410013_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Division of Water:Resourc
Facility Number O Division of Soil and 9'servation prn
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: (P Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review p Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: �f'D)rRegion: V14C_-,V_�
�%
Farm Name: "'�--`�
Owner fame: S
v
Mailing Address: V14e C,-80,y-
1Pjr
Physical Address: v
Facility Contact:Manj Ann 5 Title:
Owner Email:
Phone:
wns 1�cjmryt;�
el
Phone: 'Dot- �?6 j 3
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
r * u hYs Medea
Certified Operator: 1 Certification Number: QX1c ( j�-
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Certification Number:
Latitude: Longitude:
-k-#wy t5o 7 pt� id5v+lie �U 0op�;ns _8 =->
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
L
ayer
I I ::::]
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:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dai Cow
—�
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Rf tat TnA Y-6fei/ - - a , r
KYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If ves, notify DW R) ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ N E
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?
❑ Yes No
Yes No
❑ Yes No
NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: � - j • Date of Inspection: I .
Waste Collection & Treatment
-j
Kj
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
'IVI 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: WEIL �
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard 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 DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
14 Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
)VIYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. Yes ❑- No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): �j 5
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
RC,
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? MYes A 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? T'
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?5UfV1u5
❑ Yes
;R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
'PRNE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
,5Q NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists [:)Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement'? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
_�a NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather
Code
❑ Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ 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

Facili Number: q I - i'j Date of Inspection: "j
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste ap tion 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 provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? if yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ No ❑ NA NE
❑ No NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
( NE
❑ Yes .Dq No ❑ NA ❑ NE
NYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
YV
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 V3 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? tX
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).
I1 (i'V i d�ri 11q �IOWU U i.V__5 (�e..e i " ,"_Lj
��asp Sn� S f t Ace, �t v e p p-,- � a% •v y
e on 9
srroujd �e_V-&mavccj .
GVo' G(F-- CoA 3t fi 6✓1 0-� zM OXA 11 Cal pt t]� `U� t V i� � ,J��c,i? C�
eQ FyL6 ay-d J� avla-►' S-1,A�tv5 9 t`' t"T-a r i&w�puyld c� -h7� ��etia t I {l'to�re ,ey1�1�(•
i WcWl r e tnG�—tc� �U i-,7c fir, t fc ��i--�u 11C� - :y-��S f:5 k c_l -h � t;,� pult/t,t) n
� !oti'��v � t i -� ?er d;rt to lb �P fi[
;r U
jp�n}5 U► i') " (JUvV1 bus _h �� r _y
r(o C� -VI-% Y(2,16YUI--i oY 50" C, (, ►tp ;� Jos
u MA- al'1'3 ��� fish vV �+' �a�-00
YOyo 1,A5�X' `NGl-�1� C ,1 ���1
YDv h eve Y 4 U
VIV.
r*•� �(x7nd ,�,icr� ov�
nG��c�- CAoWn
�� �rvv�I to N��- � n s Y`�`• � � cLr �
n f)b rid�a Cc� . Cb�l ftii�� I� b�!7
- v\IWN�; '5+a+US'' � � �v4 O t G
Reviewer/inspector Name: CPhone: �� � 6 �-1
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: / Date: I
Page 3 of 3 21412015

Division of Water Resourc
Facility Number ©- j Division of Soil and Water Conservation �q
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1 - 1 Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: l'l"OYr� Region: J V
Farm Name: V4h I f rvcby l 1 A f r! Owner Email:
Owner Name: j p� �S Phone:
Mailing Address: Y)a j��(l+1t OW- �_d CX_ywa:) ,�Umyl/ i— f4G lo-H
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: U A4Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: �5
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: Longitude:
.� 7 US -7 US 1�jD 7 L 00 �eA clSVi 1I �, R a =7U WU�1�-i nS Yz-c
7 Ct- V�V►v -c C.ed ar
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
Design Current
Non -La
Pullets
Turkey Poults
Other
ca
Discharzes and Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify 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
U
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes�q P
No ❑ NANE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes [� No
❑ Yes iA No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3
21412014 Continued

[Facility Number: q jDate of inspection;_ 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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 1 A)N4CP
Spillway?:�
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed freeboard (in): +�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes jj� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) T`
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes �(f No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan? p-`
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 ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes IP 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
S
12, Crop Type(s): r* u'M Sn a 4 i c, m_t n , S n (-\ n G DCOS
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
W 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
90%
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NA NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
LP
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below�o t $
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Waste Analysis
Waste Application Weekly Freeboard Kn
�V
❑ asie_'1=r
ts€ers
Weather Code
Rainfall � Stocking Crop Yield ] Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
I`
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
T23. No
[ANA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412014 Continued

Facil ity Number: L41 jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste app Vition 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 K NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. Lfq
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
[—]Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
.f�q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes IM No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Yq
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA j NE
❑ Yes `A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
[R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
[ } No
O
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes
rp 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).
o� +SCh�r�e ��vJ lnch5 S0?9e 6 �M41:n cav�n6wy' po-f\�4 .
l e�35 be- L 4 d'G�. 'VJ&M csln C��11 i n
�C�`� ,rzn-,\.0v e-
a
$U ���, � -�-� �. re�a� - ►� srsi ti c t— Y , C1t o_r 5 h �.rrsu*� m Ckja rs
5 o Cc"n tee- IQP-+kX
6 ?u2c1 v is es tza \NU P remove kc�r.� no loy-% I��SL.u-1
?AO Nf ';Mat n0 ts)
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
�D�"Cr z � ��15�i1 G���nn hr�r��,
I�`.CG1 ice' VCX Lev
�l Date: (Qj
21412014

Division of Water Resource
Facility Number - 0 Division of Soil and Water aservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: aCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: i Arrival Time: =0VTVj Departure Time: _ i Countv: 1L 1p Region: U j�'�,"
Farm Name: &3 V\qE L67p jZ cyl4_* j Owner Email: "KMC 40 Ay L- C-"-
Owner Name:
,EFIF
Phone:
Mailing Address:
�v��jGJ
W K vTe GG-v k C-0
UO�sLr+ yyis )J G
Physical Address: p rr
Facility Contact: Noy RNN vp 9 ,—\p5 Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: S
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
[_4LLayer
Non -Layer
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
l . 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?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow p
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
[] Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: a 6
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: �P�� L.O W C9
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
1\ 'rt•
Observed Freeboard (in): aj �c 9
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes EjNo ❑ 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 0 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'? 0Yes ❑ 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
rg� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
CgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
Ej 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): 60?_6tUr.# C09413 <.kLA_6_E
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
" No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
21 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below-.
IKYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
�'on a+- Waste Analysis y
srers
e e
-Rarttfall itr �� ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
�§ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste4aption equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes Ej No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes 0 No
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 M No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes � No
Other issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ NA ❑ NE
g NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes lMI I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes gNo DNA ONE
❑ Yes rLV8jj No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes &� No
❑ Yes rR No
❑ Yes � No
[] NA ❑ N E
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
SCkL Vt5 F-vT's
*�WCX) ANOi)Xw w.U�P -,-o tNc,L;(36 'IPA.CT -?oGt _r\E(,04 A5 WC-LL 1�5,
GnEck �,}G�P� Nu_ loth UAsle �Lsl� arc ALL aol� Y6nR �.
-s7 -SctA lin&k _ l �
.� �!ti►�kYS�S >J�� � �kcas �
1? ftOU i S �� '�.�YQa!►crlP
kok C-LiDs6q -10 5Ptw-wA'� T
L-5p kkIkI %
55Q 1111J tG
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur
Page 3 of 3
N= �tL \\t11000 apil
LSQ t\l11 i(,. iv� 1,�I 1bIIascf {rki
Phone: 336 - 4 --LM3
Date: ' k G C G
21412015

to ivision of Water Resource
Facility Number - © 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation A q
Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: I Cf Arrival Time: QSQ Departure Time: QQ County L2
..rrr Region:
Farm Name: l 'ti if Owner Email: na Q
Owner Name: ��S _ Phone:
Mailing Address: D dZ S W U} l�Q-G�� K •t �jrow n Sum wi i i NC 1Y
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
kW (f1 V\ Ir\ k6,0 tL I K-5 Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
W
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
-4o A to L5 a� , � can N� Rw� iS-o 4 �- Slltle>
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.
L
ayer
Layers
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:
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
06
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes Q� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [—]No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [� No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
L3
Page I of 3
21412014 Continued

Facili Number: jDate of Ins ection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 14 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? [:]Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
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.) 0
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes %No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ``TT77TT❑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 � x� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? 7"
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ,8fNo ❑ 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): V
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes [2j No [] NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes 1� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes [:]No 9 NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes 6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes TeN o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 0 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. D es e ing neeVip rovement? if yes, check t riate box belo ayes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ NE
ekly Freeboard Waste Ana sis Soil Analysis ers [1]'Weather Code
❑ Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections D4 ge-Sttrvey
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 4 NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: IV
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [�fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No 1XNA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
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.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes
U ] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]Yes Ej No
❑ Yes No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes JR/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes ,2!�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 drawines of facilitv to better explain situations (use additional Daees as necessarv).
Leab)airy ? Nav\eab;�r�a o�s Freshu ��r Pond t,�a�2-c ti"e. 6{ow,
Pond has no C&ktV '1- 1&5 d
oZ 1 Sbi '�5� i n o2 . 1. Due-a8c, r\ tv, a�t�- aolq v2�� � .h a r,,, No wQ ssv
a i n o 1-7 4A 5 A P
D
�oti� rehnov� �'ro+l+rt 5P'�II of 1aiue4�to5 P ? re.p°cOrrec ?s fires
J.oU-),e r r� Se:-�- 7 es mckj Vic--ve— pu5t-iJ
ReviewerlInspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: ­' (a — 9 fly �9
Date: 0{ 1 0 ;_0 15-
21412014

0
� .1
SBerry Loose Ends
September 2014
AFO Follow -Ups
Davie County
30-10, Deerview Jersey
- WUP needs updating; personalized spreadsheet for waste application needs
revision/correcting
- Was to visit September 2014 during land application event
Guilford County
41-13, White Cedar Dairy
- Leachate (or waste) entering drainage ditch (ref., photos on G: Drive)
Lower Pond: Spillway not re -graded completely (soil to be removed) by March 2015;
Freeboard marker is listing, needs to be reset by January 2015;
Large ruts on embankment (from skid steer) to be repaired by March
2015
- Waste application equipment to be calibrated by January 2015
- Main farm roads need re-grading/gravel
- Soil analysis to be completed by October 31, 2014, some fields need lime
- Acreage in WUP to be corrected by M. Langley
41-01, R. Dale Holt
Pigs restocked; lagoon closure?
- Application not received (as of 9/3/14)
Randolph County
76-59, Coltrane Dairy
- Freeboard marker to be reset by November 1, 2014
Stokes County
85-09, Shorehill Farm
- Updated WUP? (Sept 2014)
Page 3 of 3

V Division of Water Resoure
Facility Number O Division of Sail and Water
O Other Agency
on
Type of Visit: d Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review p Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: G) Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral p Emergency O Other O Denied Access
I Zp
Date of Visit: (iQ 0511 Arrival Time: 2'.DD Departure Time: ''�. S� County:Qrj1,
f Region:
Farm Name: �,1-p; \,Q dew/ 1YkA Owner Email: Me% %o k-4 0t0 � • Gp 14^
Owner Name: 1 Q jpVltraD <,%V1 C Phone:
i Mailing Address: 2.SS;- LkAl-"J"'., ,
Physical Address:
Su,,,1,�t Nc Z _Iq
Facility Contact: �� � k%, S Title: (/ h air Phone:�MIM) 33k'lnr,,Ci . A 7�
j-y �t_
Onsite Representative: �/1/yj yVk b 0V-1V1S Integrator: �"
I �
Certified Operator: �� f},.Qktyt 5 Certification Number:
i
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
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Certification Number:
Latitude:
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turke s
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharues and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? '
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field 0 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)?
Longitude:
Design Current
�attle Capacity Pop.
./
Dairy Cow
(,[
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑rJ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [g No ❑ NA ❑�E
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [2 NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) '[jjfYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ICE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 0 NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: 14 L - 1 3 I Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment —4 1 mow
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes Eg No
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑NNA ❑NE
QrNA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 'j Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?. f y
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): +G - N
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes Q�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 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?
/
0Yes
❑ 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?
Y/
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
Q'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
Q No
❑ NA .
❑ NE
15, Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
Q/o
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
WN o
❑ 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
D4
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
QOrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
Q0,No
[DNA
❑ 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
Q�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections []Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspecti;%,
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
N
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
QN(o 'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

� ., s ..:1 .. ._ .. ..�r:r:�r ''t-•-.f` � - , 1.'�. ,. .. w...r-..., r.: ..... ..�... -� � .-.r--��. _ „n,-.--.,A�,.�,..�r..,.... w.,n -tti� ..
Facili Number: Lk j jDate of Inspection: Oq, = ?
1
R 24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? I Yes ❑ No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes 2"No
the appropriate box(es) below.
11
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28.1bid 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.
34. 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 dNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes dNo
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes gNo
❑ YesOF
No
❑ Yes E No
dyes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
O'/NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
r' AP�itr �a- V4 rec.c1 lCGl ok^ &1 31 14 saw,1 ✓1d. Is(&,:�+1� tC)
— So; WAIJt1'S +C) Inc 6&-1e& cj I
by n 31rq �-�1� s S%�s
1 1
8.13 ") 4.-Ov 17s +
V r `
do_144"k- so-.71 wa�t q (I , II- ��
c�-os
44,
It& 4,,,- �, 4.,
o�%,�H.C�^ .
f � rrjr��l�,..v�„f3 (�t✓aN� Il �•t � �Vdec' i�`�-c.P�..71ZJs
al%k ;W'� 9�kl_l 1S11Wy+0 6 rq4'r'J �4rcL 2o\51
vf�kw r " 3A.-'te 20J 4�-
' IAA
f Jo ! C� q ! v �` � � ��� � � dam. pbl� W� Per.. ross,h/�
�j ()S �- kn-" f,7 6 I qA rXI I ti �rN i�. W�o,+Uu! /.4,� � " ��► f 1
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:3 (0.7-4 - Soco
Date: 09 lbs I I LA
1 1
21412011

U Division of Water Quality
Facility Number y - 3 O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency Z
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation p Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: &Routine () Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: ! Z ii Arrival Time: Departure Time: '� County: ,�� tv�� Region: JSk.C>
Farm Name: W, J 4 c4jcw Owner Email: i'1'la �; �'-} � do� .c:.c,,,s ,
Owner Name: J4 �� CTbpiC s Phone:
Mailing Address: bL SS Lj tr0,-'vN G z -7 2- i`f
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ���� ��C+r�S Title: Dtr+ Phone: (VA) 4,0 331
Onsite Representative: Oato 4y,n Integrator:
Certified Operator: JCertification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
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
Latitude:
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity POD.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Longitude:
Design Current
tattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
&DO
Dairy Calf
S�
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
�c
S
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes 4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No [�] NA ❑ NE
[� Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
dYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page l of 3 21412011 Continued

Facilit Number: LA i - 13 10Date of Inspection: Z
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure,I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: v {'q ['O' G
Spillway?: y-
i i
Designed Freeboard (in): 2 .'� Z -2 - M c ;�
Observed Freeboard (in): -J % I
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 0No ❑ 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? E f 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 E�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Ap lication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[ (No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
0 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
d No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
E� NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
E No
[] NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
ZN o
❑ 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[f]
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 El Checklists ❑ Design [::]Maps [:]Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall []Stocking [:]Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes o (DNA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 21412011 Continued

r Facility Number: 9i- • Date of inspection: Willi,
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 2/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No E✓ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes [�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes [�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? if yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
E�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
dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
es
[�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
V es
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
oM WUP? ► -j" (' 11 2oi a �yYF.�(,� gU4�r .J
.�
SC%�4a �/+�L"_ Y lr^S,YJ✓..IiVN� I le^w SJ��M`� 1 C" J JA4 1
3- 410
J� [
Cj-,,vytp�2✓ if ve,5
�uw � l
�-,',ti {�c, � �"�^� hus ���� ���w--i' al� lr��'-�iro-�c�' ?`�� �+u.:1 ��. �t�,,�vn . �.w��'r�w-c-� 4b
jv S' Ck cvy Ag"
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 336. -16uU
Date: i Z ill 13
21412011

E Division of Water Quality
j] Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 410013 Facility Status: ACtive Permit: AWC410013 .— ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Guilford _ Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 08/13/2013 Entry Time: 02:30 PM Exit Time: 05:00 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Whitecedr Dairy Owner Email: mahok4Gaol.com
Owner: Jefferso -T__Hppkins Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 8255 White Cedar Rd Browns Summit NC 272149544
Physical Address: 8255 White C2dar Rd Browns Summit NC 27214
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36°14'24" Longitude: 79°3 -1 "
From WSRO: NC Hwy 150 east. Cross US Hwy 29 and turn left onto Old Reidsville Rd. Right onto hopkins Rd. Left onto Whitecedar
Rd.
Question Areas:
Certified Operator: Jefferson T Hopkins Operator Certification Number: 22117
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
24 hour contact name Jeff Hopkins
Title Phone
Phone:
On -site representative Jeff Hopkins Phone:
Primary Inspector: Stephen Berry Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
o blk
T #5
��J,l u,
Date:
Ion �CHd
MI��c
NtLG� (IurP) ��vPiY� I Lc 1
Kkf S . i' S � v,4 o f
0r %s Jb S 10�rr^ j 1M+clb�"P �� U ukv, Page: 1

Permit: AWC410013 Owner - Facility: Jefferson T Hopkins
Facility Number: 410013
Inspection Date: 08/13/2013 Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Type
Identifier
Vaste Pond LOWER
Vaste Pond UPPER
Designed Observed
Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
/U490
-ON S,k6t7f G�' ILL�'.a a✓�! A%7l/�' J �-1 oc✓ .�o I
���lo —. b ld �S� ��su�/»-,•L4�� ���� �w� 11 ` �v �yv��/ �' d�
i 3
V.
yih
- t4A�
V1n ''Vt't' `ti"y 5.Jv.G� �,`✓' Iru Ili^
(`� 7j
no TtG,+v Ody o �1-sVL.
iV i'VjolA� Cn�y1Q� =w �Lr�t1rC �l�h �as�slrt, .
�r �Aff ret15- 7
V }{Aim J I'
j
vlk
Page: 2 r

Division of Water Quality `
Facility Number �LJ - O Division of Soil and Water bervation 1 %}
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection O Operation Review p Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Xt Routine O Complaint O Follow-up Q Referral Q Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Q(� Departure Time: County: jj V j f0j[ Region: LOS
Farm Name: a0.{I` ru O er Email:b
'L C�
Owner Name: Jy f'tOQ �L t r1 Phone: 0. @ ao l . co m
Mailing Address: eA o Y- l -A • G LQ n Su on
Physical Address: -e— hA
-3 -3 !
Facility Contact: _ { Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: K&—t i nnh Op ri R S Integrator:
Certified Operator: 7e p l yl^S Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 3 (L y a q Longitude: 3$ j
1US
Nn
P-
Gn5 t rl
toG
Hto�_( j sQ,
PA
1. ter+ of"+o
I
l
t, h+
o n f b 0
l ns
, Le
f- Gn +o ct_�1 e_ e_t�6
r,
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 I I A
Non -La er
Non-L,
Pullets
Other
Poults
Design Current
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Cow
in
_�,Dairy
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Daily
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
1� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
Yes
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection: O 1
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste apprMation 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 jjj`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 Mf No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes D�'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 CX"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, aver -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes _Ea-1No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes (p" No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
1G),5orjh,m o-Ai°d �o wuP? not &s,Qh S-FQ
rq
a o t
LI e
4 r
�' C �� �
3- z T ory
r7hW/ao11 tt 1cL ,err - 1-1•3 -3 nrj �.
Reviewer/Inspector M
Reviewer/Inspector Si
Phone: _? 7 /— S ,
Date: Hf � I g o "
2/4/20
i iR i -4 t i e -1 i 1 7

Facili Number: 11 - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment 4
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
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: V I L� 2—
apillway?:
Designel Freeboard (in):
'bserved Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes 12-N' o
❑ Yes No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ 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 ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes [� No
%
.D 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 �o
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
,T_
❑ Yes � l�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): CMa A) A—A10 . IaA&JJ O7l d ( AP q-, i DL,-,
13. Soil Types}: t/
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 r - �" ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design [:]Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑ Yes ,�No
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes "'77K N"' o
❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need i rovement? o es ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
'a
�Applicat' Weekly Freeboard [i� aste Analysis Soil Analysi aste Transfers Weather Code
ll Stockin �op Yield 620 Minute Inspections onthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
Ao 01
iEe facility fail to instal and maintain a rain gauge? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑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 21412011 Continued

: 47E Division of Water Quality Nov — d'O l O
Facility Number _ 5:jDivision of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit I Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit (fit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
M
Date of Visit: r ' �Arrival Time: �,,d Departure Time: � p� �t� County: (oui l to —r %Region: �)t�
�l �' Nat f e-e. Jay- .IJC.(i r y Owner Email: r � P � 7 L% �Q� o own -
Farm
Name:
Owner Name: Ve ►`itD �i l �� Phone: +]-770-144)
Mailing Address: 12 5._ ')In e ceelm - R4 , P2E' W
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �3 �C�(tll i1 Title: Phone 'C l� r 3 if .3
Onsite Representative: Integrator..
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Sack -up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: EEO ® Longitude: � u
S- 1�a-tu 0 hor+in Eas on W y /S-O . Leif Oil +C7
011to klb14;nS lad- be on (.c.)e_cejV
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
'I ❑ La er
❑ Non -La er
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
In DO3
Dairy Calf
❑
Daia Heifer
❑
Da Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
Discharces & 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)?
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?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
.�❑_,/Yes 5No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
' ` 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection 76U
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
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
1 I -
Observed Freeboard (in):
-tap of 0d stoh5.Aree thereanyimmaq��atte integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) ❑Yes No El NA El NE
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?
❑ 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? ❑ Yes *No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require Yes ❑ No [INA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes *No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
1 1. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 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
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
1� Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No
XON
❑ NA
ElNE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
r
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
�, �' a 1 /28/04 Continued
Page 2 °l %� S P C.[)Q ', R l�� 1 VYI fi �Q �� r'V �'� —01�`'

i
Facility Number: q 1— I*of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
EAS
'C
is
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design [I maps El Other
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes {�] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
21. Doerecord keeping need improvement? es, Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Ww-aste Application �eekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Sail An lysis Ltd Waste Transfers
B? ainfall 1� stocking ❑ Crop Yield t20 Minute Inspections Monthly and V Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ldNA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No C4 NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
XYes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No [�(NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
:No ❑ NA
El NE
El Yes
[ 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?
i,01
PYes
!rim
tQNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
06No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
$ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes
No
[:3 NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
r No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawing—Spp� L InQ �-CJ r i o d
0co c� � � G� �o (o . N c ral*i oh �- � 300 --
S Fww % i t w r. + L ei`l� , 51S h q- Aai-e- . a ��-- n
a aoo q soc -test r-es o [f 5c _.ur (e f 1- o lA-)o s 1�
1
b r = b a SSoGG t,J/ r_ S u J fSr 40LO �! ef'.
� b '� � 2`t. ���`�-��, `_ � YL � C--�-- �1 �-�C.� YES t-�- •
5Prc�.+r Ca-i'c�hv- l b
C v y 04 -
CA.-k c�A - aOl D
. b c U-)qStf
M
II 121f 8%
Page 3 of 3 ; 0 G � roC1 C li�0_6 ,

Facility Number
.. s ��:r F •. , "fir �;�a+, y
J
ivision of',ater Quality +
O Division of.Soil and Water;Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit Com - ce Inspection O Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:i,3j4 Arrival Time: ` Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: 't1 e 66,+J /.Ey ,� Owner Email:
�z /���
Owner Name: t. "1 S Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:~
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o = 4 = Longitude: [� ° = s = [,
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish ❑ La er
❑ Wean to Feeder ID Non -Layer
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
.. s ��:r F •. , "fir �;�a+, y
J
ivision of',ater Quality +
O Division of.Soil and Water;Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit Com - ce Inspection O Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:i,3j4 Arrival Time: ` Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: 't1 e 66,+J /.Ey ,� Owner Email:
�z /���
Owner Name: t. "1 S Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:~
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o = 4 = Longitude: [� ° = s = [,
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish ❑ La er
❑ Wean to Feeder ID Non -Layer
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
urke Poults
Fy
Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Application Field Other
51 Esc
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
:f
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Da Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
NumberofStructures,.
D Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
,S'.cc. h d 4-,gj-
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?
❑ Yes ❑'No�DNA
A El
El Yes o ❑ NE
dYes 61i �[E:j NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �N. KA ❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [2rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

f
Facility Number: — • Date of inspection Z L •
Vast�Col� 8n & Treatment
/ 4. is stowage capacity {structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall} less than adequate? El Yes o A ❑ NE
If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? El Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
�Identifer:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 2 q
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [2 0 A ❑ 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 ElNE
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?
El Yes
1dNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
Yes
❑ No A
❑ 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
El Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
o ❑ Ate❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
i. Is there evidence of incorrect 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 i 0 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) ±fin 1-,4-/ n S i 1—n re_f :,,e -
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
E5 o `NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
o ❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
Flo -NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
o l_.I❑ 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):
11f� ► `i phr1 z_ f y
Z 0�-�—
�v�ti�� E J�
t Z!� `p o �t � N
i� m444er -� �/ I #IoA be- sxe m
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: —75
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ,5 Date: Z 2 0
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — *of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No A ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes t o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
9res ❑ No NAAE
25.
Did the facili fail to conduct a slud a surve as re uired b the ermit?
facility g Y q Y P
❑ Yes
�[:]
❑ No NA
ONE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
Yes
,�
A
{d'No>1:1
El NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
El
o NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Q<o ❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to property 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
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
AL
k S + c''"_ 0 C" ' f Two o
-
-Fb
p+ L� e Y Q C� n -E- S� � w� v l✓ +� i�
' (N�.. 4 �, ti� ► c1 n o -� ,'�-r.�l r� my
9 Q-Cd P^M e- k, 4 Gcrrl +A C 4-7 3 L-0 r.14-1I 5wC n f
�.D In�� E�'rr T' (/�13d�✓
J7
n �,- �( s'�.. r � c � 4✓44 acr-,,-,.
6
12/28/04

0� VA-rr�
Incident Report
G
7
Report Number:
201001655 N� l (� _ _ � OC
Incident Type: Non -Compliance Reporting
On -Site Contact:
Category: APS - Animal
First/Mid/Last Name:
Incident Started: 02/08/2010
Company Name:
County: Guilford
Phone:
City: Browns Summit
Pager/Mobile Phone: 1
Farm #: 041-0013
Responsible Parry:
Reported By:
Owner:
First/Mid/Last Name:
Permit;—) AWC410013
Company Name:
Faciiity: Whitecedar Dairy
Address:
First Name: Jefferson
Middle Name: T
City/State/Zip:
Last Name: Hopkins
Phone:
Address 8255 White Cedar Rd
Pager/Mobile Phone: 1
City/State/Zip: Browns Summit NC 2721495
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: Whitecedar Road
Address:
City/State/Zip
Report Created 05/14/10 01:14 PM Page 1

Cause/Observation:
Action Taken:
Incident Questions:
Directions:
Comments:
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
Water Supply Wells within 1500ft
Access to Farm
Structure Questions
Unknown
■ Animal Population
Conveyance:
Estimated Number of fish?
(Above Ground or Under Ground)
Groundwater Impacted : Unknown
E Spray Availability
Report Created 05/14/10 01:14 PM Page 2

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 Plan Due Date
Waste Pond LOWER 8.00
Waste Pond UPPER 8.00
❑ 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 I I NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Plan Recieved Date Level OK Date
Event Type Event Date Due Date Comment
Incident closed
Requested Additional Information
Report Received
Referred to Regional Office - Primary Contact
Report Entered 2010-05-11 02:03:24
Incident Start 2010-02-08 08:00:00
Report Created 05/14/10 01:14 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 Rosehrock
Phone:
DatelTime: 2010-05-11 02:03:24 PM
Referred Via:
Did DWO request an additional written report?
If yes, What additional information is needed?
Report Created 05/14/10 01:14 PM Page 4

4
Facility Namber
RR Division of Water Qualitt-
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation �Q
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit
C mpliance Inspection
0Operation Review Structure Evaluation
Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
Routine O Complaint
O Follow up () Referral O Emergency
O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: U County: 0VCord— Region:
Farm Name: Owner Clt�lr �Clr U Owner Email:
Owner Name:P_ ns Phone:
Mailing Address: S 02 7 ZILI
Physical Address: �-_)A r&P ,I
Facility Contact: �� rl�1iS Title: Phone No: 3 3 3
Onsite Representative: �_Integrator:
Certified Operator: �e ®�'�l! >a� Operator Certification Number: 1
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ®e ®L aZ Longitude: M o ®� I,
T -4o e45t bo LG 4 a9 nor4ij �Qsf on qnrl i iSb . Le "� or-0 of
Rei&v tIIE? PA - Le--C+ oni6 tohi fe- ce ax
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
II IE]Non-Layei
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Lavers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey 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
&oO
$
Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: E a 1a`
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 dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Yes ❑No ❑NA ❑NE
II �� 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: `i — 1 •j Date of Inspection il0
' 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: Lk4U Lo�5 P IAWL't
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(iel large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
4KO
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
t/No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window
Winndoow ❑Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) by AJ[ ..d a .A � 4.,vr ckek)-
13. Soil type(s) r
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
- ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. ,
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
3 LnoMeA bQ��e.r near- e-re-e-IC? j; [�e lecLe.Y�c�fe ?
_I .,►v fiA .4 .. , n A. .►�_-
Review rilnspector Name r f o Phone: , 7
Re vie er[[/inspector Signature Date:
I2128104 Continued

T
Facility Number: — 1 Date of Inspection
Re uired Records &Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropirate box. ❑ 'A1UP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Does ecord keeping neeit
ovement. I es o ❑ NA ❑ NE
L� Waste ApplicFtiocking
n ekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis Waste Transfers
Rainfall L`i'Crop Yield ❑ onthly and 1 "Rain Inspections Weather Code
No
No
❑Y
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
VN 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
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
8 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
XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
1 - a�•1 �.= �.� 93 = 44
— 1 .I
v — 12/28/04
�I 9 0 7233 -- 0d d � -- � 1

i
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 410013 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC410013 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comolianoe Inspection_ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Guilford Region: Winston-Sale
Date of Visit: 03102/2QQ7:_^ Entry Time: 10:10 AM _ Exit Time: 12:00 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Whitecedar Dairy Owner Email:
Mailing Address: 8255 White Cedar Rd Browns Summit NC 272149544
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant - Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36°14'24" Longitude: 79°38'18"
From WSRO: NC Hwy 150 east. Cross US Hwy 29 and turn left onto Old Reidsville Rd. Right onto hopkins Rd. Left onto Whitecedar
Rd.
Question Areas:
Discharges 8 Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Jefferson T Hopkins Operator Certification Number: 22117
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Jeff Hopkins Phone:
24 hour contact name Jeff Hopkins Phone:
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Melissa Rosebrock Phone:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Date:
Page: 1
,.

� s
Permit: AWC410013 Owner- Facility: Jefferson T Hopkins Facility Number: 410013
Inspection Date: 03/02/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
***3. Are getting wash of sediment and waste from cow lot. MUST keep cattle out of wooded area/buffer. Wire fence (w/ yellow tape) is
not working well. MUST also exclude waste/sedimentlsil age leachate from ditches at end of silos. Has gotten worse. "Fresh water"
from pond would most likely violate DO, pH, turbidity, and/or fecal limits.
9. Suggest repairing gutters on NW side of barn. Getting excess water into WSP.
9. Berm on the back of the barn appears to be containing solids. Thanks for efforts.
14. & 28. Per operator, tech specialist is working on update to WUP to include sorghum as a receiving crop. New fields are to be
added as well.
21. November 2006 application records checked and are ok. All small grain records are up to date and complete also. Looks goodl
21. Don't forget to record small grain, corn, and sorghum yields this year.
21. 2006 soil test results are ok.
24. Calibration records are ok.
2T PLAT has not been completed for the permit yet. Tech specialist is working on it.
33. Need to re -check tree buffer area and ditch and pond near silos.
Page: 2

Permit: AWC410013 Owner -Facility: Jefferson Hopkins Facility Number:410013
Inspection Date: 03/02/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle -Milk Cow 400 400
Total Design Capacity: 400
Total SSLW: 560,OOC
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Waste Pond LOWER 42.00
Waste Pond UPPER 35.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWC410013 Owner- Facility: Jefferson T Hopkins Facility Number: 410013
inspection Date: 03/02/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges $ Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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?
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./ 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?
❑
■
❑
❑
S. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
■
❑
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10, Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC410013 Owner - Facility: Jefferson T Hopkins
Facility Number: 410013
Inspection Date: 03/02/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
Q
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Corn (Grain)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
■ Q Q Q
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? Q ■ ❑ ❑
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?
Q ■ ❑ Q
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWC410013 Owner - Facility: Jefferson T Hopkins
Facility Number:
410013
Inspection Date: 03/02/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Docttrnents
Yes
No
NA NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES
only)? ❑
■
❑ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑ ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■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?
■
V..
❑
Wn
❑ ❑
AIA AIC
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30, At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 6

i
Permit: AWC410013 Owner - Facility: Jefferson T Hopkins Facility Number: 410013
Inspection Date: 03/02/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? Q ■ Q ❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on -site representative? ❑ 0 Q
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ ■ Q
Page: 7

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number Division of Soil and Water Conservation 2= 0 Other Agency 10 P(M
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ()(Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
r ' ] County: � V i f rY Region: OP-0
Date of Visit: � Arrival Time: � Departure Time: � �'$
Farm Name: Q C e I r Owner Email:
v
Owner Name: �C �Phone: % SO — 1 � 0 0
Mailing Address: ed_lO V-VSJl{ffl I,i�Y1e r
mc-
Physical Address: C
Facility Contact: �/ -- �� � l h.) Title: Phone No: 3 3 �)
Onsite Representative: —1e� t/� _ Integrator:
Certified Operator: e� fv �� `hl h � Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
1 Sb eA5{ I ct--o 55 us l
cxn-6 ql-py;I n5 M .
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Latitude: EEO
�]
,� a9 LET onfa
Back-up Certification Number:
Longitude:
0 el SV L e-
C ec ox3 4.
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
F
La er
Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullcts
❑ 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)
Cattle
III
c I I--l-�
Design Current
Capacity Population
99 Dairy Cow
El Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
4-tw
❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA Cl NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes $No ❑ NA ❑ NE
0 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 6
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes El No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure i Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: L
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) �(No
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ❑ NA ElNE
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 TT 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? 7
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes b,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintcnancelimprovement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground r ❑ 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 El No
El NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes �J No
❑ NA
❑ NE
IT Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
�9'Sorltn i,.3 UP;-- Gt '' C Phi Ol l IS"[ U�Of �y f ¢ Ofi { Q 1� �d W V I- o
` J
Fat./ cc -non re Cord ".e —®k . 0 S MA
rouv1 1-e-c_0 vas �0 d +e- r1 . en 00
+� a �tQ tom. t� Ks �oca
Reviewer/Inspector IVame a Phone: V7 a
Reviewerllnspector Signature At Date: 3
r] Su D rep tr,� M 11/28/04 Continued
cpeWA q °e-�s Go 'L n Los PC

Facility Number: -- 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 ❑ DesignMaps 1 ❑ p ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need impr ement? .._Y F� ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
tinfiall
o Application ee ly, Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil ��AnaZysis Waste Transfers
❑ Stocking Crop Yield ly and V Rain Inspections �ZeatherCode
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
0No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
�NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
XrNA
❑ 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?
iK
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ 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?
ElYes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
0Yes
El No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
1 -berm cm k�ac-t�- inn ? peau S to � �.t�or
al aoa(a So+Is ?�/� 7
0 COI.t I br :wo
a ! • UOo5fe- 5&v4 le 4f h 64 -61
S �o
r-7
4), Lot,� - +S' i� 3 so I'Ias - '7 �
IN o� co kt& for rw P II►'11`�- e }-� eoh S pec ta� t - -�t9 �o vu.� l�-�e
4- P onJ n eaf - 5 ((off' p ri o v- L 5S U�
3 C9E vl w as h off' Sed t vv1 -t-�-St� Crory►
c�'-t re, F arpwq bvAw-jr - LO' (I7C5 [uz) -[ (OE28 r fl�
wOr-ro MUM- ao QLkud2 754�L ©$s 1
Ibs

E Division of Water Quality
n Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 410013 Facility Status: Active Permit: AW0410013 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection _ Inactive or Closed Date.
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Guilford _ Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 08/21/2006 Entry Time: 10:00 AM Exit Time: 12:00 PM
Farm Name: Whitecedar Dsairy
Owner: Jefferson T Hopkins
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 8255 White -Cedar Rd Browns Summit_NC 272149544
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 6°1 4" Longitude: 79°38'18"
From WSRO: NC Hwy 150 east. Cross US Hwy 29 and turn left onto Old Reidsville Rd. Right onto hopkins Rd. Left onto Whitecedar
Rd.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Jefferson T Hopkins Operator Certification Number: 22117
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Jeff Hopkins Phone:
24 hour contact name Jeff Hopkins Phone:
Primary Inspector: lissa Rosebrock Phone: —q
Inspector Signature:j��TV7Date: l� °� ao
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

•
0
Permit: AWC410013 Owner - Facility: Jefferson T Hopkins Facility Number: 410013
Inspection Date: 08/21/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
3. and 9. Must stop flow of waste from the back of the barn (side nearest creek). There was evidence of waste in the creek that had
washed from the cattle barn and into the creek. Must install a wall or berm (metal, wood, or concrete) to contain solids (feed and
manure) to the lot. Solids appear to be washing downhill due to leaking waterers, misters and/or rain.
18. All waste was applied by pump and haul this year.
21. Don't forget to obtain soil samples by the end of 2006.
21. Waste sample results were about 20 days outside of the 60-day window. There was a waste sample, however, prior to and after
the 60-day window.
21, Don't forget to records small grain yield.
24. Need to complete the calibration of waste application equipment (including Southers) by October 1, 2006.
28, Need to add sorghum to WUP, See tech specialist.
28, T-1000090 F-1 (23.4 acres) received waste this year but this land is not listed in the WUP. Same with T-1001278 F-5 (66.1 acres)
and T-"Benaja" F-three fields (140 acres). Must have these fields added to WUP to document PAN balance.
33. DWO needs to re -check that all wastes have been contained to the lot after barn wall is constructed. See #3, above.
Operator is working with Guilford SWCD to enlarge the lower WSP since owner wants to increase herd size to 600. Construction to
start in September.
818106 waste analyses:
Upper-6.1 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Lower=3.4 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Solids=10.8 lbs. N/ton
Page: 2

•
Permit: AWC410013 Owner - Facility: Jefferson T Hopkins Facility Number. 410013
Inspection Data: 08/21/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason'for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle -Milk Cow 400 375
Total Design Capacity: 400
Total SSLW: 560,000
Waste Structures
Type Identtfier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
aste Pond LOWER 96.00
Waste Pond UPPER 132.00
Page: 3

Permit: AW0410013 Owner - Facility: Jefferson T Hopkins
Facility Number:
410013
Inspection Date: 08/21/2006 Inspection Type. Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges 8 Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
Cl
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a ■
❑
❑
Cl
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./ 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?
Waste ApplLication Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
n
■
❑
❑
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)?
❑■00
n
❑
n
Page: 4

Permit: AWC410013 Owner - Facility: Jefferson T Hopkins
Inspection Date: 08/21/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 410013
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN a 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3
Sorghum, Sudex
(Pasture)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
■
❑
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
1 B. 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
Page: 5

Permit: AWC410013 Owner - Facility: Jefferson T Hopkins
Facility Number: 41 D013
Inspection Date: OM1/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
WUP?
Q
Checklists?
❑
Design?
Q
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
■
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
Q
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
Cl
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
Q
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?
Cl
❑
■
Q
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
■
❑
❑
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
Page: 6

Permit: AWC410013 Owner - Facility: Jefferson T Hopkins
Facility Number: 410013
Inspection Date: OW112006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues
Yes No
NA
NE
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■
❑
❑
Quality representative immediately.
31, Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑ ■
❑
❑
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
13■
❑
❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
■ ❑
❑
Cl
Page: 7

Division. of Water Quality ..
Facility Number O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
- 0 Other Agency
Type of Visit N Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0[ Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ! t Arrival Time: OQ Departure Time: ® County: Region:
Farm Name: �1'11�P_f� )Q Y'\1 Owner Email:
OwnerName: .� Phone: 200
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: J(AA. A ]_ l
Facility Contact: ��� T'T 1� A'I nS Title: Phone No: —L31J
Onsite Representative: ep�Integrator:
Certified Operator: `k, Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: �omn' Lon g itude: o l_ J� j
o�
N L Hk�) N L56 ex*_ C :56 Us NqoY a q y- tee r n-fo 4f sV'1
Ad - P-j 6n-Fo h4pNn s Pd ' LQ4*on �h ifs ceder k'd ' .
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Other
❑ Other I_ --
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges
_& Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ D Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
)(W Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
Iqaka. Was the conveyance man-made?
�k 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)?
oes discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. h re evide a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes �(No
VYes ❑ No
12128104
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
[I NA El NE
Continued

Facility Number: — . Date of InspectionI1 LI�
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes [--]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: Lw w c LoiLLe "
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No [3NA ❑ NE
(ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) 4
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental t reat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require Yes ❑ 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 ElNE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ElFrozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 1bs ❑ 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) 0 *AAA,)i J*h h � V _P an , 4VCALL.JJ ,
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
Yes
Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? Cl Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
o El NA El NE
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):
3 � Nk v 5� �� s`�_ rim V& �
Reviewer/Inspector Name FTVV
_ _ _tea
d i Phone: S
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur
Date:
Page 2 of 3 V V k 1 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — 'Rate of Inspection d �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 compo CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ClYes No [INA ElNE
the appropriate box. ❑p Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Doe record keeping need improvement? �e ,rag.latt bq % bHow. [(Yes - No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste ApWstocking
tion 'e oard ;Z'ste Analysis oil Analysis 02 Waste Transfers
�ainfall Crop Yield ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ElNE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ElYes ❑ No I)eNA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes A 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 ❑ No NIA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? AYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ElNA ElNE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concem? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately ' v
31 _ Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, Freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
(5) 5 p-, 1) 0 0 C L) Vpie'y- Y-44; ne
Cq)be,cm o-* bad tk-->a l I o IP b cur In is-
.0 UP v�
p� - •I Lo•er 1
c,v� t n
V Sal, 0.�
�O
1
Y
0sP t6 IV
0 0 00 9 o F- 4M W_AL� - 4%� -,b 77—
Page 3 of 3 ( iJ0 Up m a 3 12128104
,0 T— I) 1 a - g F-S V (o , t AT 13& 1 yo P, Vl,i h,rGe.)

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 41 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC41-0 13 _ ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine - _ _ County: Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 05/26/2005 Entry Time: 0 1: 15 PM Exit Time: 03700 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Whitecedar Dairy Owner Email:
Owner: Jefferson T Hookins
Phone: [phone] _
Mailing Address: 8255 White Cedar Rd -Browns Summil_NC 272149544
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Faun:
Latitude: 36°14'24" _ Longitude: 7 °38'18"
From WSRO: NC Hwy 150 east. Cross US Hwy 29 and turn left onto Old Reidsville Rd. Right onto hopkins Rd. Left onto
Whitecedar Rd.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment 0 Waste Application
0 Records and Documents 0 Other Issues
Certified Operator: Jefferson T Hopkins Operator Certification Number: 22117
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Jeff Hopkins Phone:
24 hour contact name Jeff Hopkins Phone:
Primary Inspector: M i sa M Roseb Phone: '336-771-4600
&142Ext.38� �a� lost
Inspector Signature: T\- jh" Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
3. Operator has installed electric fence to keep dairy cows out of the creek. Buffer is about 50-100' wide.
7. Need to repair spillway on upper pond. See tech specialist prior to installing a freshwater pipe or culvert between upper and lower
waste ponds.
9. Continue efforts to repair outside wall of barn to contain feed wastes.
19. Could not locate new current permit. operator to contact DWQ to request copy if needed.
21. 2005 soil test results look ok.
21. Went over new permit requirements with operator.
21. Operator applied solid waste to small grain crop in 2004/2005 and did not have a waste analysis taken within 60 days of
application. He used one dated August 2004 (13.9 lbs. N/1000 gal.) to complete records and PAN balance.
Page: 1

0
Permit: AWC410013 Owner - Facility: Jefferson T Hopkins Facility Number : 410013
Inspection Date: 05/26/2005 Inspection Type. Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle -Milk Cow 400 382
Total Design Capacity: 400
Total SSLW: 560,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Waste Pond LOWER 37.00
_7Waste Pond UPPER 33.00
1
Page: 2

• e
Permit: AWC410013 Owner - Facility: Jefferson T Hopkins Facility Number: 410013
Inspection Date: 05/26/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream_Impgcts Yes No NA NF
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
moo
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■ ❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWO)
❑
M ❑
❑
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
■ ❑
No NA
❑
NE
Waste Cnllectinn. Stnrage & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe erosion,
❑
M ❑
❑
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑
M ❑
❑
closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
0
❑ ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑
M ❑
❑
and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑ ❑
❑
improvement?
Yes
No NA
NE
Waste Application
10, Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Pending?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
Cl
Is PAN > 10%/10 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?
❑
Crop Type 1 Com (Silage)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain'(Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

•
•
Permit: AWC410013 Owner- Facility: Jefferson T Hopkins
Inspection Date: 05/26/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number, 410013
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Crop Type 6
Yes
No
UA
NF
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Sail 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?
❑
E
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
0
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0
❑
❑
1 B. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
0
No
❑
NA
❑
NF
Records and Documents
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
■ ❑
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
WUP?
❑
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)?
❑
❑
M ❑
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?
❑
E
❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
■ ❑
Page: 4

n
u
0
Permit: AWC410013 Owner - Facility: Jefferson T Hopkins
Inspection Date: 05/26/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 410013
Reason for Visit: Routine
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 andlor document and report those mortality
rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Yew No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ E ❑ ❑
Page: 5

! > 3 ..
�4 ° °Division of -Water
1,F
ac111ty Namber rvision of Soil and Water Conser.'vahon
ther Agency u
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
_AODate of Visit: p� Arrival Time: © Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: l In e �.jj' ,1r _ Owner Email:
Owner name: � t �dT 1 lrl 5 � � ,� Phone: (� ,-
Mailing Address: _ � � .e 7 ,� to - C=A C[��-4 Era IOr1TS�Si I �01 � T7i__
P a�al�
Physical Address: __ ___ __
n n t
Facility Contact: t1 Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: y Integrator:
Certified Operator: �l p Operator Crtlt flcdtion Number: W26— 3 30 �J
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [�o Longitude: 7 o �
NO, NW,Y 15`0 EQS j Ll rO55 US 1 aq `!- i}vrn le- 4 nYL+o v 1 f
Ra. P-+. onto Hok'tVIS F10-01. UP artfo wh��ece r:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
II Non -La et
Other
❑ Other I_.. _. ._
Dry Poultry
❑
Layers
❑
Non -Layers
❑
Pullets
❑
Turkeys
❑
Turkey Poults
❑
Other
Discharizes & 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
11 Dairy Cow
El Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non-Dai
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: L11— a Date of Inspection �7a—tomA
I If
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
[-]Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: I )PPO.Ar Lou -)-per
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
(ici large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes No
0
❑ 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 El NA El NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? �Yes❑No El 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 ❑ 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 Drin ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) �%n/}t �1 _ i ffuc _1lt
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
[XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination%❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
77g
i a4'_ Df, 6*��
vI'&' mp
Reviewer/Inspecto Name F _ Phone: Sy
ReviewerlInspector Signature: ate: 11 - � — 3
V 12128104 Continued

Facility \lumber: — Dae Inspection f U
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [_1 NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ElNA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ClWUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Do record keeping nee7week]
rovement? If yes, the the appropriate box below, Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Applica 'on board Waste Analysis 12 Soil Analysis Waste Transfers meta
WRainfall Stocking Crop Yield s 02onthly and 1" Rain Inspections Weather Cod
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment Oc" ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? %0(p r ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No *A ❑ 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 VN A ❑ 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
ONo
❑ 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
INo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
rnJ ao6��ao°r-G�il(e�
W �G,� �n � C�d.�ao • !� li ADS ,s-n D /1��9�p s� /Y, ��. � 00 .

vision of Water.Quality
: vision of.Sail and .Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit Q. Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit OO Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 41 13 Date of Visit: 10/12/2404 Time: 0930
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ..............
. County: G.PjlfQx-d ...............................
Farm Name: V1!hite���iar..f2aitX...................................................................................... V1' t3Q........
Owner Name:J.cjfcr5.Q................................. Dtv.RlCi.[ls......................................... Phone No: G3 (�.lSafi-.7.7.0.Q............................
Mailing Address:S.Wlitii! ceder..ftQ.a .............................. lx�ns.unanait�...ty. ............................ .I.14..............
Facility Contact: R.ff.H9.pJAt1S................................................... Title: ..................................................... I ......... . Phone No: 6.61,33.11CC)........................
Onsite Representative:J&f[.RQpkiu..................... ... Integrator: ................................................................................
Certified Operator:,]gjfvCSQj1..T........................... ROPMELI ........................................... Operator Certification Number: 221.1..7.............................
Location of Farm:
From WSRO: NC Hwy 150 east. Cross US Hwy 29 and turn left onto Old Reidsville Rd. Right onto hopkins Rd. Left onto +
Whitecedar Rd. "V
[3 Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle El Horse Latitude 36 • 14 24 ff Longitude 79 • 38 ' 18 "
Design
Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity
Population Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer I
1
1[:] Dairy
400
363
❑ Feeder to Finish
JE3 Non -Layer I
JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
400
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
560,000
Number of Lagoons
-- ... — . , ., .....
0
1 2
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: ............Upper........... - ......... Lowvr........... .................................... ...................... ............. ......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 53 54
12112103 Continued

Facility [Number: 41-13 � Date of Inspection 10/12/2004
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes % No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes ® No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc > 3000
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ 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 OR No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes [:]No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes ® No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/orany recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ,! E] Field Copy ®Final Notes
3. Need to clean-up the feeding area and apply waste. There is currently no buffer to contain run-off.
3. Getting wash of sediment and manure from sick cow lot. Need to exclude cattle from steep hill. Check in 12 monthes.
3. Area below freshwater pond looks great.
8. Stockpiled manure ok. Must contine to cover, though.
8. Stocktrail looks good.
8. Install wall berm along back of barn to contain waste. Check next visit.
16. Southers does some contract hauling for operator.
3. 2004 soil test results look good.
3. Records in general look real good.
8/31/04 waste analysis=
upper-8.8 lbs.N/1000 gal.
lower-10.4 lbs. N/1000 gal.
scrape-13.9 lbs. N/ton
Reviewer/Inspector Name- Melijs4 Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector SignatureUlIA 0 1194AA ,
Date:
12112103 1Continuer!

Facility Number: 41-13 V
f Inspectiou 10/12/2004 •
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? N Yes ❑ No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
Oe/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes N No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes N 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
N No
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
N No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
N No
27.
Did Rev iewerAnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
N 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
N No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33.
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
35.
Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After I" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
10
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
12112103 "

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit V Routine Q Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other
❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Tune: R v f
:1 F Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
,Permitted [3 Certified [3 Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name:h1...1,]%.... .... County:..
Owner Name: ,Tef _. _Oop.� n ........... _ _ 'Phone No:
Mailing Address: QSSr
Facility Contact:e_`!........ Title. Phone No•
Onsite Representative:..,,......� � �Q� r 1�__._ _ .. .... Integrator•.
.F�.�'� ._.__ ....._. ._. _. Operator Certification Number: a + W Certified Operator:..,„„,..,_..„.... _
Location of Farm:
uS 4.0 East fo 650 . is \1 hOr -b t_ HWV 156 ��_ + Oh _•y
o. eC_o + Qla kedill .
wv�t D-r Latitude ®• �
❑ Swine U Poultry the ❑ Morse
Design Ceir cent T=w S Desiga�.
Swine 1 rmrii _:P,i; ii abnn ;aFoliltrY = _ 'C`anac ft
1111a MO ► e o - •
j
itian . r , Cattle
El Wean to Feeder
z
❑ Layer
Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
,
Other
Farrow to Finish
f ' -_ Total Desi�
❑ Gilts
Boars
esign 7 " Gnnrent
pacity-:, 013 iiation'
4
� Capacity � O�
a sSLw o 0
Number of Lagoc►ns - ,`
i7nlri�na`:Pnnrie/;Cnlyri-Traffic' w� ,-
Discharees & 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 gall nin?
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
tructure I Strctu,re_ ,2^� Structure , Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Fr oard (inches):
❑ Yes )(No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
)�
Structure
6
12112103 '� Continued
�f

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the iWity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trel�severe erosion, ❑ Yes o
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes P(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 maintenanceJimprovement? ❑ Yes *o
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancefimprovement? X Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes XO
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenanoe./improvement? ❑ Yes No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yeso
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type I+ r
13. Do the receiving crops differ with ose 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?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes *
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes o
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes )<No
Air Quality representative immediately.
?Comments {refer to;gneshon.#) E.atpiain y YES�answei=s anwgr any,; retommeadattons or y othcr ooatments: A
;.._.,
;Use c xxigs of faa* to better eacplain :situations. use additsohal pages as aecessary) # Feld Copy ❑ Final Note
- v
k7 too
A.
�r
r�J e- ct� >� i 5� �� Sep YV� f d- ICY 64 U fie 4OWL
��CPA +(1) c.0-ae
i VI # .Z m.o 0
ECG rneco U Ue- o v M u by
Reviewer/Inspector Name f : 0 z 46�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
12112103
Date: Inl) ;2 16
Continued

Facility Number: ... D of Inspection Q
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
XYes
❑ 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
KNO
23. D record keeping need ' rovementOffs, check the appro ate box below.
❑ Yes
�No
10 Waste Application reboardste 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
KNo
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
)dNo
2$. 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
YNo
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
KTo
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 Farm [:]Crop Yield Form ]_—]Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit'
JA ddrtronal' Comrnents'and/ar Di aurrngs r s
e_ed �a e.lec�n-�-�p VeAlv,�(; �e�, a-
�e
JD3 ZnskI I wa LV bev-m a,lovia bac.{,L oC baa-n +19 t o,n*j,�v
wail-e , C-�ec�N ne�,+ ViS t-f- (5&3C:b/bLuO vis%FJ
JA-,ea� LL) hpcA lcogs yeaid,03L[ 60LI-S (CP �- qCCA40
vs+e ouna�O S.g
5C� — 13 aq
12112103

� Technical Assistance Site Visit Repot'
pilWn of Soil and Water Conservation
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number 41 - 13 Date: 128104 Time: 1 11:30 Time On Farm: 75 WSRO
Farm Name Whitecedar Dam County Guilford Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 8255 Whitecedar Road Browns Summit, NC 27214
Onsite
Representative Jeff Hopkins Integrator
Tyne Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
Operation Review
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
O Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O 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
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy
❑ Non _Dairy
O Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O 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
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy
❑ Non _Dairy
® Dairy
❑ Non _Dairy
400
370
❑ 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 Ono
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 Side WSP Back WSP
Level (Inches) 36 72
CROP TYPES lCorn, Silage Small grain silage Fescue -graze I 10rchard Grass (hay)
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES ApB CeB2 CrB VaB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 41 - 13 Date:
4/28/04
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
El
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
28• Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. 21-1.0200 re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (POA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organizelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
El Other...
43. Irrigation system design/installation
El
El
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
Wettable Acre Determination
El
El46.
1 • The waste plan was revised to add sudex and
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
pearl millet.
2• Mr. Hopkins cut the trees out of the buffer area
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
that was recommended by the DWQ inspector.
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. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

•
Facility Number 41 - 13 Date: 1 4128104 1
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST IRocky Durham I Millie Langley
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 5/3/04
Entered By: lRocky Durham
03/10/03

jston of -Water Quality
ision of Soil and Water Conservation .
O Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Fallow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Qj 13 hate ur Visit; 09/22l2003 Time: 13to
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted M Certified f3 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: _ _...._ .
Farm Name: )'.!IIAVS0U.Dairy............................................................ ...... County: Cauilfard................................. W.S&Q .....
Owner Name: �Ieffeae;ioA--------------AkiAl5-------------------------- Phone No: ------------------------
Mailing Address: ZS...!''hAt��Eld�]C.i4 d..................................................................... tQW..10.5.Stldi>d1)dt�..�l........................................ 2.7ZA4...............
Facility Contact: ,I!eff. ROP) WS......................................Title:............................................... Phone No: cEl1.336.662,3313...........
Onsite Representative:.[EfiT�l2pklit� ----- - --- - - - - - - --- - - --- -- integrator: - --- - --- - --- - - --- ----- - --- - -
Certified Operator:Jdferson..T.......................... H.Q. ins............................................ Operator Certification Numher: 22,)la.Z.............................
Location of Farm:
From WSRO: NC Hwy 150 east. Cross US Hwy 29 and turn left onto Old Reidsville Rd. Right onto hopkins Rd. Left onto
hitecedar Rd.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 14 24 Longitude 79 • 38 18
Design Current
Swine C'anscity 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 400 396
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 400
Total SSLW 560,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 2 JEI 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. I f discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gat/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: l aege ASP Small_1?IlSP--•-----------•--•--•--•----•--•-------•--•--•--•--.................... ........ -•--•--•--•--------•-------
Freeboard (inches): 102 96
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 41-13 lin
Dateof Inspection.5. Are there any immediate threats to thegrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Aunlication
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
® Yes
❑ No
® Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
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 Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Fescue/Orchardgrass (Hay) Corn (Silage & Grain)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ®No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ 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? (ic/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain Many answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better expla':n situations. (use additional pages as necessary): El Field Copy ®Final Notes
3. Any silage leachate is being absorbed by the grass buffer. Keep buffer mowed and trees cut.
_
7. Need to remove the soil from the spillway of the lower WSP.
8. Bedding waste is stockpiled next to the fresh cow pen. Operator has been spreading waste and should be completed within 15-30
days. No runoff observed.
8. Need to install berm along the outside wall of the freestall/loose housing barns to contain waste.
19. Sample #107 of the 2003 soil test result reports zinc to be 1800. Check next year's soil test results.
19. Don't forget to sample and record any dry waste applied. Check next visit.
wer/Inspector Name' �Melis aRosebrock
E
wer/Inspector Signatures Date:
05103101 y' ' Continued

Facility Number: 4t-13 Date of Inspection 0912212003
0 0
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
I19. Operator applied waste using irrigation on an "emergency basis" this Spring. Need to calculate the volume of liquid removed I I
from the WSP and calculate the amount of PAN applied.
1 1 /03 waste analysis: Upper = 5.0 and Lower = 4.3 lbs. N/1000 gal.
05103101

. EDq�l
11 Q�
bivision�of Water.Quali,ty
'Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint 0 Follow up Q Emergency I
Date of Visit:
Facilih• Number
Permitted 0 Certified [3 Conditionally Certified O Registered
Farm Name: WE e, 1 ,
Owner Name: H iL i 1nr_-,j
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
--�--JC . t 1 t'diNv I lh rtf 1 3 +` ,
Certified Operator: T IMP_ • Un tp LI
Location of Farm:
I - t Isb tJ s y a 9Lt?4
6 n+a l)iLi h S 2� . 1,04V, n-fi� llt
O Other
Time:
.�IpNL
❑ Denied Access
Date Last Operate oroAbThreshold:
o a
County: U-I rc
Phone No: �_ � ' 7 760
�ra�� I'Y� hum rn � �-► !� a � 1 `�
Phone No: ^a' t0 t0 1 33o�(toQfjl
I.,toR•-ter.,.•. � '"'
Operator Certification Number: d
Q 117-
1 � c u
Elswin ElPoultry Cattle ❑Horse Latitude
IfIle- rd-
V�r 1W
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population C the
Capacity Population
ElWean to Feeder
1
10 Layer
I
Dais
[:]Feeder to Finish
ILI Non -Layer I
❑ Non -Dairy
I
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
s ��
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oon Area ❑ 5 rar Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps FEd ILI No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? El Yes No
Waste Collection & Treatment j�,�
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway El Yes �(! No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 "` Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 , `�
ldcntifier: Q_ ��� S r
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 �� Continued
�v �

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion. ❑ Ytseepage, etc.) XNO
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 ko
X;Vaste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes X No
11. Is there evidence of over application? Excessive Pond' g ❑ PAN ElHydraulic verload ElYes VN 0
12. Crop type
13, Do the receiving crops differ with thYe des _ ated in the Ce fied Animal Vl-aste Management Plan Awmp)? ❑ Yes XNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes OV No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes No
c) This facilin, 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 DNo
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? (iel 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 �o
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes N0
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit? /
(iel discharge. freeboard problems. over application) ❑ Yes
23. Did ReyiewevInspector fail to discuss revieul nspection 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 o
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit,
.:
'comments (refer#o question .:Ezplaui;any YES attswe-ffand/or at y"Tecot m.6dations or any o
Use drawings of facilit} to better explain situattotis.,(use addWs nal pages as necessary)
.,. , _ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
�f -—...aa.� �:.�++:;.::..a _ .:.-.+n s,.- �c.wc.�-a�-ws:—".n..�'!�":.:.: :..x.. .-..»ri'dca...�.'., z.._.d...�.;wt.: irs..`E�..k>".`--�1..�.-r-,.-,r--:rr.nrr...r:^--'y,.!�..
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: —
0Date of Inspection
•
Qdor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor 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?
M 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?
t
Lower 4. 3
a
05/03/01,
If
Ir~�s:i.�ir • �
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
El Yes NoB -res El No

-Iochnical Assistance Site Visit
• DilPn of Soil and Water Conservationqr
O Natural Resources Conservation Service "
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 41 - 13 Date: 11103 Time: 1 13:40 Time On Farm: 140 WSRO
Farm Name Whitecedar Dairy County Guilford
Mailing Address 8255 Whitecedar Road
Phone: [phone]
Browns Summit, NC 27214
Onsite
Representative Jeff Hopkins Integrator
Type Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated: El Operating
Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
Purpose Of Visit
O Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWCISWCD 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 Ca acit Po uiation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy 400 390
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERALQUESTIONS:
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
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy 400 390
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERALQUESTIONS:
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 Side WSP Back WSP
Level (Inches) 30 35
CROP TYPES Corn, Silage Ismall Grain
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES CeB2 ApB CrB VaB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

a
Facility Number 41 - 13 Date:
4/1/03
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
®
❑
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
19
❑ 13. Waste Structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
21-11.0200
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. re -certification
® 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
® 18. Latelmissing waste analysis
33. Organizelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
[120. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
[]Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation designlinstallation
❑
❑
El 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- The waste plan was revised for application
47. Evaluate WAD certifiicationlrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationirecommendations
❑
❑
windows.
2• Mr. Hopkins has covered stockpiled solid waste
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
with plastic to prevent runoff.
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

IFacility Number 41 - 13 Date: 1 411103
MMENTS:
Waste analysis: 2-12-03 (1) LSD 7.0 lbs. N.11000 gals. S.I., (2) 21.9 Ibs.N11000 gals. S.I.
Soil analysis dated 212003
Mr. Hopkins called in a high freeboard level to the DENR, Division of water quality, Winston-Salem
;gional office and completed a 30 day plan of action to lower the waste pond levels. Waste was
ansferred from the back wsp (# 2) to the side wsp (#1). The waste samples were averaged for the PAN
alance. I told Mr. Hopkins that should be all right since it was done on several occasions.
Mr. Hopkins applied waste with borrowed irrigation equipment. Mr. Hopkins will need to get the pump
nd reel performance information and complete the Irr1 and Irr2 waste application forms. Suggested
etting irrigation added to the waste plan as a backup application on 3 fields for cases like this. I provided
1r. Hopkins with some Irr1 and Irr2 forms.
There was some ponding that occurred in the application field due to hydraulic overloading while trying
get the waste pond levels lowered.
Spoke to Mr. Hopkins about some of the proposed requirements of the new State cattle waste permit.
Mr. Hopkins was interested in having some fields measured by GPS.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham Millie Langley
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 17103 Entered By: lRocky Durham
03/10/03

vision of Water Quality
vision of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
L
Visit Q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 41 13 Date of `is't- 10f28/2002 ,l;n,e: t000
Q Not O erational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .... .....................
Farm Name: Wb,iimda.[:Rainy.................................................................... .. .................. County: Gullfox.d ........................................... WSRO........
OwnerName: dg1fQ09u................................ HO.Aiils.............................. ........................ Phone No: 0361f:56.-.UAO.... ....................................................
MailingAddress: 8255.Whi medar.Ro.ad.................................................................... ........................................ 2.7.214 .............
Facility Contact: JvKHSfAly AS ................................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No: b.CS � 1 ..(.C.�11�............
Onsite Representative: Jc f.Axtd.lY,1,ary..A.itltt..kI.QPJdm.............................................. Integrator:............................................................. .........................
Certified Operator:Rf,Imo>u.L......................... Rop!kind.................. ......................... Operator Certification Number: 2211.7 ...................
Location of Farm:
From WSRO: NC Hwy 150 east. Cross US Hwy 29 and turn left onto Old Reidsville Rd. Right onto hopkins Rd. Left onto
Whitecedar Rd.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 14 4 24 ff Longitude 79 * 38 f 18 46
Design Current
Swine Capacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 0
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 2
Design Current
Design Current
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
'® Dairy
I 400__f
370
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
400
- Total SSL W
560,000
Subsurface Drains Present 11❑ Lagoon Area
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?
Spray Field Area
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ 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 R Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .....La>_gr KSP............Smal1..WSP............................
Freeboard (inches): 36 30
05103101 -737 ,d Continued

Facility Number: 41-13 Date of Inspection 10/28/2002 ,
5. Are there any immediate threats to the int• ty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, 0 Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes ®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? - ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste
Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12.
Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® 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
2t.
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
it
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
/Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Ups d awings'of facility to better explain situations. (use additional.,pages as necessary),V Field Copy [I Final Notes
3. Need to seed lot behind mobile homes. Getting lots of soil run-off into creek from low spot.
3. Need to pump freshwater pond down as low as possible soon. Silage leachate is flowing quickly through pond and overflowing into
creek before it has time to break down.
3. Need to fence cattle out of creek in pasture where new grass is coming up if cattle are put back into this field. Potential for soil and
waste erosion from steep slope.
3. Suggest moving all feed rings at least 300' up from the creeks.
8. Stock trail still needs to be repaired. No run off noted, though.
18. Could not locate odor/insect/mortality checklists. Ca1l'S.WCD for assistance.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: a
O510310I Continued

� Facility Number: 41_13 1) of Inspection 10/28/2002 •
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?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [--]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional Comments and/orDrawings:
19. Facility has not applied waste since 4/2002. No records required. Will be applying soon. Check records in Spring.
19. Still need to obtain soil samples for those fields that received animal waste this year.
25. Operator wants to add irrigation to his CAWMP so that he can apply waste with a honey wagon or with irrigation.
/24/02 waste analyses:
upper-9.2 lbs. NI1000 gal.
lower-10.2 lbs. N/1000 gal.
v
05103101

Y2 A. ! LLk-0 41c-)
Division of Water Quality w
D,Division of Soffand Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit ��,Q Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit/ � Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number irate 01' isit:
Permitted Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered
Farm Name: !!! ar �QI f-
Owner Name: J2'`te� 1:5n d V I
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: J Efrt j L42 1 )-7 I Title:
Onsite Representative: jpf d` `1' LIr a/c
Certified Operator:` 0 1-1
0-5
Location of Farm:
Time. _ f
10 Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
Date Last Operated or Abovehreshold:
County V
Phone No: 3,369 �V e_7_700
Phone o 33t". fo109.3313
ntegrator:
Operator Certification Number:
aa1l -7
Mi
M0119 .� WEIA
Design
Swine Capacity
Current Design Current Design Current
Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Po ulation
IEJ Laver I I Dairy 1 Y-1920 11 Z-3 212d
ILI Non -Laver I I El Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLWQ Ono
_
❑ Wean to Feeder
ElFeeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
- Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps
LJ Subsurface Drains Present ILJ Lagoon Area Jl_J Spray Field Area
❑ No Li uid Waste Management Svstem
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes A 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? (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? 1,Yes ,,❑``No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'.) Spillway ❑ Yes No
Structure�y S eture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: . �[D-r � L5
Freeboard (inches): (P 0
OSIO3101 Continued

J
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
Yes
No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there sttuctures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure
Yes
XNo
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
XNo
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
A No
N'Vaste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
ANo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN. ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
X No
12. Crop type rn 1 10,C
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those gesignated in the Certified Ani al Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
NNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
o
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
El Yeso
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
El Yeso
IN
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 h ve Certificate of Cove ge & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
18. Does t�facili to dve the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan
/KNo
ail components of readily available?
(ie/ WUP(checklists design, maps, etc.) /
Yes
❑ No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
X 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
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El Yes
/ZNTo
ANO
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AMP? M /� f Jj r rrsnnYes
�t.alti�n
No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspond ce about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #):' Explaiwany YES answers -and/or any"recommertdatioas or any o her comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use 'additionaI pages as necessary): Field C.oPv ❑Final Notes
3q d -No
Reviewer/Inspector Name
i Date: Q
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
05103101
`Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection I ►U
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?
EED`rz —j9No
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes ANO
and/orAdditional Comments Drawings:
i,-��
1
�l-
I
V a4joa — wo-qt� CP.ua
uppe,-- q.a ids N/loo
Zp�ved"— l�• � I �sN�ldOo qo�
e
66�P a� m��
aaP w�
r

vtston of Water Quality
ision of Soil and Water Conservation 0
Other Agency
(Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 41 13 Date or N'isit: 4l3t)/20Q2 •I ut,e: 9:45
rO Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
0 Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name:...11.lWx.dar,D.aiU................................................................
Owner Name: deffCUj9..t>................................ HoAdm ..........................................
Mailing Address: $2,5S..W.b jACred I:. Aft ..............................
Facility Contact: .............................................................................. Title:..............
Onsite Representative:. effliopI u...........
Certified Operator:JCffeMoja..T.......................... Hopkins.
Location of Farm:
County: GmUfor.d............................................ WS . ........
..... Phone No: Q . 61.65.f-.7.7Q.0........................................................
VKQwxns.SiAmmit...H.C........................................ 2.7214 .............
Phone No:.,.,,.,,.,,,
Integrator:,,
Operator Certification Number:22a,)1,7..............................
it end of Whitecedar Rd. off Hopkins Rd. and Old Reidsville Road. +
w
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 14 ' 24 " Longitude 79 • 38 18
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
❑ Laye I 1 10 Dairy 400 1390
❑ Non -Layer I IF] Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 400
Total SSLW 1 560,000
Number of Lagoons I 1 10 Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 2 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharees & 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?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ 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 l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ...... Lat:ge`.13.'SP...... ......S1lldll...WSP...............
Freeboard (inches): 84 84
05103101 Continued

__1 0 1
Facility Number: 41-13 is Date of Inspection 4/30/2002
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? []Yes ®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Graze)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
IT
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
•a
13 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 jommendations or any other commen.Use dr
facility'to bettereplain
Hof situationsas necessary): ry ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
T>
8. The stock -trail at the back of the barn has not been repaired yet. Mr. Hopkins has requested assistance from the Guilford soil and
water conservation district. There is a plan to concrete and curb the stock -trail.
25. Tract 6473 field # 7 needs to be in crop rotation instead of pasture. The field on the GuilfordlRockingham county line still needs to
be added to the WUP also.
Records looked good overall.
r. Hopkins was harvesting small grain silage today.
Reviewer/Inspector Name !Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 41-13 D�)flnspection 4/30/2002
- 0
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge actor 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?
analysis: 10-01-02 LSD 11.3 lbs.N/1000 gals. S.I., LSD 7.5 Ibs.N/1000 gals. S.I.
4-23-02 LSD 9.2 ", LSD 10.2 " "
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
JI
J
O5103101

1
ivision of Water Quality
C' ision of Soil and Water Conservation
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
Date of Visit: 9/21/2001 Time: 1030 Printed (on: 9/26/2001
41 l3
0 Not Operational O Below Threshold
[3 Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: �1'.hi m.dar.f?aitr County: Guilford ...............................
Owner Name: dgt'fetrsolk ............................... HA.Plops...................................................... Phone No:(,33.C).65fr..7.7.00................. ........................ ...............
Mailing Address:$255.WhiftoWax.ttoad.................................................................... U rowxtsNxnaM t...N.C........................................ 2.7.214 ..............
Facility Contact: .lrff. stitkitttS...................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: 3 6..ft6Qj3j3.mobily.#....
Onsite Representative:Jeff..atad.IV.1.a1ry..A.O[;tj1.OBkjiAS:.............................................. Integrator:
Certified Operator: jef Mora ............................... khault`iXas..........
Location of Farm:
tt end of Whitecedar Rd. off Hopkins Rd. and Old Reidsville Road.
Operator Certification Number.221 7.............................
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 a 14 I 24 Longitude 79 • 38 1 18 ♦{
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
EEI
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ® Dairy 400 390
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 400
Total SSLW 560,000
Number of Lagoons 0 10 Subsurface Drains Present JIM Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 2 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischar=. & 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 [:1 No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ...... Uppez_.W..SP...... .....L.uwcx..WSP..... ......................
Freeboard (inches); 120 84
05103101 *__ ;1-1 Continued
ttj'r�

f
Facility Number: 41-13 Date of Inspection 9/21/Z001 Printed nn: 9/26/2001
0 r +
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trevvere 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?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Analication
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
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 Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Corn (Silage & Grain)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
t4. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ 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;,toquestio.n#) EXplain any YES answers nd%or any recommendations or_any other comments.
g Yt. P (__. p g rY
Use d"rawins�of facility wbetter-ex laifi situationk, use adillit anal a es`as ecessa }• " ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
7. Operator is considering expanding lower WSP into area near the stock trail. Contact SWCD prior to any construction.
:
8. Guttering is to be repaired within the next month. Stock trail is to be concreted and bermed as much as possible within four months.
19. Have not yet received results from most recent samples taken 9/2001. Operator is applying waste to fields not in WUP (Guilford and
Rockingham counties). Crops look good on these fields. Waste records must be kept on all fields! These fields need to be added to
UP as soon as possible. Contact SWCD for assistance.
22. Permit has not been issued yet. Once permitted, will need to notify DWQ when waste reaches maximum level mark.
Reviewer/Inspector Name i,Melissa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur : Date:
05103101 � - vV t Continued

fr Facility Number: 41-13 D of Inspection 9/21/2001
y
Printed on: 9/26/2001
Ode 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
T-6473 F-2 needs to be written into WUP. Is only outlined on maps. Per operator, WUP needs to be revised, if possible, to
:)mmodate 500 cattle. Yearly average is still below 400, but daily occurrences above 400 are common. Contact SWCD for
stance.
milk records, approximately 22,000 lbs. of milk is picked -up daily by Maryland and Virginia Milk Haulers.
A.t
05103101
J

Type of Visit A �Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation is PM
Reason for Visit 16 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Bate of Visit: o2I D� Time: Ib3
Not Operational Q Below Threshold
❑ Permitted ®Certified Conditionally Certified ❑Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold
Farm Name: /.{A_ail1 Q..� .�.r Countti CD p,C,r.O.
.r.............................................
f� }� a L i Y
OwnerName: _.... .x..c.... I.!....... .. �..... 1.. ............... .............. Phone No: ..:.. ?. ..................................._.
�/ 77,00
Facilit}' Contact: �..I.1... � '` �.n-5........................Title:................................................. Phone No: ;3`.3r°.... ......... 313
Mailing Address: 4i_a s s 1 .....0 ...�..1�./. ��Gt�i}�� •,1 V . .m_! .t '............ a...7 a 7 .
....
Onsite Representative: ,_Sd� } � -.- Integrator: •............
��� f'KM j ................................................
Certified Operator:, Ji•3...T..........P.0p,!,,. ,,n �r�.................................................. Operator Certification Number: ....... a a�. ! ..
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry �4 Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®• ® ®• Longitude E�]• ®�«
Design Current
-Design Current
Design . Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
JEJ Layer
Dairy
Q
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
ol a�i O
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present eld Are ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Fia
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes �No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Wetter of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes i`] No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon sY.siem? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑I 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 N0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway ❑Yesj No
ii }} Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure ; StructureStructure
bd
Identifier: vo ....... LQ.._�,...'L-r.......................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches):

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection Printed on:
5_ Are there any immediate threats to the ity of any of the structures observed? Oe/ tr evere erosion,
s ge, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management of
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered ves, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
t /9/2001
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
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the -facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
Oe/ 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: Io r+io�ati[jris:or deficiencies were rooted i &iir ii tbis:visit' - ;Y;oik will•ieeeive tto fur#lter • ;
coriesvoridehee: abu' uk this visit_ ..: • :::.: • : • : • ..:. ' ::::. :
iJsecif rawii�s'uf.
luestion #) apn- win or any re
i.y to--better7explain situations {use additional. ages
❑ 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
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
.❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
a
Reviewer/Insnecter Nam-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: g/pp

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection-'
5. Are there any immediate threats to thellogrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
KNO
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
(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?
WYes
❑ 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
o
11. Is there evidence of over application?. ❑ Excessive Ponding [IPAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
ElYeso
rN
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ 4ith those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
o
to
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
9.
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
XNo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
ElYes
❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
#No
Required Records & Documents
17, Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
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
o
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ 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
XNo
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
RNO
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? •PrYes ❑ No
�'�10 viola
.•rresporidence:abaut;thisvisit.:e•.n.}:e::-3:-:':g.•�h•:.'.is...Y-.'oi-tw•ll•r•e•e•v•.•.o..u.�..eriQns,©� dfeencie iirisvt: .
ro•::::::::.'.•:•.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or.any recommendations or Any other.cotnments: - 5
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use addidonai pages. as necessary); ' g
lR L4�a LAAAIU�t .
Imo`"` .�
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/lnspector Signal
... . -.......l
Date- y/,,L / / U ! 5/00

Facility Number: — 41 te of Inspection
Odor Issues
26, Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or Iagoon 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 XNo
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) /9
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
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 I/No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?e�-
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? -B 4:e��—
sY n , Sm,A-�
5/00

4,
of Water Quality
Spv�ion
vision of Soil and -Water Conservation A*
Other Agency Soil?and Water
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection © Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 41 13 Date of Vkit: 5124/2001 Time: 10:00 Printed on: 8/29/2001
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
0 Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
FarmName: ....................................................................................... County: G.ujjfor.d............................................ W fit. ........
Owner Name:.iefff:0on ............................... Hg.Fllcias.....
Mailing Address: $2,55..W.tlltC9.4'der..Rllad ...........................
Phone No: (33,61.6S.6-77.0.0 ..............
0r.QHxns.SatxtmA._N.0........................................ Z7214 .............
FacilityContact: ..............................................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: JeffAQWtu..................... ... Integrator.
................................................................................................................................
Certified Operator:,te£f.MQIA ............................... ROPUM ........................................... Operator Certification Number;22117.............................
Location of Farm:
it end of Whitecedar Rd. off Hopkins Rd. and Old Reidsville Road.
I—
[] Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 14 6 24 {L Longitude 79 • 38 { 1$46
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Panulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Soars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Po elation Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I ® Dairy 400 1400
❑ Non -Layer I A—❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 400
Total SSLW 1 560,000
Number of Lagoons 10 Subsurface Drains Present I ❑ Lagoon Arca ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps 2 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
DischaMita 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. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (Ifyes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
Structure 6
Identifier: .......................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 60 50 _
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: 41-13 I 0 Date of Inspection 5/24/20010 Printed on: 8/29/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? Yes ®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement'? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
l l . Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ®No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
R Sle uired 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?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explaimar y YES answers and/or any recommendations or any,other comments ;
;Use drawings Hof facility to better exxpi5i)n sg tuati(gse additional pages_as necessary:):.., ❑Field Copy, ❑ Final Notes
17. Not issued at this time.
T
Reviewer/Inspector Name MMillie T. Langley
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: 41-13 1 0
rl' Inspection 5/24/2001
Printed on: 8/29/2001
dor 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
�&t
05103101
J

O4sion of Water Quality
sion of Soil and Water Conservation 1101
O Other Agency
=ti
(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 41 13 Date of Visit: 9/13/2000 'rime: 9:4o Printed on: 9/15/2000
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted M Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ...............
Farm Name: J.df.HQt)trial0)Mry............................ ..... Counts: Guilfud ............................................
OwnerName:,[eficxsolx ............................... Dophitts...................................................... Phone No:Q3.C)..6S.b-.7.7.QQ............................... .........................
FacilityContact: Jdf.HQ4),k).05................................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: 82,55.Whigs".dar,.Rud.................................................................... ...................................... 2.7.21.4 ..............
Onsite Representative:J.gff.jQp.Mlj5...................... ...................................................................
Certified Operator: ,].�gfeCSQxt. .......................... RQPkim ........................................... Operator Certification Nuniber:2.21.1.7 .............................
Location of Farm:
it end of Whitecedar Rd. off Hopkins Rd. and Old Reidsville Road. +
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry M Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 14 6 24 C, Longitude 79 • 38 1$ r;
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 PopulationCattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer M Dairy 1 275 1 360
❑ Non -Layer JCI Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 275
Total SSLW 385,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JE1 spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 2 JE1 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes M No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes M No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes M No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? M Spillway ❑ Yes M No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Stricture 6
Identifier:....Uppez.Pushoff...... Lszl4ez.Pu hoff..................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches):, 48 36
5100 _94 5 ' Continued on hack

Facility Number: 41-13 Date of Inspection 9/13/2000 Printed on: 9/15/2000 a
5. Are there any immediate threats to theolrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trisevere erosion, [] Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ®No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (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; Nd. - iolations4r, deficiencies-ivere;noted during•this visit.- :Y6u•will recdve.n6-ftirth'et• ; • : -
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):
8. Need to repair guttering on freestall barn. Need to gutter feed area barn to keep rainwater out of #2 pond.
S. Need to keep washing machine water out of pond #1 and spread bedding material.
19. May applications have no waste samples within 60 days. 2000 soil samples have been sent off.
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
� I�1
Reviewer/Inspector Name Me Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector SignaturV1101 N,, I "r h & / Date: /, j`� /} f� 5100

acility Number: 4t—t3 Date of Inspection 9/13/2000 Printed on: 9/15/2000
• .
Odor
Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
®No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ 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
rDrawings:
5100
J

ivision of Water Quality •
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit ;Q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit V Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: 0 Time: 14, LR) I Printed on: 7/21/2000
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
0 Permitted 10 Certified © Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Date Last Operated or (Above Threshold
Farm Name:...t".i'...,f..;..5.....�C�.4.r....................... County:...- %!... ...`......................................--....
u f�Q.
Owner Name: ..... t?..•T••......... .................................................... Phone tio:66
.iJ(0..'....fP.;J..IF!..!......�....................
Facilitv Contact: ,.�P,.VT..... kpt.j..r.>5..................Title ..... Phone No: ..— ............................
Mailing Address: ........... .,J........ I�IL�...1....4�.4.........t....t}((�...j ..�v...........a..- !--.�.........
Onsite Representative: -- �, -� I JQ, � .............................................. Integrator:..... .....................
Certified Operator:......... R.T.f ..........��1 /] 1C-1 ...... Operator Certification Number:........(�.� ...�..�..�--....
Location of Farm:
+e-eed opk-1' -! -olet 4e loe
❑ Swine [I Poultry WICattle ❑Horse Latitude �� Longitude 1•'<<
Design Current
,swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy �jj
Non -Dairy
Total Design Capacity o
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 I-ig,%on Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps of ❑ No Liquid Waste Nlanagement System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes O(No
Dischargr originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is obscrvcd, was the convevajux man-made? El Yes
El
b. 1f discharge is ohserved, did it reach Water of the State'? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes ❑ No
c. If dischanze is observed. what is the cstilnatctl flow in gal/min:
d. Dees discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge`? ❑ Yes
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway
Structure l nSu-uctu)rc 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
1..I}... Identifier: �I""'...-Qli`�7 T.........r h.Q..-.................................
Frechoartl (inches): pj pl 3(olr
5100 `� 0
❑ No
fNo
%NO
❑ Yes NO
Structure 5 Structure 6
Continued on back

Facility Number: Date of Inspection Printed on: 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the i lity 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?
A 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 Coy-h a-Y\ a ra un
13. Do the receiving crops differ wt those desionateA the Certified Animal Waste Ranauement Plan (
AWMPr ❑ Yes
No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
o
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
P00
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination`?
❑ Yes
*0
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'?
❑ Yes
bNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
�No
Required Records & Documents
Fail have Permit
rV 1 �' 'Ttyr5—'❑'No
17. to Certificate of Coverage $. General 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.)
ElYes
�6No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste anal 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?
Ocl 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 violations;©r deficien. xther; ;
comes}�ondence: ahi k th" visit :: ' : .:.:::.:: ::::: ' ::.::.:: .
$ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes ko
Yes �o
❑ 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):
rtpaAr oi+.e#- 4�
u 4Q
P
o h t ry u_)L*— ocy- o `/ (pond.
So v-P_a kbAA 1 ,An M.11I;-A-4act A 12 mr
Reviewer/Inspector Name ' r
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date: 5100

Facility Number: _ —' 3 () # st' Inspection 32Printed on: 7/21/2000 1.2
Odor Issues 0
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge Wor below -E30f- 8l o
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? OM j r OZOlf ,
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
2& 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? ©M) T —
32, Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? Nri
lI
No4-esivuP roy4D—Z4� L-"�
J
5100

Q 'Sion of Water Quality
C:0si©n of Soil and Water Conservation =w�
00ther 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
Date of Visit: 6/15/2040 Time: 11:15 Printed on: 9/12/2000
Facility Number 41 13
0 \`o-to perational O Below Threshold
Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Countl;�ttilfor.d................ ........ t�'.SR0........
Farm Name: �leff.�!?.pkCtAs.�a]it:J:.................................................................... .................
...... y•
........... .. •
Owner Name:JcffelrsOli................................ M..PMUS........................................ Phone No:(3�61.650.-.77.04............................... .......... .........................
FacilityContact: ............................................................ ..................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: 5S.NYlait�sed .................................................................... xo�►ns. utxtnnit ,..a C ...................................... 2.7.214 ..............
Onsite Representative: rJgffj[.()p.Wr. .....................
.......................................................... tttegrator:....,.................................................................................
Certified Operator- JV[fgjr:.Qm..T.......................... RRpff TAT.................. ... Operator Certification Number:2.21.1,7...........
Location of Farm:
at end of Whitecedar Rd. off Hopkins Rd. and Old Reidsville Road.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude F 36 ' 14 24 Longitude 1 79 • F 38 18 44
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 PopulationCattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I ® Dairy 1 275 1 275
❑ Non -Layer I JEI-Non-Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 275
Total SSLW 385,000
Number of Lagoons L�I ILI Subsurface Drains Present JjLJ Lagoon Area I❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 Z 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
DiseharL)es & 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?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: .... upper-pushoff.... .... ].awes-pu shoff...................................
Freeboard (inches): 60 48
5100
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 4 Structure 5 Stricture 6
Continued on back

Facility Number: 41-13 Date of Inspection 6/1512000 Printed on: 9/12/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to thelarity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trioevere 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?
❑ 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 Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Corn (Silage & Grain) Sorghum
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
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 readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
I8.
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
N No
U.
Nti yiblatitilis:or defcienci6.Wr te:noted duting•this visif.:You;vrwill :receive nti fu:rth:er : ;
correspondence: aboui 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):
1 2. Bedding material at the back of the old barn needs to be removed. There is some seepage from this pile.
1 9. Holding ponds will need a graduated marker for General Permit record keeping requirements.
18. Guttering needs repair to keep out fresh water.
Some fields need time according to soil samples. ( > I ton).
Reviewer/Inspector Name !Rocky Durham Millie Langley
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5100

Facility Number: 41-13 Date of Inspection 6/15/2000 Printed on: 9/12/2000
Odor Issues 0 •
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 permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Additional Comments an orDrawings:
i
5100

10 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review O Other �
Facility Number 4i 13 Date of Inspection 12/15/99
Timc offnspection 14:20 -24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered 113 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Jdf.HQVRiM5.I?0ACY.................................. .. County: Gmllfor.d ............................................ !' SRO........
Owner Name: .lfUrs4tl................................ Hapkips Phone No:03.61.65.6.7770.0 ............................................. ..
Facility- Contact: ............................. Title: ................................................................ Phone No: ,.........................._..._... ...............
Mailing Address: 2 S.Wtxi��cedar.XtA.act.................................................................... B.K.QA-ts.SMMnai_t1,_N.C........_............................. 2.7.214 .............
Onsite Representative: integrator :......................................................................................
Certified Operator: JCM.uma.L ............. Operator Certification Number:221t;I.............................
Location of Farm:
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................I.........._....
Latitude 3ti • 14 24 Longitude 79 • 38 l8
h
Design Current
Swine Caoacity 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 1 10 Dairy 275 1 - 360
❑ Non -Layer I I❑ Non -Dairy
- -
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity P1 275
j 'Total SSLW _ 385,000
Dischar es fi Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation`?
Dischar *e originated at. ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b.-If dischai"�,e,is observed. di0 if reach- Water of the Stlite? (If yes. ii6tify-DWQ)--
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in al/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? dt'yes. notify DWQ)
IV
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
1 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 Collectirz3 fi 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: Pond #1 Pond #2
Freeboard inches): 96
( 9�.................................................................................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepaoe, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back
Printed on 12/17/99

facility Number: 41-13 D of Inspection 12/15/99
1
6. Are there structures on -site which are n&perly addressed and/or managed through a 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 N 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 Annlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Sorghum
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
N No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
Reouired_Record� & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps. etc.)
❑ Yes
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
® No
25-
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
0: �io•yiolations.oT deflClenC1CS-were :noted [Al.trltlg jhi5, visit.• ,You:Wi!! receiye no fUrth:et
-.. correspondence about this:visit: _ : .....: . .
Pond #2 does not currently have the required elevation gauge marker- a stake got damaged during dike mowing operations. J
rator plans to contact Millie to get elevation marker re -surveyed and replaced. I
According to Waste Mgmt. Plan in Operator's possession, current design capacity is now 400 dairy animals, increased from the
)revious 275. Current population is 360, as noted above.
T
- as..:�-,-t: yr�.... r-.--�-v..m?�s'�-^,, _ -ysr - -•.,.tit..... ye,�•q���r. -Kr-r r*r. _s'-+.- -� - -� .'� .a-...,..-Q- --
Reviewer/Inspector Name Tom Yo •
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 1;211,7 q g
Printed on 12/17/99

~` ® Division of ' and Water Conservation -Operation Re '
t
[� Division of nd. Water Conservation -,:Compliance Lion
Division of ater Quality -Compliance Inspection " -
E Other Agency Operation Review
14F Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number 41 13 Date of inspection 5120/99
Time of Inspection 10:45 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered 0 Not Opera Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: dteff.H Akins.Dairy.....................................................................................
County:.ttliltujr.d........................... �'l',SRQ........
..............
Owner Name: deftusAn................................ H.o.Pkins...................................................... Phone No: (3C1.fi5f.-.77.Q0........................................................
FacilityContact:.............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: 8Z5;5....W1Cr,edatr..Raad.................................................................... Hl:Qw.US.SUMMit1, SIC...................................... 2.7214 ..............
Onsite Representative: Jef(Hopuln....................
................ Integrator:.......................................
Certified Operator. Jeffumt.L......................... Hapkilaa........................................... Operator Certification Number:221,17
Location of Farm:
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
at.�e�ld.Qf.l!'hatet;e�da�.dh.trlff.Hs?IAS.Hti..aald.t�ld. Mead yille�ioad............................................................................................................................
P
Latitude 36 ° 14 24 Longitude 79 ° 38 4 1$ cC
Design Current
Design.
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry Capacity
Population Cattle_
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
® Dairy
275
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
Farrow to Finis
Total Design Capacity
275
LJ is
Total SSLW
385,000
El Boars
-Number.of Lagoons JE1 Subsurface Drains Present J10 Lagoon Area J❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid~Traps 2 ❑ 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 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 5
Identifier: ............ uRpQr............ ............ 1Q13'z............ ................................... ....................
Freeboard(inches): ................6.................................3........................................................................................ .......
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

f Inspection 5/20/99
Facility Number: 41-13 DOe,
6. Are there structures on -site which are nooperly addressed and/or managed through a 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
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
®No
12. Crop type Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
®No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16. is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
Nd violati6tis:or deficiencies�Wi!re;noted d'uriiig-thiswiAL'You"will;receive no furthet
corres olidence about this.visit::: :
.Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
:Use drawin s,of facilit to'better eie la i.sitiiatibns use�add-itionaI pages -as necessar
# 4 Waste is within freeboard. Need to pump as soon as possible. Will have to refer to DWQ. +
# 7 Continue to mow around WSP for easy visual inspection.
# 9 Need marker installed in upper WSP for permit. Operator is using bottom of milk parlor pipe now.
# 19 Need to have waste sample within 60 days of application. Didn't have copy of `98 soil samples. Operator just recently took
7 cont. Need to haul bedding from barn ASAP or cover to prevent runoff.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham 11lill a Langley —
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
3/23/99

Facility Number: 41-13 Digf Inspection 5/20199 •
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below ❑ Yes ® No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
® No
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
® No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent1temporary cover?
❑ Yes
® No
Additional omments and/or .Drawings:
3/23/99
3/23/99

�,r
110 lr__
Routine
Follow-ttD of
I Facility Number f
on 0 Follow-up of DS W C review 0Other
Date of Inspection �'
Time of Inspection � 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Registered [3 Certified E3 Apj lied for Per it [3 Permitted 113 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:.- ._.%
PFarm Name: ....... 1!`...t..........L�'�.....y......... County:......... ..........k. . .......
I .... . ............. . Owner Name: ................................................... ........................................................................ Phone No: ....................................... :��......,�........ . ..
Facility Contact: .......................... Title:................ Phone No:.......................................�.
.................................................................................... �`"'
NN 4 C`, a �� oil 1
Mailing Address:...................................................... : .
4Onsite Representative:....1 J .f ................. ..r..... �. 1............... Integrator:................ ......................................................................
Certified Operator;............................................................................................................... Operator Certification Number:......................
Location of Farm:
0
Latitude �• �� ��� Longitude �• �' ��"
Design ;Current �,DesE ti Current Design k T Current
wale ,�.�" '� xCapacttyzl?opplation^P©ultry
-�
x�; , :Capacity
Population
Cattle _�,` << Capacity Populahon�
Wean to Feeder
�<
❑Layer
Dairy
[] Feeder to Finish
Y
Non -Layer [] Non Dairy
El Farrow to Wean
,
El Farrow to Feeder
Other
5
#
Capacity
El Farrow to Finish_`�Total
Design
El Gilts
❑Boars
t
General '
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance improvement? Cl Yes gNo
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? El Yes P'*N0
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 ONo
❑ Yes '0 No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes �]'No
❑ Yes [�No
❑ Yes ((1� No
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes ❑Ao
Contirrue�(o/n back
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97

�~ ..
r Facility Number:— —
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds 010te which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes No
Ntructures (Lagoons.Holding_Ponds, Plush Pits. etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes o
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 StrucT6
Identifier:. N� ..............................
Freeboard(ft) ....��..? .f.........................1_./.................................................................................................................................I...............,._..,.......
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes ILL No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes P?(No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
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 (�- L �:
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For —Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
Oes ❑ No
❑ Yes 1340
❑ Yes YJ No
" Yes ❑ No
0 No.vitilationsocdeficiencies. rvt~re noted dtirin� this:visit. You:vuill receive iio•ftirth r- .
:�:•corresponde�ce.atiou>�this:visit:-::�..:.-:.::�..�:�:.�.:�:.:�:::.�' :::�:�:�::�:-:.•
P isrX
m rs /m
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes [�o
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes jFf'No
❑ Yes EtNo
❑ Yes ❑ N
❑ Yes )a No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes dNo
7/25/97

L.jFacitlity Number / Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 124 hr. (hh:mm)
13 Registered [3 Certified © Applied for Permit ❑ Permitted [3 Not operational I Date Last Operated:
—� �' ...............................................
Farm Name: ......�15'....�OD1G�- 5.... rS.l ................. County:... 'l�/�.......................
Owner Name:......... ........ .... Phone No:....`. _��.Q..............................
FacilityContact .......... .................... Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: ............. � �IGr�{ CC�h/. ... G?iy+[ii,f... �4.!H!.r.� fi ,:......Z7Z/.7...:...................... ..........................
Onsite Representative: .... 7i.4 ....J r ............................. .. Integrator:.................................................................I....................
Certified Operator.. ....... ................................ Operator Certification Number:...........................................
Location of Farm:
Latitude FTV19
, « Longitude ®• 79
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
General
I. Are there any buffers that need mainterhanceefmmprovetnent'? © Yes M No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of die operation'?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ tipray 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 die estimated flow in gal/nhin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify D WQ)
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 (odher than lagoons/fholding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge'?
7/25/°97
❑ Yes QQ No
❑ Yes [:)No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes © No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [4 No
❑ Yes Kj No
❑ Yes '� No
❑ Yes No

Facility Number: yr — 1.3 1 Date of Inspection
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on sitle-ch need to be properly closed'? . ❑ Yes ® No
Structures (Lagoons jjoldin2 Ponds, Flush NO, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate`? ❑ Yes R No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ....... ..1................. A'* Z....... ................................... .................................... .......................... I ......... ... .................................
Freeboard(ft): .D-........3sL).................................................................................................... I...................... ...................................
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'?
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 ........�,OzgL,_
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in die Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)'?
17. Does die facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application'?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement'?
19. is there a lack of available waste application equipment'?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency'?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement'?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of die Animal Waste Management Plan readily available'?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP'?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of die Permit'?
•1�I0•Violati60s:or.d rkienEles.Were:noted,duiriing�this-visit.'YOU-will -rpteWe-ao'ftlrib er'
:.carrespvQdenceabiouiihis', isk.................•. .-.-..-.-:-..-.-.-.•.-:
Dyes 94 No
0 Yes 1� No
❑ Yes 4 No
D Yes [&No
© Yes KP No
(] Yes J� No
(] Yes r1_7r No
MY
17-1 Yes & No
0 Yes PQ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ( No
❑ Yes (+XNo

p Division of Soil&Water Conservation p Other Ag a
Division of Wat uality
p Routine p Complaint p o ow -up of DWQ inspection p Follow-up of DSNVCreview p_ Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Y Registered o Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted In Not OperationalDate Last Operated:
Farm Name:Jeff.Ropkins.Eaum................. ............... County: Guilford WSRO
.............. ..................
OwnerName:jeffrxson ............................... Ropkins ..................................................... Phone No: 654-27.00 ...................................................................
Facility Contact: jerff.Nop pins, ...................................................Title: ow}:ner........
Mailing Address: fi255... hitece[far.ltaad.................................................................
Onsite Representative: Mary-Hopkins........................................................................
CertifiedOperator: .................................................. ......................................................
Location of Farm:
......... I .... I ..... ...... Phone No: ...........................................
B.ro ry ns.S. umnjj tt..N C........................................ 27214 ..............
.. Integrator: ........... . .....................................................
Operator Certification Number: .........................................
Lt.en .o .... rtece ar. ..ja n rm. ...an . e s.vi e. oa..........................................................................
Latitude ®• ®& ® Longitude ®• ®
Swine Capacity Population
p Wean to Feeder
p Feeder to Finish
p Farrow to NVean
p Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finish
p Gilts
p Boars
Design t—urrent Design U urren
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
p Layer
p Non -Layer
p Other
Total Design Capacity 225
Total SSLW315,000
Number of Lagoons /Holding "Pond's
rep
Subsurface Drains resent
[31,agoonArea
p 1 pray is
p No Liiqui aste anagement System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
p Yes
® No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
p Yes
® No
b. lfdischarae is observed, did it reach Surface Water`? (If yes, notify DNVQ)
[]Yes
® No
c. ]f discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in Lml/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?
p Yes
®No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
p Yes
®No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
p Yes
®No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
®No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
p Yes
p No
7/25/97

Facility Number: 47-13
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on sn`e which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Laaoons.14olding Ponds, Flush Pits. etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: 1 2
Freeboard(ti):................ f................ ................0................ ..........................................................
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 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)
O Yes IN No
p Yes ® No
Structure 5 Structure 6
..................6....................1............6.........1.......
15. Crop type .......CQm4Silabe.&.Cara.in.)....... ...................... keszue...................................... sudex.(.si.labe)............... ...
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (A WMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Onlv
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Pen -nit?
R • 1�1.o:vaalations.or aelaterencies,were.noteU.tlunng this visa... 'yuu. wm.reeeive no: further .:.
:.'C006�io:nkoe� aWL(t t�iis visit::::::. • ...::::::::: .: .
O Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes p No
p Yes ® No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
®No
p Yes
®No
p Yes
®No
p Yes
IN No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
p No
p Yes ONO
p Yes p No
© Yes p No
Commen.W(rcfer to qucstibn'#): 'Lxplain any 1`'ES Ailsivers aitd/6r`anj''recoinnieiidations or any other comments.
Use:dra)0ngs of,facility,to,better explain situations."(use additional`.pages;as.necessary)
Additional pond below holding ponds will catch silage runoff and any overflows. Owner has been to school and will take
certificatioin test. Deminimus discharge.from.parlor door due to floor washing. Some curbing needs to be completed to further
reduce wastewater from entering new farm pond below holding ponds.
712 5/97
Reviewerllnspector Name 116 GiFyille
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

A,z
k ❑DSWCai Feedlot Operation Revle 8 r
g ��DKWQ "Awl
v.
Animal Feedlot Opelration Site,- ns'peetion
Y. a
® Routine 0 Com taint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number
Date of Inspection 0$"
!
Time of Inspection 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 r�
❑ Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection Qncludes travel andprocessing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated: ...... . .... . .................... ....... .............. ..................................... . ................ . .............. ......... .......
Farm Name:.............H.'.t� jp... ......... .................. County:.....l .h..!...1. ..........._.... _......_.
Land Owner Name: .:'�.> ..._.7.Kh ► -,-r Phone No: q� �srli ' ?�
FacilityConctact: 1 .......... Title: ................................_..... w..................................................................... Phone No: ..... ...... ............................ ................
Mailing Address: F�L S .irk/..?.t.T. -.._C. a-_✓.d� :............... Y.. .Y .t�... (�._�+7.!tt.t ..........�� ................a-? 2_�.�`:
Onsite Representative:........... � ' h. `t' Integrator: ...... _.....
_
Certified Operator:...._......._............................................................................ ........... . Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude " Longitude ©• '•
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
x n F^c :. DeSI n Current a DesignCurrent �� �I)eslgn Currents r g
. - - ... �,
Swine I'oultr Ca acity Po elation 'Cattie� Ca acIPo tilatlon`r
" , �_ : .Ca acI Po ulatlatt Yx , .
El Wean to Feeder I❑ Layer Da' D U
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑Non La er ❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder Total De""sign Cap city
Farrow to Finish
M Total SSLW
❑ Other„
y
Number of L goojns/�oldtng Pon[1s ❑ Subsurface Drams Present
n ,F �, ' ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area 1.
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes 1�lNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes (5'No
❑ Yes
;Q No
❑ Yes
91 No
❑ Yes
Q No
❑ Yes
M No
Continued
on back

Facility Number: ..�,�/..... ..... 1
6. Is facility not in compliance with anywcable setback criteria in effect at the time Aign?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? fi++
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? .
Freeboard (ft): Strue/re 1 Struc re 2 Structure 3
p......
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?
❑ Yes t No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure S Structure 6
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? N Iq
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
........... �:u. �L&
15. Crop type ...... ............--- j --•-• ........._ .................
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?
Fpr Certified Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes QrNo
❑ Yes 5]No
❑ Yes UNO
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes JONo
❑ Yes PM
❑ Yes NTo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
ConfinentsVcfer to question, s#) Explain any YES answers and/or. any recommendations or°anyrother comments:
Use drawings of facility to'hetter explam`situations (use additional pages as necessary}
11 �� .
+� {`1 1 �,� G �•' �Q v vv� (� .�``SJ V �.� 4��1rQ�Q,. O ,9.
G .�•(J�.1 J /j l'► ►'� -� Q
c�-Jc- L O_'
Q y
c
C.o �, , �� a d a V O ► d vJas �"� r r o .-.ti e_,� � , .� V\ Q 'Z - R e r.-.
Reviewer/Inspector Name 3 I 4 t 3 'W- % l W E .�ftw'
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: C i Date: 9 70zz
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

s.
-
«ti
-<�
Ll
:rxx-xr-?xx
r
Farm Status: Registered
Farm Name: JP f.Hopkins.Farm.....................................................
Date of Inspection Time -of Inspection
14/16/96 TO.Use 24 hr. time,
p Routine p Complaint p Follow-up
............ County: G.uilfnx:d............................................... W.S.R0.........
Owner Name:Jefferson ................................ Hapki.ns................................................... Phone No: 656r.7.70.0 ...............
Mailing Address: 8255 Whitecedar Road Browns Summitt NC
Onsite representative : ............................................ .. Integrator: ..............................................................................................
Certified Operator Name: defferson.1........................................ Hopkins ..............................................
Location of Farm:
27214
Latitude ®•®` ®" Longitude ®"
pNot Operational Date Last Operated: ............................................................................................................................................................
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Was 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?
❑ Yes []No
® Yes []No
❑ Yes []No
❑ Yes []No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[]Yes []No
❑ Yes []No
p Yes []No

6.
Is facility not in compliance with any *cable setback criteria? 0
® Yes
❑ No
7.
Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge (if inspection after 1/l/97)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
8.
Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
p Yes
p No
Structures (La.goons and/or Holding Ponds)
9.
is structural freeboard less than adequate?
❑ Yes
p No
Freeboard (ft): Lagoon 1 Lagoon 2 Lagoon 3
Lagoon 4
3 0
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
p Yes
® No
L
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
® Yes
p No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
p No
(If any of questions 9-I2 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adquate markers to identify start and stop pumping levels?
p Yes
[]No
Waste_Anplication
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
p No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type
16.
Do the active crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan?
[]Yes
❑ No
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
0 Yes
® No
18.
Does the cover crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Is there a lack of available irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
For Certified Facilities Only
20.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21.
Does the facility fail to comply with the Animal Waste Management Plan in any way?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
p No
23.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with owner or operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
�---------- ---------- -- --- =-�-r i-----= ------ -
- - - -
-- :•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:
---:
.....................................................................................................................................•...
Discharge flows about 1/2 mile almost to creek during dry weather. Old overflow pipe removed but lagoon breached and
discharging. Larger lagoon to be installed.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Revewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

cc: Facility Assessment Unit
�ESRC� P . 02��2
JUL-14-1995 15:34 FROM DEM WATER QUALITY SECTION TO
0 0
Site Requires Immediate Attention: J
Facility No. / —3 J2_
DMSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 7
ANR AL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: Af/4 / �L, 1995 '7
Time: % 3. ?y ' -
Farm NameJOwner. `J e i` 11V /i : •�J .r am. i e� h �St, ,, , ,.., ` `y C
Mailing Address: !i �� A_ -2
County: ,-
Integratar. Phone:
On Site Representative: Phone: 5 � r1 0-0
Physical AddresslLocation:
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle �u
Design Capacity: A.Number of Animals on Site:
DEM Certification Nrber: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: -3 , ' Longitude: 9 _ Q" Elevation:. _ Feet
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) Yes or No ActUal Freeboard:t. Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes orRkas any erosion observed? Yes or To
Is adequate land available spray? Z&S-& No Is the cover crop adequate<Y.sszr No
Crop(s) being utilized: 1 9--
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings? Yes off' 1i
100 Feet from Wells? Yes or - 7
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or Co-7
• Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line? Yes or 1077
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system. or other
similar man-made devices? Yes or jp If Yes, Please Explain.ni� .•J �/ /�' �. o-
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? ,Yes or No
L
r /L) c,
Inspector Name
Ne1-
X/3 �
L),Ji�
Use Attachments if Needed.
0
tnTai P_PIP

-1-0f
•

S.it.= �.,-�+"rs imrn;,3irstc At�Pnticn
1''1CIRVI iiUII1W! �•
SIL'IN RSCow3
uAia:L]it .1995
1
Owner: �5� n� Facto warn.:: ,'�'PJ c� "t
C--Imty: _... C v/L fd2D -
Age -It visr Sites C� L, ?hone.4/0 -3 3 3- S Yoo
LI1,csstor: } � Phar,e-
�a 5itc Re;rrcccata[lva: 21 111111 fGZi� PJ 11 hono•
Nlysicsi Address: yt. ��JCt !�lde,If c/ O � ;Z-f — S ��._," A' D� i%:CI
M:jilinxr Addi-r= L SS 0:11-_ /f��%a., C
/ ( 2).2
Type of f?p=tica'� Swine Poultry Caulc � C�.q
Ceia,t Capcity. Number of Animals can Sits: , 2� _
—' Lonzitudc:
Type of ln3c .ic n: On,and Aerial
Circle Ycs or ; is
Does ;Le Aniutal'Wasm Lage--n have zuIic;czt fmctaarr of 1 Foot _ 25 veurs4 hour stot,zr event files
�-srim.tr
(apprc.-dmntely I Foot 1 izc:^.es) Yes or No :xi Hard: � i �.r D InCtAs
For fac:litiea Witic moro rhea cry :a rrrr, p1c9sc address the cti:c; lagoom' fr�=board und:r the
cvrrnnc:tts s:.caon.
WflS any s=-paSc oGscrved L-om t1e- lagcoti(s)? Yeas oqswm Lcm cr4aian orfl-,z dam?: Y=1 Cw NO
Is ad: uua:c land xvOable for land application? Yes of Yo Is fire airs: cro¢ adoqaat? Yes cf Na
Additional CcmmenLS: VVOed t ('C' vAv,,-1 fQ' P1� c�ArY , AJ
F%� to (919) 7I5-3559
Signature orAyg=t