
DD:MM:SS Decimal Position Method:
Latitude: Position Accuracy:
Longitude: Position Datum:
Location of Incident: Behind 1361 Davie Academy Road near Grady Lane
Address: Davie Academy Rd
City/State/Zip Mocksville NC 27028
Report Created 10/20/08 02:14 PM Page 1

I' •
Cause/Observation:
Caller alleges that swine lagoon dam was breached last week.
Action Taken:
Directions:
1-40 west to exit 168 and turn right onto HWY 64. Left onto Davie
Academy Road. Site is on right.
Comments:
Called Mr. Moss back on 9/25107 to gather background Mr. Walker had breached 5-6 foot dam of "water hole." This hole was not
information. Contacted Davie SWCDINRCS for any info as well. an animal lagoon and was not spring or creek fed. Contained only run-off
Visited site on 9125/07, No violations observed. No NOV sent. water. No stream or surface waters exist below dam. No violations
observed in the logging operation either. Mr. Walker plans to seed
cleared area with fescue for hay. This section was revised 10/20/08 after
learning 10/16108 that Mr. Walker (rather than Mitchell as previously
reported) was to complete seeding. MMR
Incident Questions:
Did the Material reach the Surface Water? No Conveyance:
Surface Water Name? -
Did the Spill result in a Fish Kill? No Estimated Number of fish? 0
If the Spill was from a storage tank indicate type. (Above Ground or Under Ground)
Containment? Unknown
Cleanup Complete? Unknown
Water Supply Wells within 1500ft : Unknown
Event Type Event Date
Requested Additional Information
Report Entered 2007-10-02 02:37:40
Incident closed 2007-09-26 12:00:00
Referred to Regional Office - Primary Contact 2007-09-25 09:00:00
Groundwater Impacted : No
Due Date Comment
Report Created 10/20/08 02:14 PM Page 2

•
0
Incident Start 2007-09-24 09:00:00
Report Received 2007-09-24 09:00:00
Standard Agencies Notified:
Agency Name Phone First Name M.I.
Other Agencies Notified:
Agency Name Phone First Name M.I
DWQ Information:
Report Taken By: Report Entered By:
Melissa Rosebrock Melissa Rosebrock
Last Name Contact Date
Last Name Contact Date
Regional Contact:
Melissa Rosebrock
Phone:
Date/Time: 2007-09-24 09:00:00 AM 2007-10-02 02:37:40 PM 2007-09-25 09:00:00 AM
Referred Via: Voice mail Phone
Did DWQ request an additional written report?
If yes, What additional information is needed?
Report Created 10/20/08 02:14 PM Page 3

Diiision of, Water uali
!Faethty Number. 3 d i73 O Division of Soil and Water .,onscrvation
_ - O Other Agency
Type of Visit 6
,C,/ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit cd Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: I 10 a eparture Time: [ („ County: �4 y% � Region: it)!51w
Farm Name: �y11f_�>G�l �L-e �r f q Em Owner Email:
Owner Name: t P �n eX' Phone:
Mailing Address: L.L oCjl bl- �_ V L t I i C— a 7�Qv2
Physical Address:
Facilitv Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: _ )j2 �LPJti' _ Integrator: '
Certified Operator- valr^ 0. `�L2.� Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: ` Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
0 wit to �5 �
A-- P�
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Latitude: �e �� �� Longitude: ®o ®' �y
6 �x-1 � . c tcie---.
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Laver
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ 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
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Fleifei
❑ Dry Cow
Non-DairyO
❑ Beef Stocker
1Beef Feeder
0 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 rANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes *0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes r No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number::3 D • Date of Inspection 1
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
;L a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
l�
Struct e l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 60
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
J!�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
x<
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
$ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
o
❑ AA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
7"<
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application`? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
)(No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
%Yes
Xo
❑ 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):
7 . loom �k_k bewe4, ,
V e4o:vion a-10LIq sir'e.Qm 1w" gam- IVo env tdwnC_,e a a cre_
c$ l t-or r e I n a No wcuaac.
Reviewer/lnsp for Name �� t O Phone: a
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: �— 03 oteofinspection �� o
Required Records & Documents �/
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes CI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑Yes JA No ❑ NA ❑ NE
ER/Waste Application E ��rop
Freeboard
__.�.,, Waste Analysis D'So^^il Analysis ,,��,,//�
[Rainfall K Stocking Yield E3,120 Minute Inspections B onthly and I" Rain Inspections LKWeather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge'?
❑ Yes
[(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
VNA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
[%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues rr,.,
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP`? [I Yes I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29, Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ 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
P(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
K No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
Cl Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
a abd$ care on e.+t? d ? Nae_,d ce
��9 d-c ate. • s { �Co � �-c.�-�� p �
CP
Loa5�-e oxNa-\ SL5 : UDS P= o G 31 So Iia- 13,1
/T0N
b s �� +- a/5-6
r 40
L at It W-
M
T l NLo'xAk� t ' ��'� , !a/�g�� d_1 t %lbg 12128104

AM
Division of Water Qualit
-49
Facility Number 3 9Division of Soil and Water Conservation Vn
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit C (Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: `Q-`- Arrival Time: ��^ Departure Time: Q County:
Farm Name: & Y)" IA-) Q_` Ley- IDOL cYY) Owner Email:
f Owner Name:.�� L � i���� Phone:' �
Mailing Address: Z J.3 61 td %OC,4 1cU ' _ ,Dv� 6 -(445 v ! ! jf- q r -) L A -0
Region: iRL
Physical Address:
y
Facility Contact: 9Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Tx `.� Integrator:
Certified Operator: 4,P-4n r w upaL Operator Certification Number: A, 0
Back-up Operator: Q� Q ( 1`-'`�' Back-up Certification Number: F�_( 1
0 6 2
(pr ri
Location of Farm: Latitude: L.-IL-4�� L-I-= Longitude: ®°JU' ��
L J+ o ojcoQxGLb1__PA
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 -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ 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: U
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
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facilitv Number: — 10 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?
❑ NA ❑ NE
El NA ❑NE
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: Ak_35 P
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 'J'i .}-
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan? dddd7T
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? P Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? El Yes 6 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
>rNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
CR<o ❑ 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 ❑ Ev'de e of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) CV
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
1 VINIo ❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
j(No 09 NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
XNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
ANo ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
o
cog crfA °g-
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: -1 7
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: �] b
12/2R/Od Cnnti�tued

Facility Number: Q- 03 Qate 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 appropirate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design El Maps El Other
21. Doe record keeping need im rovement?❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
EV 7ste A lic ion L►4 Week Freeboard Waste Ana] sis Ko'
ilIsisPP o YY
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and I Rain Inspections Weather Code
Pq jvre-
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 VNA ❑ NE
�j v
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 200 b No ❑ NA El NE
p�
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? El Yes6No X NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No ()�NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ yes ((( No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately [[[
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by ❑ Yes �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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Ad ' 'onal Comments and/or Drawings:
ae6 la-r, d i n u P 2 —tL" - �
12-© 0B(
12128104

• •
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 300003 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC300003 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: ComalianceInspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Davie Region: Winston-Saiem
Date of Visit: 01/12/2006 Entry Time:10:13 AM Exit Time: 11:45 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Henryy Walker Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Hen[y L W-alher
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 1493 Godbey Rd M cksvilfe NC 27028
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°5342" Longitude: 80°39'55"
1-40 west to US Hwy. 64 exit. Turn right onto Hwy. 64 east. Left onto Godbey Rd.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Certified Operator: Henry L Walker
Secondary OIC(s):
Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Otherlssues
Operator Certification Number: 21648
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title• Phone
On -site representative Henry Walker Phone:
24 hour contact name Henry Walker Phone:
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebrock Phone: [phone]
Ext.383
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
3. Cattle crossing is ok for now. Evidence of sediment in stream due to cattle traffic. Suggest fencing, especially during winter.
7. Embankment of WSP has ruts due to cattle traffic. Need to pull cattle off.
20. Revised WUP is dated 514105. Still need to add new land to WUP.
21. Check PAN balances next visit since operator is awaiting results from 1212005 liquid and 01/2006 solids waste analyses.
9/30/05 analysis=0.24 lbs. N11000 gal.
Page: 1

•
•
Permit: AWC300003 Owner - Facility: Henry L Walker
Facility Number: 300003
Inspection Date: 01/12/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current Population
Cattle
O Cattle - Beef Feeder 300 250
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 240,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed freeboard Observed Freeboard
k1ste Pond
WSP
50.40
96.00
Page: 2

•
C7
Permit: AWC300003 Owner - Facility: Henry L Walker Facility Number: 300003
Inspection Date: 01/12/2006 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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e.l large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
■
❑
❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
Cl
Page: 3
r

•
•
Permit: AWC300003 Owner -Facility: Henry L Walker
Inspection Date: 01/12/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 300003
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN n 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Fescue
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
Cl
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑
■
❑
❑
17, Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC300003 Owner - Facility: Henry t Walker Facility
Number:
300003
Inspection Date: 01/12/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after> i 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?
❑
Cl
■
❑
26, Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
■
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
Cl
■
❑
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑
■
❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑
■
❑
❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AWC300003 Owner - Facility: Henry L Walker Facility Number : 300003
Inspection Date: 01/12/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit? O ■ ❑ ❑
32. Did Reviewer![nspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? Q ■ ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Q ■ ❑ Q
Page: 6

Division of Water Quality
�FactFtty Number I 'Division of;Soil and Water Conservatlbri
0" Other Agency.
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Q 1 f1 �-� Departure 'rime: County:V Region: Vv_ s P-0
Date of visit: oL Q Arri��al Time:
Farm Name: ksr-11Ael�r Fal.+ w Owner Email:
Cl +
Owner Name: �� rg L • ` a t 4 P-� Phone:
i�9ailing Address: 4.3 �O l5,(.[. U • M ohs v t �� IV a 0O
Phvsical Address: e— `
Facility Contact: 4CM-LA -1 a e e_Title:
Onsite Representative: a6" ru
Certified Operator: HeAn L a L
I-y `
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: �o �• Longitude: [1'& 13 71 9
-40 w e-S+ v s y (0 owl &
L
e-�+- 0nt 0 Ca io Zd . Cp
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 -Laver
Dry Poultry
❑ Lavers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Fleifei
CIDry
Cow
Non -Dairy
1
Beef Stocket
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: M_
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 x No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
S/Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued
ri

Facility Number: t} 03 . Date of Inspection a- a
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?
l'� WStructure I a�jr� �O�Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
>w Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): vl
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
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
El NA El NE
El NA El NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �To ❑ 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 ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
❑.Y� ems �No
�Y KNo
❑ Yes A No
❑ NA ❑ NE
[-I NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. '� ❑ Yes LYI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Excessive Ponding El 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) fie,SGLy Dous gyre,
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?
El Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination%❑
Yes
No
NSA EI NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
156No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
A 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)':
ReAewer/Inspector1Name i i Q R® �_ rocv-, P h on e7n I— loM ,-3$3
Reviewer/Inspector Signature- 4 J , Date: d 1 ol- o (O

Facility Number: 3 — f73 DO Inspection ?7 I a- (o !
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes tXNo ❑ 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 ❑Other
21. Doe record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate VS
`elow. ❑ Yes )No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Applicat'on �'Vcrop
'ly Freeboard ❑Waste Analysis il alysis s
Rainfall Stockin Yield L1LI Month/ and 1" Rain Ins ections Weather Code
y r
DRl 0 �.�(
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ICJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ElYes
��.,,``1
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? tl(jc. 04❑ Yes
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
29. 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?
Additional i and/or Drawings:
� r ,
Cc LA-)
PAN
-(� ji a oo"S, k-W 644U04. &64,J 4tACt
bo/os- , 0. aq
1
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ No
[ NA
❑ NE
V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ No
0<NA
❑ NE
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
jNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
&/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

• 0
Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 300003 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC300003 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection T Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Davie Region: i -
Date of Visit: 08/02/2005 Entry Time: 0&35 AM Exit Time: 09130 AM
Farm Name: Henry Walker Farm
Owner: Henry L Wplk®r
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 1493 G4d�ey Rd Mocksville NC 27028
Physical Address:
Facility Status: Cl Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35'53'42" Longitude: 80'39'55"
1-40 west to US Hwy. 64 exit. Turn right onto Hwy. 64 east. Left onto Godbey Rd.
Question Areas:
0 Discharges & Stream Impacts
Q Records and Documents
Certified Operator: Henry L Walker
Secondary OIC(s):
0 Waste Collection & Treatment
Q Other Issues
On -Site Representative(s): Name
On -site representative Henry Walker
24 hour contact name Henry Walker
Primary Inspector: Melissa M Rosebrock
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
4. Waste is 1-2 inches above maximum liquid mark.
21. Soil sampling to be done this Fall. Records look great.
28. WUP was updated for new fields and fescue application windows.
5125/05 Waste analyses:
IRR=0.89 lbs. Nil000 gal and two scraped samples=9.3 and 7.1 lbs. Nlton
May need to check crossings next visit.
0 Waste Application
Operator Certification Number: 21648
Title Phone
Phone:
Phone:
Phone: [phone]
Ext.383
Date:
Phone:
Phone:
Page: 1

Permit: AWC300CO3 Owner - Facility: Henry L Walker Facility Number : 300003
Inspection Date: 0810212005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle -Beef Feeder 300 80
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 240,000
Waste Structures
ype Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboar
Vaste Pond WSP 50.40 24.00
Page: 2

•
•
Permit: AWC300003 Owner - Facility: Henry L Walker
Facility Number. 300003
Inspection Date: 08/02/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Utscharaes & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
NoO
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (it yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0 ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0 ❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑
Yes
0 ❑ ❑
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 (Le.! large trees, severe erosion,
❑
M ❑ ❑
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
❑
0 ❑ ❑
improvement?
yes
No NA NE
WaGte Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 Ibs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

Permit: AWC300003 Owner - Facility: Henry L Walker
Inspection Date: 08/02J2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 300003
Reason for Visit: Routine
Wastp Aomtication
Crop Type 6
Yes
No
NA
NF
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan(CAWMP)? ❑
■
❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of property operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
■
No
❑
NA
❑
NE
Rprords and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
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

0
Permit: AWC300003 Owner - Facility: Henry L Walker Facility Number: 300003
Inspection Date: 08/02/2005 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
(')the[ Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
Yes
❑
No NA
0 ❑
NF
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those mortality
❑
❑
rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality
❑
❑
❑
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWG} of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
32. Did Reviewerlinspector fail to discuss reviewtinspection with on -site representative?
❑
■ ❑
❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
M ❑
❑ .
Page: 5

Facility Number
—.__14TU11
Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water C101servation rn
0°Other Agency'
Type of Visit C mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit OkRoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 2- 5 Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: T County: h i Region: _W5LR—A
Farm Name: C-e- Owner Email:
Owner Name: _ PiVI & l 1`pX _ __ Phone: n
Nailing Address: L - QC_ KZ 1% j LI 4e
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 40All Y -AMM �.{itle: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: 0 X Integrator:
Certified Operator: L Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
-40 w �P_
Ue-4 on �o
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: 10 t Longitude:
b us
C`o od b�
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity, Population
❑ Layer
l❑ Non_ Lavet
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field • ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made? '
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
0
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
El Beef Stockei
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: IT
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 ❑ o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes o
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104
Continued
lA

Facility Number: 3[} O ' 0 Date of Inspection D
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
jNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
tructure 1 ructure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: a5 P623
Structure
5
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
114o
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
TT''
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) �No
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ElNA ElNE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[:]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 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
)!(NO
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
)Q No
I❑`No
El NA
[-INE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination%❑
Yes
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
'jj6No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ##)f 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):
coos So'kls ? cy$r . Vas-f
UP 1�Qt�.�eCl '�$t� l/r/fW.c44
�l GJ 7
Reviewer/Inspector Name 0 Phone: �-I I.
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur` Date: �- b
12128104 Continued

. I I -
Facility Number: '— 4,17Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? XYeS o ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check El Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the approprrate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Do s record keepingfieed i provement? If yes, ch k the appropriate bo below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Applic ion We 1y Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil alysis
Rainfall Stockin (� CropYield Month/ and I" Rain Inspections M<eather Code
Y
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ElNE
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? j El Yes ❑ No VNA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? 0` •'0(0❑ Yes [XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
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?
/Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
❑ Yes ❑No I (NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No �(-NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes b No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes iNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
a/ y / os- o . s ?' r r_rt. = 3 • q
-5-( ;ZS- /0'S7 0 , 56- 9 9,-3 *-
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
o El NA ❑NE
W- S.
7.1
12128104

lLj/• /
hers�5

i •
❑ Division of Water Quality
E Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency __________
Facility Number: 300003 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC300003 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Qperalions ftylew inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Davie Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 0/15/2005 Entry Time: 09:20 AM Exit Time: 11:30 AM Incident if:
Farm Name: Henry Wglker Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Henry L Walker _ Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address. 1493 Godbey Rd _ _. Mocksville NC 2702
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
Latitude: 35°53'42" _ Longitude: 80°39'55"
1-40 west to US Hwy. 64 exit. Turn right onto Hwy. 64 east. Left onto Godbey Rd.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
(� Records and Documents
Certified Operator:
Secondary OIC(s):
Q Waste Collection & Treatment Q Waste Application
0 Other issues 0 Technical Assistance
Operator Certification Number:
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Henry Walker Phone:
Primary Inspector: Rocky Durham Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Date:
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
Waste Analysis: 02/14/05 ALB 0.58 ibs.N11000 gals. I, SSB 3.9 Ibs.Nlton B, SSB 5.1 Ibs.Nlton B
08/05/05 ALB 0.41 lbs.Nl1000 gals. I, SSB 9.9 Ibs.Nlton B
Soil samples dated 03/03/05
The waste plan still needs to be amended to expand the waste application windows on Fescue and to add additional fields that Mr.
Walker would like to apply waste on. I reviewed some of the new waste application requirements with Mr. Walker.
Page: 1

•
•
Permit: AWC300003 Owner - Facility: Henry L Walker Facility Number: 300003
Inspection Date: 0311512005 Inspection Type: Operations Review Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
O Cattle - Beef Feeder 300 120
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 240,000
Waste Structures
Tvpe Identifier Closed Date Start Date Desianed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Waste Pond WSP 50.40 60.00
Page: 2

r 1
•
Permit: AWC300003 Owner - Facility: Henry L Walker
Facility Number: 300003
Inspection Date: 0311512005 Inspection Type: Operations Review Reason for Visit: Routine
Disrharges & Strearn 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. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■ ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■ ❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑
Yes
■ ❑
No NA
❑
NE
y yaste Collection_ Stnraga S 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 (Led large trees, severe erosion,
❑
■ ❑
❑
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑
■ ❑
❑
closure plan?
7, Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑
■ ❑
❑
and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■ ❑
❑
improvement?
Yes
No NA
NF_
Waste Aoolication
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 manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
Cl
Crop Type 1 Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

Permit:. AWC300003 Owner - Facility: Henry L Walker Facility Number: 300003
Inspection Date: 03/15/2005 Inspection Type: Operations Review Reason for Visit: Routine
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Appling
Soil Type 2
Cecil
Soil Type 3
Wedowee
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan(CAWMP)?
00
❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
❑
❑
17, Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
❑
❑
18, is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
YPc
■
No
❑
NA
❑
NE.
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
E
❑
❑
20, Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
Cl
E
❑
Cl
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 10 install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑
■
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
■
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑
0
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
❑
Page: 4

0
•
Permit: AWC300003 Owner- Facility: Henry L Walker
Facility Number : 300003
Inspection Date: 03/15/2005 Inspection Type: Operations Review Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
Yes
00
No NA
❑
NE
❑
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?
❑
■ ❑
❑
32. Did Reviewerl Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Technical Assistance
❑
Ygg„
0 ❑
No NA
❑
NE
34. Waste plan revision or amendment
■
35. Waste plan conditional amendment
❑
36. Review or evaluate waste plan wlproducer
❑
37, Forms need (list in comment section)
38. Missing components (list in comments)
❑
39. 2H.0200 re -certification
❑
40. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (POA)
Cl
El
41. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
42, Organize/computerization of records
❑
43. Sludge evaluation
❑
44. Sludge or Closure plan
❑
45. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
46. Waste structure evaluation
❑
El
47. Structure needs improvement
❑
46. Operation & maintenance improvements
❑
11
Cl
49. Marker check/calibration
❑
50. Site evaluation
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWC300003 Owner - Facility: Henry L Walker Facility Number : 300003
Inspection Date: 03/15/2005 Inspection Type: Operations Review Reason for Visit: Routine
11
❑
51. Irrigation calibration
52. Irrigation system design/installation
❑
El
53. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
Cl
54. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
55. Wettable acre determination
❑
56. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
57. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
13
58. Drainage work/evaluation
Cl
59. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
❑
11
60. Runoff control, siormwater diversion, etc.
❑
61. Buffer improvements
Cl
62. Field measurements (GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
63. Mortality BMPs
❑
64. Waste operator education
❑
65. Operation & maintenance education
❑
66. Record keeping education
❑
67. Crop/forage management education
❑
Cl
68. Soil andlor waste sampling education
❑
69. PLAT Assessment
❑
11
70. Other
❑
Cl
Page: 6

echnical Assistance Site Visit Re
4D OWion of Soil and Water ConservatioM
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 30 - 22 Date: 117104 Time: 1 9:50 j Time on Farm: 120 WSRO
Farm Name Blackwelder Farms
County Davie
Mailing Address 323 Wagner Road Mocksville NC
Phone: [phone]
27028
Onsite
Representative Dale Blackwelder Integrator
Type Of Visit Pur ose 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
QQ Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Capacity Population
El Layer
El Non -Layer
El
Wean to Feeder
[3 Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
® Dairy HL
92
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
® Dairy HL
92
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
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) 36
CROP TYPES lCorn, Silage I Ismail grain silage Fescue -hay
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES CeB2 MnB2 PcC2
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 30 - 22 Date:
6/17/04
PARAMETER
© No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
El
❑ 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
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. 2H.0200 re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (POA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organ izelcom puterization 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
❑
❑
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
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certificationtrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationtrecommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5'
56. Operation S maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

0
r-1
Facility Number 30 - 3 Date:
617/04
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
®
El
10. Level in structural freeboard
Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan
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.
El
El
15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. 2H.0200 re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organ izelcom p ute rization of records
❑
❑
[119. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
[121. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker checklcalibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
Irrigation designlinstallation
❑
❑
El Other...
43. 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 certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5.
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6
58. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/ 10/03

echnical Assistance Site Visit
• DWion of Soil and Water ConservatioM
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 30 - Date: 617104 Time: 1 12:30 Time On Farm: 90 WSRO
Farm Name Henry Walker Farm County Davie
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 1493 Godbey Road Mocksville NC 27028
Onsite
Representative Henry Walker Integrator
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
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
QQ Routine .
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
Q Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
IS Non -Dairy
QQ Routine .
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
Q Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
IS Non -Dairy
❑ Dairy
IS Non -Dairy
1 300
1 32
❑ 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
Structure'! Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier WSP
Level (Inches) 80
CROP TYPES Fescue -graze
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES ApB CeB2
WeC
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

0
IFacility Number 30 - 0 Date: I 6/7/04
COMMENTS:
Waste analysis: 2-04-04 ALB 0.46 Ibs.N/1000 gals. I, SSB 2.7 Ibs.N/ton B, SSB 3.4 Ibs.N/ton B
Soil samples dated 2-17-04 looked good.
The facility and records look good overall.
The waste plan still needs to be revised to add small grain over -seed and additional fields.
Mr. Walker would like to add another field to be irrigated as well as newly cleared fields to the plan. Mr.
Walker was interested in runoff management system to prevent erosion during heavy rain events in the
draws of his pasture.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 6/8/04
Entered By: lRocky Durham
03/10/03

0 vision of Water. Quality
vision of Soil and Water Conservation
Q'.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 30 3 Dale of visit: 2/3l2004 Time: 09tltl
Q Not Operational Q Belon• Threshold
Permitted M Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered hate Last Operated or AboveThreshold: ......... -_ _.
Farm Name: Re>ary WalkuTairm............................................................. count.,. V.4.yjg ...................................... Wi RQ .....
Owner Name: ti�nty_1�.----------alls�r--------------- Phone No:(31149�=55��--------__---
Mailing Address.- .. Qsi�keX.jislg............................................................................. Mo.rz,sYitle...N.C..................................................... 7.7100 ..............
Facility Contact. Mgnr.Y..Witlkr...................................Title:............................................... Phone No: ......................................
Onsite Representative: IL�Dry.�4'_a1C_------------------- - --- --------- Integrator:.------------------- ----------- ----- ----
Certified Operator:{Rnry..1............................ �.!.All.(er................ ............. Operator Certification Number:Z].6.48..
.... ............... ...........................
Location of Farm:
40 west to US Hwy. 64 exit. Turn right onto Hwy. 64 east. Left onto Godbey Rd. i
V
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude 80 'F 39 , 55
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
Discharzes & Stream li-noacts
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population -
El Layer Da
iry ❑
❑ Non -Layer I INNon-Dairy 1 300 1 195
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 240,000
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Idemitier: _.._least.P_o11d.__.--------------------------- .......................... -._.----------------------- ------------ -------------- ...........................
Freeboard (inches): 72
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 30-3 1 40 Dale of Inspection 2/3/2004 0
'
_
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
®No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑ Yes
® No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
® Yes
❑ No
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?
NN'aste ApWication
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
Oder issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes to 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.
Comments (ref1 stion #): Explain any YES answers andlor any recommendations or any other comments.
sUse drawings of?,7t1DquU11111
acilityto better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑Field Copy ® Final Notes
3. and 7. Embankment and spillway are a little denuded on the waste storage pond. Draw and creekbank looks better but are still getting
runoff due to some areas of denuded streambank. Check next visit.
_+
23. Per operator, soil samples were taken the first week of December 2003 and and not mailed until the first week of Jan. 2004. Check
next visit.
23. Waste samples have also been sent. Operator has recorded application events but has not calculated PAN balance since he's waiting
on analysis result.
29. Per operator, he is waiting on technical specialist to revise WUP to extend application windows and add new fields. Some
applications in Jan. 2004 were outside of the application window. 1 spoke with Fred Alexander (Tech. specialist) and he needs to also
run PLAT when revising WUP so it may take some extra time to complete the revision. Mr. Walker recently established the newfields
into pasture and can now be added to the WUP.
9/3/03 waste analysis= 0.26 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Reviewer/inspector Name IMelissgi Roseb rock f1
Reviewer/inspector Signature:'-1/V I /! 37/'A 47 Date: 3 ILI
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 30-3 Ioof Inspection 2/3/2004
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
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 V Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
AL
12112103

'I pivision of Water Quality
'Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other, Agency
Type of Visit, Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other
❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit: Time:
Not Operational 013elowThreshold
Permitted] crtified
O Conditionally Certified
❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Ave Threshold:
Farm Name:
County `�- m V fie-
`
�• oOL
LNo-
Owner Name:
- `1L�
Phone
C,
-7
tedc5
--)
1 (1e
6 a
Mailing Address:
1! , _
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Phone No:
Integrator: �j
Operator Certification Number: a "
Wit
cF �i�C { rrow\ moc1'�5Vt Ii&, Lei 4 6p-k� (ota
C-lL.._ irl f� ! ill fd ��Par A_rr14S r Yi �i' ltA hf�� P fP r-13P rti rArV' 1•-�U Y1 17 in yt-
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Vcattle ❑ Horse Latitude ©'1 GG Longitude ® 0 4
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine
Capacity
Population
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
F-1 La er Dai
Non -Laver Non-Dai
❑Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
❑
Wean to Feeder
ElFeeder
to Finish
❑
Farrow to Wean
El
Farrow to Feeder
❑
Farrow to Finish
❑
Gilts
El
Boars
Number of Lagoons 1 -7d` 1 1U Subsurface Drains Present IIU Lagoon Area JU Spray Field Area I
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment /
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway
'` Structure 1 StrucPn'yj
e 2 Structure 3 , ` Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: {iV &,4to_ S[O
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ] No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
1)(o
❑ Yes
Ly No
❑ Yes
No
Structure 6
Continued
0rR

Facility Number:. — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity, of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑YesNo
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 R 'Q) © \\ o
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? C.fl�'� GI�� �(j(_ Yes ❑ No
8. Does any art of the waste management system other than waste tructures require maintenance/im rovement?� ❑ Yes No
.p S Y q P
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level �,/
elevation markines? El Yes L�V0
Waste Annlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes �No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes XNo
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving 410ps differ with those desiln1ted in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes jNo
o
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? El Yes
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?ElYeso
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ElYeso
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ElYeso
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N0
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 PIan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) / /
❑ Yes
No
19.
��
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, w s� to analysis soil ample reports)
Yes
ElNo
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time f design?
❑ Yes
�No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
XNo
, `
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
Wo
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El Yes
o
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
XYes
❑ No
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer -to question #): Explain- any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain, situations. (use_.additional:pages as necessary): Field Cor)v M ❑ Final Notes
(6Sqp#o'ALA'At3*0O c
1j3 f o3 Om ado i &,S o NIA ooa u-�� ioCl
jtq) o
Reviewer/Inspector Name-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ✓
? / Date:
.04

echnical Assistance Site Visit Report
Ulvision of Soil and Water ConservatidW
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number 30 - Date: 7121/03 Time: 1 10:05 j Time On Farm: 60 WSRO
Farm Name HenryWalker Farm County Davie
Mailing Address 1493 Godbey Road Mocksville NC
Phone: [phone]
Onsite
Representative Henry Walker 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
p Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
0 Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
® Non -Dairy
p Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
0 Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
® Non -Dairy
❑ Dairy
® Non -Dairy
300
1 0
❑ Other
27028
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?
6• Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
❑ yes ® no
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Identifier WSP
Level(inches) 84
CROP TYPES Fescue -graze
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

6
Facility Number 30 - 3 Date:
7/21/03
PARAMETER
© No assistance provided/requested
[18. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
[19. 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 w/producer
❑
❑
[112. Waste structure integrity compromised
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
El
❑
❑ 13. Waste Structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application 7= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 tbs.
30. 21-1.0200 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. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
[119. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
[121. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker checkicalibration
❑
❑
Reaulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
El❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation design/installation
❑
El
❑ Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
❑
❑
46. Wettable Acre Determination
1
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5.
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
5
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

O
iFacility Number 30 - 0 Date: 1 7/21/03
COMMENTS:
Waste analysis: 4-30-03 SSB (1) 4.5 Ibs.N./ton B, SSB (2) 5.0 Ibs.N./ton B, ALB 0.82 ibs.N/1000 gals. I
+
ALB 0.37 Ibs.N/1000 gals. 1
1-27-03 ALB 0.51 Ibs.N/1000 gals. I
Soil analysis dated 9-25-03
Mr. Walker stated that he has asked his technical specialist to update his waste plan for the windows of application on
fescue and over -seeded small grain.
The facility looks good overall.
Mr. Walker stated that it has been hard to stay below the pump mark this year, with all the rain.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST Rocky Durham
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 7/21/03
Entered By: lRocky Durham
03/10/03

F ivision of Water Quality
i
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation
Q 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 30 3 Date of Visit: 02/21/2003 Time: 0910
0 Not O erational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:.............
Farm Name: Mary ..�'.aUx.k:arin................................................................................. : MAC .................................................. WISRO.........
. County:
Owner Name: Hcntry..i.................................. Walkccx........................................................ Phone No:{��(�.4�z-SSSG........................................................
i<Iailing Address: 14.93A; dbtry.Rtend........................... ..... nucktNyA4ke.. NC ......................... Z.7.QZ ...........
........................
Facility Contact: Rear.Y..!'1'.allikx...............................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: Hgmry„W,�11;;4;r,,,,,,,,,, Integrator
....................................................... •......................................................................................
Certified Operator:]tag,,ry.k,, ............................... Wakkex.................... .......................... Operator Certification Numher:k64&.............................
Location of Farm: _
64 W. from Mocksville left on Godbey Rd. Ist brick house after crossing concrete bridge over Hunting Creek
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude SO • 39 55
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
❑ Non -Layer ® Non -Dairy 300 235
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 240,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 ID No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (.If yes, notify DWQ) 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 ® 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 OR No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ......Waste.puaad.............................................................
Freeboard (inches): 39
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 30-3 Date of Inspection 02/21/2003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the intc�ty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require 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 Fescue (Graze)
El Yes 2) No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
®No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
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
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. Starting to get bank erosion and wash of soil and manure into ditch on left side of the stocktrail in the "tree area." Check next visit.
AL
7. Need to repair nits on top of the dam. Need to pull cattle off.
15. Pastures look good!
19. Don't forget to take slurry and solid waste samples for February 2003 applications.
Waste analyses:
9/19/02 ALB = 0.37 lbs. N11000 gal. and SSB = 7.6 lbs. N/ton
1 /28/03 0.51 lbs. N11000 gal.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Meliss osebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: alai 3
O5103101 1 V Continued

Facility Number: 30-3 vaf Inspection 02/21/2003
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)
24. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ❑ No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanenthemporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
fl
J
05103101

r
. 1visionofWaierQuality .
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit aQ Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
E: 1 16 Facility Number hate of Visit: ? b, Time: Q o
Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Ab eve Threshold:
Farm Name: _ ph ru Leda-++Mi,ter_{`'' ��FJJarm County: r)a V lie,
Owner Name: n rv' I.IJ a 4�-�i— Phone No: 336 . ?1 `l �l • ��, S%
Mailing Address: b � Xo C r--5 U [ I [ e � l� C., 2-76 21p�
Facility Contact: r U Title: Phone No:
HA
Onsite Representative: r Integrator: r,, (�
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number: Al `t' 4 q
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry X Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude © a © Longitude ®'
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
IQ La er
Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Laver
Non -Dairy
D Q
S
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
OQ
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW�
❑ Boars
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ,` Spillway
Structure I Mire 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 6
Identifier: m
Freeboard (inche ): 3
05/03/01
❑ Yes K
o
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ;KNo
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes No
Structure 6
Continued

rFagility Number: — 3 1 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
El Yes
JC�I No
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
El Yes
�No
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do anv 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
1�,No
9. Do any sructures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
)Z�No
«`aste 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 A 4
r
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
o
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes[No
o
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
El Yes
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yeso
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yeso
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yeso
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?
IN
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
KNo
23, Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
;KNo
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
/ `No
No
25. Were anv additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AVX°MP?
❑ Yes
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 anv.other.c_omrnents.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use. additional pages as:necessary): " Field v Cot -
Final Notes
Reviewer/Inspector Name j^
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date: aZ rf

w Facilitl- ,\timber: — Date of inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond With no agitation? r
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?
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.)
mu-
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ElYes No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
Additional Comments andlor Drawings:
il}o
15 e c+pn ll
LIZ
Coo
-].
�l a`6/L>� O.S� �I�S Poco .
ire A.�t� 0-7,�
tw AA14.
05103101

U
of Water Quality
10Sion
ion of Soil and Water Conservation = �1
Q Other Agency
of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
(Reason for Visit (D Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
FFacility lumber 30 3 I)ate of Visit: 9/4/2002 Time: 9:45
0 Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: RuIr :.WalklQjr.Farm...................... .... .................... County: Aaxxt;.................................................. N S.RQ........
Owner Nante:><AiY.T,:................................ �3,allot*C........................................................ Phone No:(C�.4�2r.S.SS.�..................... .................. ..............
MailingAddress: 1 9 .GAdbgy.RQ d............................................................................. nct�l�xAlle..��.................................-.......-........... U.02.8 ..............
Facility Contact: ..............................................................................Title: Phone 1\o.
Onsite Representative: Mgx1ry...W.,3 kgr................ ..................... Integrator:..-...................
Certified Operator: Ht<tll:y.1. ............................... Walkcx ............................................. Operator Certification Number:2.1b9$...................-.........
Location of Farm:
64 W. from Mocksville left on Godbey Rd. 1st brick house after crossing concrete bridge over Hunting Creek
1_7 j
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ®Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ' S3 42 Longitude F86 1OF39 55
Design Current
Swine Canacity 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 a I ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ® Non -Dairy 300 ] 06
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 240,000
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps I 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts I
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a- If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. ](discharge is observed- did it reach Water of the State? (Ifyes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Stricture 6
Identifier: ................................... ...................
Freeboard (inches): 48
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 30-3 1)ate of Inspection 9/41206Z
5. Are there any immediate threats to theogrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ treZ'S', severe erosion,
[:]Yes,
® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
N No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
It. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
N No
12. Crop type 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
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
N No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
N No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(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
N 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
N No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
N No
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
Facility and records are in compliance.
* Remember to request a copper analysis if soil samples are sent to a private lab.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 30-3 Uat f Inspection 9/4/2042
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system -intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional Comment s and/orDrawings:
Waste analysis: 3-21-02 ASB 7.3 lbs.N/ton B, ALB 0.34 1bs.N/1000 gals. I +
J
.6103/01

ion of Water Quality
Q ion of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit © 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 30 03 Cate of Visit: 3/28/2002 'Time: 0930
F Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified Q Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ....................
Farm Name: lznL�:.��'.alkez.kaxila .................................................. ................. County: J)Ayj� .................................................. !�'.S�tQ........
OwnerName: Rclira..L................................. Wal). tr....................................................... Phone No:(3.3.61-49z.:S5%........................................................
Mailing Address: )1..4.9 .QUA.dk y..l St0d............................................................................. M.o�lCSxAl1�....................................................... 2.7.02.8 ..............
FacilityContact: Mary'.A..alkex............................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: Heuicy...W.Wker ...................................... ..... .... Integrator:.............
.............
Certified Operator:Mentry..L. ............................... WalkeC:............................................. Operator Certification Number:z.1.C4$.............................
Location of Farm:
i4 NN'. from Mocksville left on Godbey Rd. 1st brick house after crossing concrete bridge over Hunting Creek +
El Swine El Poultry ® Cattle [I Horse Latitude 35 • 53 42 Longitude 80 • 39 55
Design Current
Swine CanaCity 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 I ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer 10 Non -Dairy 1 300
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 240,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ID Subsurface Drains Present❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) [] yes ❑ 1`To
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 N No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Stricture 6
Identifier: ....Sttara.ge.P.ratrd....................................................................................................................................... I..........
Freeboard (inches): 60
0510.3101 �/�` � _ , / Continued

Facility Number: 30-03 Date of Inspection 3/28/2002
is
5. Are there any immediate threats to the inteTrty of any of the structures observed? {ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
N No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
N No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
N 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
N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
N No
12. Crop type Fescue (Graze)
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
N No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
N No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ 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
N No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
N No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
N No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
N No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® 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): ;,O Field Copy -®Final Notes '
7. Dam is getting rutted from cattle traffic on top of the dam. Need to keep cattle off.
Will need to obtain 2002 soil analyses.
Operation and records look great!
r- - - - - - -
Reviewer/inspector Name Meliss osebrock
ReviewerlInspector Signature: Date: o� Z
05103101 't Continued

FacilitylNumber: 30-03 1 Da0Inspection 3/28/2002 •
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?
—and/or rawinffs:
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
O5103101
J

Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Type of Visit A Compliance inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit JoJ Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time:
Nnt Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated
orTor,^Ahoy Threshold:
Farm Name: 1� u 1A.)a- I j6e_�r— FQCM County:
Owner Name: L Phone No: ✓y t !
NI ailing Address: ) f �j ��
Facility Contact: �{e.rilna '^^'` 1 {`'Q/l Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: kqC1Y'U I yQ::r _ Integrator:
Certified Operator: Q i 1p-r Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
lad &). from Mott-sYi[ e , fe-�=+ on G6db� l�. ! I f brldt houses a44
o [, , •
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑Horse La ude ©' ®' 11 Longitude0M, ®�
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Po ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
10 Layer
❑ Dairy
El Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer
Non -Doi
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
1 Q [1D0
❑ Boars
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? El 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? (Ifycs, 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
tructure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): L 10
Structure 5
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
Structure 6
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, 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 XNo
12. Crop type jV I1 P Y 4_A _j_AJ
13. Do the receiving cops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, frcioard, was a 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?
M -*ib1ha jris;oi- doficienctes -wire pQted dim hii this;visit: • Yoii will •reet'iye do fui-thgr • ; • ;
coriesporideRce. abou this visit. • . • . .
❑ Yes 110
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes )XNo
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes ANO
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes *o
❑ Yes '%No
❑ Yes OQ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes Po
Comments (refer"to question #); 'Explain any YES answers'andlor any recommendations or.any otlser..comments
k
Use drawings, of facility to better explaiiin situations. (use additional pages as necessary): Al
AL
Oy
qV
Reviewer/Inspector Name i S
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. A At h Date: 5/po

F'acilify Number: D"f Inspection Z Q Printed on: 7/21/2000
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? ❑ Yes ANO
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ElYes jNo
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.) ❑ Yes No
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? es
-V64-40
UV
4,44
J
5/00

vision of Water Quality
ision of Soil and Water Conservation
0 ther Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
(Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 30 03 D:uc of visit: 10/25/2fl01 Time: 11935 Printed on: 10/25/2001
O Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .................
Farm Name: l tuy.Adke7r..Farm ............................... ...... County: Wyk........................ ...... WSRA........
............................................. ....................
Owner Name: Rtf1tIyj.............. .................... N'W)wr....... ............ ..................................... Phone No: (3ft�.4�2-SAS.fi.......... ..............................................
MailingAddress: 1AQ3.Godbey.limd............................................................................. M.Qck-5,.y!11e...NC .................................................... 2702,8 .............
Facility Contact: 11my-WAkcir................................ ...... Title ..... ...... Phone No:
......... ................... ..... .................................................................................
OnsiteRepresentative: Henry.. W.alker.................................................. .......................... lntegrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator: Henry...................................... 1'1'.alker.............................. ............... Operator Certification Number-ZA.6.48 .............................
Location of Farm:
A W. from Mocksville left on Godbey Rd. 1st brick house after crossing concrete bridge over Hunting Creek �►
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry 0 Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 53 6 42 s4 Longitude 80 • 39 4 5564
Design Current
Swine Canacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I Non -Dairy 1 300 100
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity F 300
Total SSLW 1 240,000
Number of Lagoons 0 joSubsurface Drains Present ©Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges X Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 0 No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes 0 No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure i' Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .... Swrage Pratui........................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 79
05103101 /Continued

r _
Facility Number: 3(}—U3 • Date of Inspection 10/25/21)i)1 • Printed on: 10/25/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? 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 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?
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 Reviewerllnspector 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 IN 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 7): 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
7. Operator had drilled some barley and fescue onto dam of WSP to fill in bare spots. Has come up about 3 inches.
_
19. Waste analysis dated 10/23/01 reported N=0.37 lbs./1000 gal. Was not taken within 60 days of spring/summer applications, though.
Need to also make sure that the soil analysis includes zinc and copper.
Fier leaving farm, it was learned that operator applies solid waste with spreader. Need to check far waste samples for the solid waste
as well next time.
Reviewer/inspector Name Mel i sa Rosebrock Y Y
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 1
05103101 J y Continued

,Facility Number: 30-03 1) 4
f inspection 10/25/2001 Printed on: 10/25/2001
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
05103101
J

q- ,36 A
El " vision Of W$ter Qnahty
u ' Vision O1? SO�
d and Water`Conservhtton ,
4 Q Other. Agency
Type of Visit ok 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
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time:
0 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold.
"
Farm Name: ....Rpn...........al.1 .....F�1..�. .....................I...... County:.....bav �........................................
1�-VS.�.......................
RVzOwner Name: ....... HeR j........... .:.......W..�AJ ............................. Phone No: .�.....1il `.S J��- ...... �a
Facility Contact: .........V.� l ..L.1......Title: ...................... Phone No: ..................................
.................
le,Mailing Address:......�.`1{....... i... ..........'...... oS�.��7 �.�..�... I "� a l o� ZS ......
i f..
Onsite Representative: �% ±(`�. }.�- Integrator: r„
a .. .....................
Certified Operator:....... �.� Operator Certification Number:
....... ................................................................ .............. .....
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry
Swine
v ❑ Latitude ®� ©° E�� Longitude ®• all,
Cattle Horse
Design Current
Canneity Panulation
❑ 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
Ca aci ` Po uiaticont_.-
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer
Non -Dairy
06
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
3 0�
Total SSLW
oRIffil CIO()
Number of Lagoons '-A .' i _- -J❑ Subsurface Drains Present j[❑ Lagoon Area I❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes XNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-rnadc? ❑ 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 gallrnin'?
d. Dees 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 x
No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes o
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
r Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
IdentificrG............................................................
Freeboard (inches):
5100
Spillway ❑ Yes No
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Continued on back

j
Facility Number. v — Date of Inspection .� d •
5. Are there an immediate threats to theOity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, Yes No
Y❑
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? Cl 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 KNo
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
I I. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes No
12. Crop type e -4- in
13. Do the receiving crops differ wA those designated in th0 Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) V/
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?
�'�10 yi laltiggs'o deficiencies •w-gre noted- 0LH`.ing thjsAsitf • ;Y:on wii1•treeeiye no' WOO
correspondence. about this visit..
❑ Yes ,�J No
❑ Yes/ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes XNO
❑ Yes k No
❑ Yes )KNo
Yes ofNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes � No
El Yes No
❑ Yes XN 0
Comments (refer to question ##) 1 xplain•any YES,answers and/or any recommendations oiiany other comments: ;
Use drawings of.facility to better:;explain situations (use additiotal pages as necessary)i J4
AL
JVqW e+n&P Lkf (S3/
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signal
13
Date:
5100

Facility Number: — �of Inspection •
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes 9(No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? - use
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?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? 9 Yes El NO
Ro W o,a,te ar,A&r(� 1qx3lo
I
f r
/ r• C '64
tl-� /Jda.,r�av✓. UJpg
Aay 4ake AIAcP AA/wpfeg Gnee�dy
L.A
5/00

Q "Sion of Water Quality
ision of Soil and Water Conservation
Q ther Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection (D Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Fallow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
I'kile of, Visil: 5l22J2t)41 Time: 9a10 Printed on: 10/17/2001
30 3
NNot O erational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: UturX..WAktir-Fa-rm......................................................................... County: VA Av.................................................. WSRO ........
Owner Name: RVrAry.L ............................... SY.Wk!<r........................................................ Phone No:(.3.(A.4Q2-5.SSC...................................
.....................
Mailing Address: J.493..Gt?dbpy..RQAd............................................................................. 1 oskciXAlAe..A!IG..................................................... Z.7.Q S..............
FacilityContact:..............................................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: ...................................................
Onsite Representative: Umry..fit.5jW.U..W8lkCr......................................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator. -Henry ..................................... Vh81ket............................................. Operator Certification Number.2lj6.49 .............................
Location of Farm:
4 W. from Mocksville left on Godbey Rd. Ist brick house after crossing concrete bridge over Hunting Creek
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 53 42 Longitude $0 ' 39 55 64
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Soars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer 110 Non -Dairy 300 50
--]
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSL W 240,000
Number of Lagoons ❑Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area ID Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management Svstem
Discharges R: Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. ]f 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 X Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
Structure 6
Identifier:...................................................................... ....................
Freeboard (inches): 72
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: 30-3 • Date of Inspection 5/22/2001 Printed on: 10/17/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trwe" 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?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ 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 (Graze)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14, a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
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
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 expiain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ® Field Copy ® Final Notes
# 19. Need to go ahead and get a waste sample to back calculate the March and April applications. Mr. Walker will also need to get a soil
_
sample for 2001. Mr. Walker has been keeping freeboard readings periodically, but not weekly.
Overall facility looks good.
Cattle are only coming on the lot at this time to eat and then going back to pasture.
T
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

.AFacility Number: 30-3 1); f Inspection 5/22/20(1l 0
Printed on: 10117/2001
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 till pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
aste analysis: 12/14/00 LSB 0.45 lbs. N11000 gals. 1, 0.57 lbs.N/1000 gals. B
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
ALI
05103101
J

vision of Water Quality •
ision of Soil and Water Conservation
Q 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 30 03 Date lif Visit: $/10/20U0 Time: 0$20 Printed on: 8/10/2000
0 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered pate bast Operated or r►boye Threshold : ................
Farm Name: UCt1u'.X..WA11k9ir.X4jrAU............................................
Owner Name: kRcixr.Y.L................................. WWkix..........
County: Rule .................................................. .. ...........
Phone No: Q3.61.49.2.:555.6..
Facility Contact: kltz[xr.X..W.UUk2x:............................................... Title: ... Phone No:
Mailing Address: 1.493.G9,dhgy.Road............................
............
Onsite Representative: JUQttXy..Walker..................... ......................................
Certified Operator: Hgjnry..................................... 1? alktx
Location of Farm:
M.Qcksy]file_NC..................................................... VIM_
Integrator: .................................................
Operator Certification Number:2,X(4.f#.............................
54 W. from Mocksville left on Godbey Rd. 1st brick house after crossing concrete bridge over Hunting Creek
[]Swine []Poultry M Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 53 { 42 [i Longitude 80 • 39 * 55
Design Current
Swine Canarity Pomelation
❑ 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 1 10 Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I JCR Non -Dairy 11 300::60:::d
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 240,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
DischaMes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system`? (If yes. notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: ......Waste.and.................................................... ..................
Freeboard (inches): 54
5100
® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
...... ................. ....................................................... ..................... ...... ...:.....
T �� Continued on back

Facility Number: 30-03 Date of Inspection 8/10/2000 Printed on: 8/10/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the i egrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ Asevere 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 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?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records &_ Documents
17, Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
0: No-viol_A'tioris;oir deficiencies-werea;oted during this: visif: ;You:rvill reeeive no further
: correspondence:aboirtithis:visit: :: ::::. ......... ::•:•:•:-.-...•:•:•:•:• ...-:-:
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
9. Marker needs to have maximumlevel marked more clearly.
17. Per owner, permit is at his house.
19. Waste analysis records not available for April applications. Need to keep weekly freeboard now that permit has been issued.
Soil samples to be taken this Fall.
Reviewer/Inspector Name rMeliss Ros brock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: / / ZZLV "O J1 Date: 6100 5100

Facility Number: 30-03 D f' lnspeclion $/10/2000 . Printed on: 8/10/2000
Odr r Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge actor 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 Comments and/orDrawings:
5100

vision of Water Quality
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation qP
O Other Agency
of Visit 'Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Woutine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date or Visit: d 0 0 Time: ,'® Printed on: 7/21/2000
t2
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
APermitted Certified © Conditionally Certified j3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
AA ll Q/�
Farm Name: Af.- V.g . 10A.114nC. ...FAT e- Countv:...... D:A.Y1.......................................................
Owner Name:.... m.i �Jl...... .:..... ....!`-............................................. Phone No:... lP�... �... SS .................
Facility Contact: ...... .E ci��� r.. ........ L0.0d...V...... .Fitle:...................................................... .......... Phone No: ,..................................................
Mailing Address: .............. T..-!•��}. 4 .. ....i4 rM10.a..K.5..V1.JJe...... } !v-111 ........a..�.0. .....
........... .................
Onsite Representative:..... ..r) ............................ Integrator:......
9--"-
Certified Operator:......... 4pul.r.4........ �� .-�.. .L� ....-. ... Operator Certification Number:.... a�....l...`Y..��
.................. ...........
Location of Farm:
w
[]Swine []Poultry Cattle []Horse Latitude 0 [-�U]°k Longitude ®a 1 64
Swine
Design Current
Canacitv Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity Q d
Total SSL W
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 I,ag,,nn Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
i
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ElLagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. li' discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
h. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If dischargc is observed, what is the estimates[ flow in gallmin?
i
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? iA
pillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure , Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: ..�j.Po%� ............................
Freeboard (inches): 51411
5100
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Structure
Continued on back

Facility Number: 30— OJI Date of Inspection IV '0 Printed on: 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the ARrity of any of the structures observed? 0e/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes XNo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? El Yes X
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 XNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes XNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improve ment? ❑ Yes XNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN [I Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes N0
12. Crop type r,0 Sl' i 1 p Q r-A 7 P ii am _
13, Do the receiving crops differ with hose designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
•b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15, Does the receiving crop.nced.improvement'? -
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coveraoe & 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/ irrigatio rccboarCaste:a:n�aly)s & 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?
�. �O., 1R> a�i6Rs_oi' Wicle ;cjj -I W'eCi3 h6 . ed. dii-ritig thls,vlsjC • ;Y64 WHI-eeb6v'ce h6 fu then ,
;corresondence. abouA tkzis .visit . . ... . . . . . ' . ' . ' . ' . . .. '
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes )(No
❑ Yes �No
Kyes ❑ No
❑ Yes KNo
VYes ❑l `No
❑ Yes 00
El Yes /////f No
❑ Yes )dNo
❑ Yes t/No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes )/ o
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
AL
S15n eg o✓ riI I
,V Cj_ te, b,3a�4 — 'Perm'l 4
�\w& Mag_'i M u m [cvel nt&r-144 Mzy
�25 -TLG- be _Wy-en4,s F-0,_�
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: LkN/ _/,/PiLM I /11A110 kk,P j Date: X / / U/'UO 5100

Facility Number: MFMD0f Inspection Printed on: 7/21/2000
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? O f • ! IT aciob
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ANo
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) gNO
29. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ElYes
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? -E-'fts-9-No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? oCCC6 [ Fes—.�.�io
Additional
C/om�mennts and/orDrawings:
VJ
v
VV
5100

u
[ bivision > 1 and Water Conservation -Operation .Par
93-DivisionlWil and Water Conservation - Compliance ection
E=Division of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
O'Other Agency - Operation Review
10 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number 30 p3 Date of Inspection 6/29/99
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered 0 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: dear'.Y..W.Agin-Farm.................................................................................. County: 1).Atx,;.................................................. !!'SSA........
OwnerName: Rentry.L................................. 1'alkcr....................................................... Phone No:(33.()..4Q2.:S5S.G................................... I....................
FacilityContact: Reary.L...W,u11<cx..........................................Title:................................................._.........._... Phone No: ...................................................
MailingAddress: 1493.GoOgy.faid............................................................................. UwAuilk..N.0 .................................................... 27W .............
Onsite Representative: Rwry.L..W.alker................. ............., , Integrator:
Certified Operator.Ugiary...................................... W-41kr ............................................. Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A.
6.4..W.....................................
..k
Latitude Longitude 80 • 39 55 �+
Design Current
Swine Capacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current
Design Current
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Layer I
I
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer
® Non -Dairy
300
0 :d
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
300
Total SSLW
240,000
Number of Lagoons 1 1 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area 0 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): .............I$................................................... ............... ........... ............................ ............................ 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

Facility Number: 30-03 r \ �te of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which art 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
12. Crop type Fescue (Grace)
6/29/99
❑ 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)?
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?
Reouired Records & Document'
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?
®: Rio yiolati6ris.or deficiencies -were :noted:d&ftig,titi:is visit.-:You_will receive•n6•ftirth_er-:
: - correspotideit&' A"f this' isit....
Facility is well operated and maintained.
Mr. Walker has applied for General Permit.
Note: There were cattle on pasture , but not at feed lot area; feed lot herd rotates in and out at 300 head.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Abner Braddy
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
[-]Yes ®.No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
3/23/99

Facility Number: 30-03 O'e
of Inspection 6/29/99
dor 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
3/23/99 /'

---- - ----------------- L
Facilit---
y Number 30 03 Date of Inspection 11/18/98
Time of Inspection � 24 hr. (hh:mm)
❑ Registered M Certified ® Applied for Permit [3 Permitted JE3 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Hcary..'i Alkcr..FArj l................................................................................... County: Ravic.................................................. . .SRO........
Owner Name: Hem-y..L...................... ..... W.; ker
Facility Contact: Sam ...................................................
Mailing Address: 1491.Go.dhcy. Raatl......................
Onsite Representative: Jjrxtry... .a1kcr.....................
Certified Operator: Hmary .....................
Location of Farm:
.................................... Phone No:03.6).4927,5556 .......................................................
Title: ................................................................ Phone No: 5am................
.......................
mocJkaxillc..NC..................................................... Z.702f..............
............ Integrator: ......................................
..alkex............................................. Operator Certification Number:216.48 .............................
Latitude 35 • 53 ' 45 '� Longitude 86 • 39 - F_55 _
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ 1721TOW to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
General
I. 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 discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
[J Yes
X No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge'?
❑ Yes
X No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
® No
maintenance/iniprovemetit'?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the tithe of design'?
❑ Yes
Z No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge'?
❑ Yes
® No
7/25/97

Facility Number: 30-03 D f� Inspection t [118148
8' Are there lagoons or storage ponds on. e which need to be properly closed'? [-]Yes ® No
Structures (LagoonsAoldin2 Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure G
Identifier:
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (fl):
................................... .......................
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 0 No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/intprovement'? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-12 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 maximtun liquid level markers? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application'? ❑ Yes ® No
(If in excess of WMP, or nunotfentering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .............
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
17. Does.the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application'? ❑ Yes ® No
19.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
20.
Does facility require a fi. Ilow-up visit by same agency'?
❑ Yes
No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Oniv
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
X 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 die Permit'?
❑ Yes
No
'�•1�IO Vi'olatibt. . . .d'e%Cieri.n'ote'd:[. . .�i. . ..'0� . ...e.. i�....t�.. .
..carr...
de' '6o' i ihis.visiC . • . • . • .............................. .
Needs copy of waste plan on site,
Fann appears well operated and maintained.
Lagoon, creek crossing, fencing complete
Reviewer/Inspector Name A�itaerratldy
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

❑Division of nd Water Conservation ❑ Othe genet' ' s
�ivision of Water Quality I0a n k
10 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWO inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number
© Registered 810certified f[3Applied for Permit © Permitted
Farm Name:.,f7Pe. h! ..�� ..
Owner Name:......,%..................//i�,,/rI.Z... ......
Facility Contact:
Mailing Address:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator;
Location of Farm:
.................� 4 ............
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 1 J 24 hr. (hh:mm)
�j Not Operational Date Last Operated:
County: KL?..................................................
Phone No_�,� ����
Phone No: el�
............................................................
Number: STL.l .Q
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes AM
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes jkNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system`? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5- Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes PrNo
❑ Yes J'No
❑ Yes /PNo
❑ Yes , PrNo
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97

Facility Number: 3 ��
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons,Holding Ponds Flush Pits etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier:
..............................................................................................................
Freeboard(tt):.......................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
Structure 4
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes FtrNo
❑ Yes KNo
Structure 5 Structure 6
15. Crop type ,ems,�.......................................................
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 Iand application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
J. W e any addiuonar prooiems noted wnicn cause noncompuance or the rerrmi.
w - -
RNo.violations-or. deficiencies:were-noted-during this:Visit.-.You:will r&e' i've-nti•ftirt er,:
cyrrespande O aboid this:visit.: : .
❑ Yes WNo
❑ Yes )'No
❑ Yes J]rNo
❑ Yes )WNo
❑ Yes )ZNO
................................
❑ Yes /allo
❑ Yes PNo
❑ Yes / No
❑ Yes 1�?'No
❑ Yes /'No
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes 2rNo
Ml�es ❑ No
❑ Yes tp(No
❑ Yes V No
7/25/97
ReviewerlInspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:

_0 DSWCimal Feedlot Operation Revi�
e z
®DWQ An> MM' Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
0 Routine 0 Com taint 0 Follow-up of DW2 inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number d 3
Time of Inspection = R 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: ® Registered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:.1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
❑ Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection includes travel and processing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated: .................................. . ..... . ......................... . ........................ . .................................. . .................
Farm Name: ......... i`.w.... .........�rC:............................................................... ........................�G! Y1 ounVICi
Land Owner Name:.:T�. ...................1 ....... .. l I1 a
, ........................._............... r .....................
Facility Conctaet:........ i',--Y`'i Title:...�VWL Phone Rio: ��,Z��!U
---....
Mailing Address: ..............
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator -
Location - of -Farm:
..-_.e....................
............................... _.. _�,. _. ....._ ....._.................
.`'"'i Ke Operator Certification Number: '...................K�.........................•-----............................ _.........
concretes br"e ONO -
Latitude ©' S3 ` ®°` Longitude ©• 3� � 55 `•
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
€ 'Design3 Current' DesignCurrerit` Design Current
Swine4 Ca` cis. Po` ulation Poultry;; Ga achy Pa'' alat�on Cattle UCa aci .= Po tilatlon:
a ❑ Wean to Feeder �❑ L a er ❑Dairy
s ❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer Non-Dai Z t7
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder Total Design Capacity 6t7 g
;v a
Farrow to Finish
u __.... a Total SSLVf.
Other
Number of Lagoons7Holdtng Ponds " ❑ Subsurface Drains Present
€` IM Lagoon Area Spray Field Area ;
X
n �
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gaUmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Continued on back

.,, Facility Number:... --
6. Is facility not in compliance with plicable setback criteria in effect at the timeesign?
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?
Structures fl,agoons and/or Holding Ponds
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid Ievel markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type _...........................................
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?
Fox, Certified Facilities Only -- N/A
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 AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes 14 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes qNo
❑ Yes 56 No
Structure 6
❑ Yes ,V+ No
❑ Yes Ef No
❑ Yes JV No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes NJ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ;Q No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes [Z No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Reviewer/Inspector Name "ow,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: -�7}�� Date:
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

'i
State of North Colina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Mooresville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Mr. Henry Walker
1493 Godbey Road
Mocksville, North Carolina 27028
Dear Mr. Walker,
AL
1DEHNR.
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
June 20, 1997
SUBJECT: Operation Review Summary
Henry Walker Farm
Facility No. 30-03
Davie County
RECEIVED
N.C. Dept, of EHNR
J U N 2 4 1997
Winston-Salem
Regional Office
On ,tune 17, an Operation Review was conducted of Henry Walker Farm, facility no. 30-03. This Review,
undertaken in accordance with G.S. 143-215.1OD, is one of two visits scheduled for all registered livestock
operations during the 1997 calendar year. The Division of Water Quality will conduct a second site inspection.
It was determined that no corrective actions are necessary as the result of this Review, since waste was
being discharged to the waters of the State, and the animal waste collection, treatment, storage and disposal systems
were maintained and operated under the responsible charge of a designated operator.
Please remember that you are required to obtain and implement an approved animal waste management
plan by the end of this year, and have a certified operator. The plan must be certified by either a designated
technical specialist or a professional engineer. For additional assistance with the plan or the operator certification
course, please contact your local Soil and Water Conservation District Office or local Cooperative Extension
Service Office,
The Division of Soil and Water Conservation appreciates your cooperation with this Operation Review.
Please do not hesitate to call me at 704/663-1699 ext. 277 if you have any questions, concerns or need additional
information.
Enclosure
cc: Davie Soil and Water Conservation District
Abner Braddy, DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
DSWC Regional Files
919 North Main Street, �W� FAX [phone]
Mooresville, North Carolina 28115 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 704-663-1699 50°k recycled/10% post -consumer paper

- ;...L.... v__-:s_.:-W..i:i..4....' ,.:�..`'�::.`...f.—_�.:d++..k.b:....iX._...�-.r:w�i. w':'•..V,r+...N�k .ti -
® DSWC An li Feedlot Operation Review
y $.❑ DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
{
a� „,�� ,N�.'yl� Bryn e ( :�. �a-_ � r
10 Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspecti,
Facility Number 34 3
Farm Status: ® Registered ❑ Applied for Permit
❑ CertiCed ❑ Permitted
❑ Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Henry..WaJkec.Fum......................................................
Follow-un of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection 1 6/17/97
Time of Inspection 14:27 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
(ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review 2.5
or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
County: Daylp,
Owner Name: Rear:y...................................... W.Alkcgx........................................................ Phone No: 492-S,5S.C....................
..............
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:.................
\Tailing Address: 1.93.Ga tcy-Rd.................................................................................. iY acksyilke...k! C........
Onsite Representative: Hgary...Walker.......................
Certified Operator: ...................... I ........................... ..........
Location of Farm:
Latitude 35 • 53 L 45 iC
)e of Operation
Swine
........ WSJRQ.......,
.............................1.
.. 2.7.M..............
............................... Integrator:......................................................................................
............................... Operator Certification Number:.........................................
Longitude 84 ' =1
5511
T:
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy 600
❑Non -Layer ® Non -Dairy p
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Ej Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to ttus
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 600
_Total SSLW 840,000
Number of Lagoons I Holding Ponds _'� ID Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area I0 Spray > field Area
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
4/30/97
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Continued on back

(Facility Number: 30-3
6. Is facility not in compliance with anyWable setback criteria in effect at the time of Ion?
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?
Structures La eons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Stricture 4
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 5 Structure 6
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 ® No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? ❑ 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....................................................................................................................................:.........................................._....._.....................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ® No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes ® No
For Certified Facilities Onlv
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No
24. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments (refer to question #)� eExplatn any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other Commeats
Use drawings ofefacrhty to better esplaan situations {use additional pages as necessary)
�.
Operation currently has no cattle in confinement, cattle are confined during the winter. Operation is in the process of becoming
certified and is working with Davie Soil and Water District. Operation drystacks lot scrapings and is planning on building a holding
pond for lot run-off. No sign of current problems at facility.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Joseph an F
a
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Z4 g
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water/`Quality 't"n, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97
� l