410014_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Division of Water Resourc
Facility Number - Division of Soil and Water*nervation
,_j 0 Other 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 0 Denied Access
Date of visit: 11 I Arrival Time: Departure Time: 10 :15 Cu County: Yd
Farm Name: �V_e6\j For y— VQ1'm Owner Email:
Owner Name: Teo, g, Phone:
Mailing Address: �Oq2-. SOC)U_\Ne, I 0, F Jon , CV G
Region: �9-0
Physical Address:y
Facility Contact: Apoyc,�: I QIaQU& Title: Phone: e1.il A—tlq- qb?)
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
_' 4 1Rr-, n coec!
Certified Operator: �� Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
00,+0
t-kv vo e - U " �+Wy loo .qj �7
_ 61�7rU
WAN kin a
=71J Mt0
} rwy U
t� ?
li-J OyVb a-C� I fJY .
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
' H]-Layer
Dry routtry
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Design Current
Discharp,es and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
D Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
� No
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: .14 ! - ILA Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment *L
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I `Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: u Ppe* lbw
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
lrir
Observed Freeboard (in): -6 0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes jr,'�"J' 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?
❑ Yes
VS[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes `�' No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Siudge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): . 75c , h)fb
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
.1�4 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
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ yes
j No
77��
❑ 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 o riate box below. Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysr Soil Analysis ❑ Waste fTmr4ers � Weather Code
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield �4 120 Minu e n pec ions DqMonthly and l" Rainfall Inspections ❑ S•LudgP C?rve;
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 5n 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: 4 1- j Date of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste appion equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes 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 No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
0 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.
34. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
T�
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawines of facility to better explain situations (use additional paces as necessary).
O(As lover end marker ee� ;�cd ? 1��5, hooks t� o a '6
uve 1nGies beyn rgisucA ? 5
VkcoycI lv1� i `' Mir) E Crop y i eA d S ? ��D��ed� t�� 1, c� l >�rcA; evor"AS
anc\�(5i 5 AA 555P
1QCt Ck Gn q
f�-It
�vql 1( Cc%brd& -eyld o� ,9oo.
®Co A,gut MOYA5 f 3CW O ,5 uP'PzY.
Reviewer/Inspector N
Reviewer/Inspector S
Page 3 of 3
�P�►; tom-,- ��,-.
fU/5'1 b
GPI i
60 l�
3 l�
Phone: 3, 3L— ]3(:,— 9 705
Date:
2/4/2015

Division of Water Resources
Facility Number - f O Division of Soil and Water CT
rvation
O Other Agency
Fvpe of Visit: WCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit; VRoutine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: } I6
Farm Name: Q&60
Arrival Time: j0:1f5,wj Departure Time:�� County: tL Region: L,6RQ
POP qpi'n Owner Email:
Owner Name: 4Zr4 Tzp�W8
Mailing Address: '-?00i oS .50CWb4C—L . R� ELOJ.1 t
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: k-ortnc
Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
c a7 a► 4
Phone: �,) L& - 47p
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
;L 40 E --V UF5- CCQre
GQcw UAV i
(W. —I�b (Zkw-r (7ki 44 70 L6f o.t f{,R� Cw-" j
(� I G11R Oo.r b►-�- NW w S? •
�7I`r au
j L N
RrT a u S o ciCG� go
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 I I Ld
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharzes 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?
Page I of 3
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow-
B75
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes L!d No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[] Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
K] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
K] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
21412015 Continued

Facili Number: 44 - 0Date of Ins ection: 216
Waste Collection & Treatment
4, is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
gNo
❑ 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: UPPQ& Le"fl.
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ N E
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental
threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
Er No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[2TNo
❑ 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
ZrNo
❑ 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
F� 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): Sl(,g
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops dither from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
O 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
[g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination'?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[K No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check
❑ Yes
r<No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
f nW P ff lMps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
[N-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
sis
❑ Waste Transfers
­E3-WratfmT-Gede
€all Cop Yiel spec ons ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the faciliWftoinstall andmaintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[XrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
fRt—No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412015 Continued

Facility Number: 41 - ILL Date of Inspection: A
6
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? [:]Yes FNo
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? if yes, check ❑ Yes CXNo
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes R No [DNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [!T No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ®No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes ff No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes [R No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
94.)906 CA -[.Igo% �fs51 p�►,�e 1�-1� -J!j� 1)u tfiAw a-017.
7.) GRouwO f rDfr ffu_t5 R��t��N9 ? jl�s y e��7w e,� Ts 1 'TWS + A\O W W'P
f3sau Pu Rc�s�p
J.) S dA L- N +f "f s b (JC43f, &(5 (16.
pa Y rap e_&oc%05 r�(c rr IS 4MZ60 . PaRrMIT&E tS +v ftTV4 F
CoAo jW_ j I Sopaw, mojeq 7/;L5116 .
S') (�oRMcr>l -r Svc em& eevo c op
upper_ G( tc (cc, t'-VWoy� Co
R.(^50 - N : 0-s8 1000 CA&t_S d •3�► 1'0Oo
Reviewer/]nspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 40(,- 40tO
Date: t
21412015

'Division of: Water.:Resources
Facility Number - O Division of Soil and Water col ervationQ �,
O Other Agency. 1
Type of Visit: ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral Q Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: $ p Arrival Time: ; U Departure Time: `tl County: u Region: &35
Farm Name: For IL Fw- hi - Owner Email:
Owner Name: ce-otr4t✓ Te-ai._Q U Phone:
9 a-,-e-�-� l a _
Mailing Address: 7 �Q� /�. ��N%�
Physical Address: W
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
ce.l l to 7q -- `18 g3
Phone: �Jpr IL q qq —
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
L --1(G exs+ , - 76 E , L
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
_Dry Poultry
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Design Current
Discharp_es and Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dai Cow
900
TO
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes 1P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? Yes CRINo ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters o ❑ NA 0 NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 / 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: q1 -1—* Date of Ins ection: _
s
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
[DNA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level ia the structural free oard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
S re l U �Q Structure 2 tb fracture 311 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
p
Identifier: `�J
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 1 3
Observed Freeboard (in): G
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
[DNA ❑ 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
[DNA ❑ 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 D NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes 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 [DNA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of 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
La""No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
EyNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and,'or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
r'R"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
�TNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
0 Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ENo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes J�'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need i provement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Apgstockipg
tion Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis ❑Soil Analysis Weather Code
[Rainfall Ercrop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections R(Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22_ Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes F)rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: q1 - Date of Ins ection: ' S
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applellon 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 Q-N-A ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail 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)
3 I. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes CRrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes JR]rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes DR"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes &No 0 NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes LNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes �lo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes ,�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes Wo ❑ 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 necessarv).
cam. 2_01 S ,
C� b h ho 5� � c — W I t S t _.l P fVC/4
Lkirf
At#A&6
. r
V y--
1 c
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date: A&L01
21412014

Division -o'UWater_:•Re'Souice.
Facility Number - Division of'Soil"and Water C � nervation6T
0 Other Agency + `-
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 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: Arrival Timed �� Departure Time: �� County: du Aral Region: � an
Farm Name: r �`j"-r" Q_Vrm Owner Email:
Owner Name: ��p "e_ E -e—_q G U � e— Phone: R-el p Ve,
Mailing Address: 7(i q � Sr)c _(i I P_ I 1 " • . �'� 1'1 _ A� 7 l
Physical Address:.
Facility Contact: r T tle:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: 4/Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
T_ qo C
(T) Vj I
Swine
,(L) E0t-
ai In Sf.. i
Phone:
Certification Number:
Latitude:
,emsILb ury //w
at
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
­ V 11—L
Pullets
Turkey Poults
Other
Design Current
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Longitude: `� r
7OEMQL-
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
'Daia
Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
[:]Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? [:]Yes P�`No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes 5(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412014 Continued

Faciti Number: - Date of Ins ection: Z p
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes Og(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): ok
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? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [A 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 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc..))``''��
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s)
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
19No
❑ NA
0 NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
__ �
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
D jKA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
jj�'5o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
�R o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
0Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have ail components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
�(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. oes record keeping need i rovement?fie WYes ❑ No
Applica 'on eekly Freeboar 7enspections
e Analys' Soil Analysis ❑Wastt�rtrrrsfers
Rainfall Stockin Crop Yield20 MmMonthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility i"ai1 to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes A No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 2 of 3
❑NA ❑NE
Weather Code
urve
❑ NA ❑ NE
;;�1QA ❑ NE
21412014 Continued

Facili Number: - I Date of Inspection: / Q
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �f No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑` No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ NA ❑ NE
,P A ONE
❑ 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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes �lo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues �T
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal? 7770q
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 0 No
❑ Yes [N/No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes 12<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
FF1,&1iUaLAorl ? DLe, orIv, a015-, .57M "0V1 4 51 VV'r� C3W0
6 9-E E N
0
r1 ri `r FaLl .
&�-vial \45 t '-5 Lo/i n[\j U 'UAd 4v-ij
! C �° �►b over
c�.pplu���n o
�
`l ati rc�,yl ep"AA-k5o a
'l-zo/IV 3,'e/k LSD-rolg<i-,114 a$ v 1rr►0 - C V 1 I 1
Reviewer/Inspector
Reviewer/Inspector
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date: ,Z0

■ Division of Water Resources
❑
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 410014 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC410014
Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Other County: Guilford Region:
Date of Visit: 0911512014 Entry Time: 12:45 am Exit Time: 1:15 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Reedy Fork Farm
Owner:
George Y Teague
Mailing Address:
7092 Sockwell Rd
Physical Address:
7092 Sockwell Rd
Facility Status:
❑
Owner Email:
Phone:
Elon College NC 272449607
Eton College NC 27244
❑ Denied Access
Winston-Salem
[e-mail]
336-449-4888
Compliant Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36° 10' 23" Longitude: 79' 33' 28"
From WSRO: 1-40 east to GSO. North on NC Hwy 61. Right onto Sockwell Road. Farm on right at intersection of Sockwell and
Baldwin Roads.
Question Areas:
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Certified Operator: George Y Teague Operator Certification Number: 21329
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name George Teague Phone : [phone]
On -site representative George Teague Phone : [phone]
Primary Inspector: M s a Roseb�ronckk Phone:
Inspector Signature: �tI1� d � �i ! Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
9. Embankment of "milk WSP" (#2) has 14, 6-inch diameter burrow holes. Vegetation is very tall as well. Needs to be mowed
ASAP and holes repaired.
Today's visit was to check on pumping of manure transfered by BioGreen from Kings Mill (RRO) to Reedy Fork Farm. Four, 8000
gal tankers were in use today. Only hauling 6500 gal in tankers though. Instructed OIC and hauler to keep waste level below
maximum liquid mark, especially with burrow holes. Are hauling 100,000 gal. per day. Mr. Teague was irrigating waste today and
is maintaining compliance with regard to waste level.
page: 1

0
Permit:
AWC410014 Owner - Facility : George Y Teague
Facility Number:
410014
Inspection Date:
09/15/14 Inppection Type: Structure Evaluation Reason for Visit:
Other
Waste Structures
Disignated
Observed
Type
Identifier Closed Date Start Date
Freeboard
Freeboard
Waste Pond
WSP 1 MILK
Waste Pond
WSP 2 FREESTALL
Waste Collection Storage & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
maintenance or improvement?
Yes No Na Ne
❑■❑❑
[on SEEM]
■❑❑❑
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
page: 2

1/
w
Division of Water Quality
]Facility Number 11J - EA 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: A Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
0 1 / r 3
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: ; d . p County: Region: /e O
Farm Name: Fe�_O!'k t-Alf-M Owner Email: cjy eRRte® Anw� f . CaM
r
Owner Name: tram P- ) of e, l.1t' Phone: (w) Ll 6 2—
Mailing Address: 0 q Z 56 ck�.�,1 ci . _I aY1 !" C 2- r% Z
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: -eo1�az Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
(0 6sy- /Tff3
Phone: ( H)
Integrator:
Certification Number -
Back -up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36I6 Z3 Longitude: 'I 33 24
T-LlD , ;� y�y-; �, Rock 6,u k L.ky 93) f�' f w r7o t./ L Hw.,y,'� �
K 1r,1. MGM 5�;� L Ov"I 6 t N,
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gifts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
Non-L,
Pullets
Other
Poults
Design Current
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: D. Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Q
5,1
Daia Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes <No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
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 xNo
❑ Yes �No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

is/1p3 0r3
hacili Number: - • Date of Ins ection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? Vyes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural Freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?: Ye-5— {/.S
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): io
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ YesNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? `Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes M 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? 4
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
D Yes 9No
❑ 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): 1L
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes JE;rNo
❑ 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 ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes �E(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
Ifa
srecord keepingneed improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑SoilAnalysis ❑ Weather Code
fa11 ❑ Stocking ❑Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections r-1��
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ;2,'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No t5d NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection. c"w! fl.
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applfcatfon equipment as required by the permit? Ayes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ONA ❑ 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 WNA
❑NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes WNo
❑ 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 O/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
❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over-application)JS�`No
���
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
ro
❑ Yeso
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
l�s f a/�/J } cah 12-
g �S� Metf Kf*f ke-n rc ;& � 1'� m dk iVaf4 l t$. f A"'X'
21, 2-011 + 2}12- �kl) q4, �rrY -,k ,fed,
��
'_
4 Lt�I CLY or I�r�+V ice! Z
7. �1�.ir7iw c l[ 1 Gvs t',u1 e..�G,41�.1 ` .T "Of i eAA6V-e - PCSI+-
�S
'1=Q,5-MAl 1pz5�A Oki
-7/i 1 /12- — l =1, 0 /d /J 02- " L Xl lb nl
Reviewer/Inspector Name: q �' dc- , LA ` r L I I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
C"- 2015-Pc--Coco)
Phone: ��'l-
Date:
21412011

Ir ADivision of Water Quality
Facility Number t----J - 0 Division of Soil and Water *ervation
0 Other Agency 4r
Type of Visit: QD Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: (Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral O Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: q 2, q I I Arrival Time: h9 Departure Time: JQ County: 61L)OAJ Region: I L]52{j
Farm Name: F6rtL Ear wL Owner Email:
Owner Name: eon' ` e_a u e— Phone: qq — C� / �1/V
.� 1 A ,
Mailing Address:
v
Physical Address:/
Facility Contact: A j� rQ p -rp a Q 1) 49- Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
�JC.
►y 1S6 Cast to IVc_, M 61
�o
Sou-.
t e Cf onfo
5ocv-wets Rd.
►
- 46 E . rt'- IS- 5 • -e_� i f � � -1 U
-- 7 0
S q 6
1UU
Desig en �urrt
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
)W 7 U Le'Desdg toC€fiteht
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
Design Current
Dry Poultry Canacitv Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turke 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)
P e L D ' Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
QQ
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes �PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes rM No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - • Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes !!ll��� � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? 0 Yes ❑"'"" No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 AjStructure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: j
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 1X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes %No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 4No ❑ 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 W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes C@ 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): —
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
YU
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes [ Flo ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Docs the facility lack adequate acrcagc for land application? ❑Yes AIo ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes �,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check �j(I Yes [XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. 77�� ��``
❑WUP ❑Checklists Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
VW.19ste
es record keeping need i provement? es ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
M'
Applic ion Weekly Freeboar Waste Analy ' Soil Analysisjraste Transfers Bather Code
Rainfall Stocking ❑Crop Yield wt, Minute Inspections Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections ❑-"ase �>> ;"
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes IX No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No [S�N� ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: ZF I - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste appfi ation 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 V NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes
5f No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[Po
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
o No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes [�f No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes " No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes P�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? [:]Yes �6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes CgNo [DNA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ff): 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).
d �JaL_t L'&Zj
02 � • o2-4 � O SO t I fey fS � CkaA4U4
®#a rvt1 IY_ -,to_� M
Lk
it/aaJ';Zoin 7= 0.c0 �s 41 34
ftl ..
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature.
Page 3 of 3
Phone. ' a S
Date:
21412011

Type of Visit CyCompliance Inspection O Operation Review o Structure Evaluation o Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 16 Routine o Complaint o Follow up o Referral o Emergency o Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: I I_t j `j_1.1_� Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: GU i t' Region: W590
Farm Name: A" As br (L EQ r-W Owner Email:
Owner Name: �Dt-4 oe Phone: q Q q l a�
Mailing Address: -70_SO G iL t,)-e j �_ E 16rl Co ( /e Q e N L z 7 oZ 4V
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: dP_QM -0— T Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: inte'rxter: `
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
latitude: [�o 0
® ,s
o
Longitude: C
UL 4wy l S"o
64,54- ft NC tow r 6 / Sots . Le-�+
op+o
SoCI__LeJej(
Design Current
S.witie Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
y ❑ Boars
.T„
utner _
❑4Other '
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry,Po'tiltry .
Layers
Non-L
Pullets
IL I Turkev Poultsl 1 II
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design "` �,Gurrent%
Cattle CapacityPopulatio
Dairy Cow
O�
Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Numb
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
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: q I— I* Date of Inspection 4AMj D 0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes JkNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
"y� tructure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
�,k.Identifier: 5L&
fit? \0 Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage; etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes qNo ❑ 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 P(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ,XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10.
Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
b�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11.
Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
;j�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12.
Crop type(s) Pro r eto V r
ne-
13.
Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes
�(
u5,f No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes
IYNo
❑ 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
M fro
❑ NA ❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
1Z No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
l I 401 ca*1.6 n
Reviewer/Inspector Name
a
Phone: --1%—Sol9_9
Reviewer// nspector Signature:
Date:
Page 2 of 3 r t' ' 1 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Sof Inspection j0
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other �21.
Do record keeping need irrovement? F€-des-ehzd�th slew- ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application L'J 7cropYield
ly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis Waste Transfers
LJ Rainfail Ey'Stocking IV120 Minute Inspections M Monthly and V Rain Inspections (}'Weather Code
bVkT_
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? /* ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes �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
❑NA
ElNE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
ElYeskNo
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
/NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
lb L4 u'_ to d s
rvLcLi
aoo� id o� fe5 s ao�e`-
9 , 5 l f (j
t
�N.5 o
6 i b0L5# e- Ark s iS = o pq I b N 100
O .Liq j b- N 1mo
0 -a3 1V5, f-1/I0 c
Page 3 of 3 rr f 11/28/04

ivision of NV' l r QuaUtt
Facility Number _ _ O Division of Soil andtWater Ca-
ns', a
Other Ageney 4 .r
Type of Visit j6 Corrt ante Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit grRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ��f' O `Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region:
G Farm Name: f` e 'r Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: gw e,
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Phone:
Phone No:
Integrator: . AVA
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ❑ o = ` = Longitude: = o =, = "
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish ❑ Layer
❑ Wean to Feeder I JEJ Non -La er II
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
ElTurke Pouets
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design —Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
+ 7
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:ti
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
❑ Yes Fo[E
A ❑ NE
El YesA El NE
El YesA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — 1 � Date of Inspection 1(LZifl
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): (�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No -NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmenta;No
r , no DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? El YesNA ❑ 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 NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers. setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ AYesjN NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?11. Is there evidence of incorrect appl ? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ,0o
' ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) %— e j �.� �i(,rL✓ �ir� 4'j ✓ i S.
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes No - NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ElYes �N- NA El NE
_� o �
El No
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? 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):
r} y
, L1 11-I1 -c� 3 ! 57.1 �/�/-�cr� e rc.v ds' 1 ���A� ! ti!?f1ITP�tec�.
AIA 4`1 04 FfHS " �h t� 'tOn cit—G.40-d LR/IA,4— Owl, Bt+ T Lvpy r✓j clL
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: 9 'A Cz_7
Reviewerllnspector Signature: Date: [ [[ O
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: of Inspection ER i0
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes Nc NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check El Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste 'transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ ather 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? ElYes
No ❑ NA NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No JaNA ❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No - NA ❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes��NoEOI
NA ❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

0
Division of Water Qualitw
Facility Number7nEi 9Division of Soil and Water Conservation j PM
Q Other Agency 1
Type of Visit 10 Compliance Inspection o Operation Review o Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit � Routine o Complaint o Follow up o Referral o Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 5 b!� Arrival Time: Departure Time: O�]~ County: dy'll T'ord Region: DVS R6
Farm Name: 1 y FC L _Fcl►rn3 Owner Email: Owner Name: Ge4r4e_ T2 gy V L Phone: U q q ` 43 r l W
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: Sa M'f-..�4rr �pT — �q/
Facility Contact: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: orQe_ - To a q ue __ Integrator: '~^
Certified Operator: Q-dr Operator Certification Number: a
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: to 0 Longitude:
-T-40 G to NC, AWY 101 Nor` vj - 6"0 R-J . � rrn On Pf.
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity, Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
Non-L
Pullets
Poults
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
aoa
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifej
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocket
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
Discharp_es & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
14No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes X(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facilih, Number: — Rate of Inspection g
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropirate box.
ElWUP ❑❑ DesiChecklists gn ❑Maps El Other
❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application Week Freeboard Waste Analysis ❑ Sol] A 1 sis Waste TransfersTT'' on
rp Y Y
�`Rzinfall Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1"Rain Inspections Bather Code
21. Does r ord keeping need im ovement? If yes, chec the appropriate box below.
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes NI"No
❑ Yes .kNo
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? DUE ❑ Yes
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? or—105 ❑ Yes
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ NA ❑ NE
0 No ❑ NA
❑ No [� NA
*o ❑ NA
❑ No A NA
$No ❑ NA
VNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
I �b O (o � I e5+
4� o
PA t\J AA A rib
b ❑ 12/28/04
fr "�"�V�/""�uu�""�"'<.I< ALL ~/ ►'�'�

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment 3
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 12No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
tructure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: �--
Sptllway. .
Designed Freeboard (in):
i
Observed Freeboard (in): a�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? []Yes
XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
JZNo ❑ 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
kNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
No El 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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) Q 1aL_LGc� ( 1 �''li P_ V- 0�.�5
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
XN o
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
X 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):
1 • � �co; d � 7 � waste. res � ��-5 � 5
Pat I o(o
r lulu+ nt A VIC-
Reviewer/Inspector Name v r [� Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date:Ig
� / -} oo � 12/28/04 Continued

•
•
E Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 410Q14� Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC410014 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Guilford _ Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 03/09/2007 Entry Time:09:40 AM Exit Time: 11 A AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Reedy Fork Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Georae Y Teaaue Phone: QQQ-9-4362
Mailing Address: 7092 Sockwell Rd Elon Coifege NC272449607
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36°10'23" Longitude: 79"33'28"_
From WSRO: 1-40 east to GSO. North on NC Hwy 61. Right onto Sockwell Road. Farm on right at intersection of Sockwell and
Baldwin Roads.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: George Y Teague Operator Certification Number: 21329
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative George Teague Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name George Teague Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melicea Rosebrock Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date: 3A /(,):I
v
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
3. Monitor wet area near mobile home. May need to fence cattle out of this area.
7. Continue efforts to control burrowing animals and repair holes. Check next visit.
9. Need to repair leaking drinker since you're getting excess waterin ow,as( po d #2
16. Keep design with records. Check next visit. �PO`"^'t'�4 ce ? a
21. 2006 soil test results aren't back yet. Check next visit. O �p
21. Waste sample results for Nov./Dec. 2006 not back yet. Will need to re -sample as soon as possible. Check these records next visit. Cpl
24, Completed last year.
26. Contact tech specialist about adding broadcast fields/acreage/PAN to WUP as soon as possible.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC410014 Owner - Facility: George Y Teague Facility Number: 410014
Inspection Date: 03/0912007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Q Cattle - Milk Caw 200 108
Total Design Capacity: 200
Total SSLW: 280,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
kaste Pond WSP 1 MILK 42.00
k1ste Pond WSP 2 FREESTALL 48.00
Page: 2

0
Permit: AWC410014 Owner - Facility: George Y Teague Facility
Number:
410014
Inspection Date: 03/09/2007 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 DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Led large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
■
❑
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
■
❑
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

e
•
Permit: AWC410014 Owner - Facility: George Y Teague
Facility Number: 410014
Inspection Date: 0310912007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for VisIt: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Sorghum, Sudex
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Page: 4

0 •
Permit: AWC410014 Owner - Facility: George Y Teague
Facility Number:
410014
Inspection Date: 03/09/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)? ❑
■
❑ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑ ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑ ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
O ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑ ❑
Yes
No
NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AWC410014 Owner - Facility: George Y Teague
Inspection Date: 03109l2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32, Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 410014
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit VRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: u r Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: GU i 1 f O r� Region: &_ 90
Farm Name: �� v for Fa rn') Owner Email: ,'II
Owner Name:, G t?-jD r Q e. y J Q L) e Phone: — 7 6.2 t<6-3
Mailing Address: , d9 S oC lL l�� ��_� E am � L le-Q e • _ ,_ Physical Address: �$ 1�`— q G)
Facility Contact: T!?li4 Ue Title: Phone No: q $c93
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: V -�
Sack -up Operator:
Location of Farm:
r-qo ems+
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
❑ Other
Integrator: j
Operator Certification Number: a
Back-up Certification Number:
O
Latitude: 0 Longitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Laver
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ 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
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder, -
❑
Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

r
Facility Number: — � � Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): LA
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public healtlf 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? III❑ Yes 4No ❑ 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? 4
Waste Apnlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenancelimprovement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes kNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 101bs ❑ 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)Aj AA,��
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
$No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
i3<No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
0 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):
of w/ re_Co rd 5
oP*_+�J .
ko m/. C' ur� 0� PU S�N T
to �,/� �- a
fii�\riI�'a Juwwzai SIR\a.-r

Facility Number: — tate of Inspection 0
—T
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes o ElNA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ElYes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design g ❑ Maps p ElOther
21. Vwaste
ecord keeping need im rovement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
A lic tYee Freeboard ❑ Waste Anal sis SoilAnal sis LIWaste Transfers !C-y-r-__iPP Y /Y Y ❑ "--��-
ainfall Stocking Crop Yield L1� 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 6No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 0 No O NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? GaMAleW ❑ Yes L'J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No [%NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes [ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes VkN o ❑ 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 X 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 ElNA ElNE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes �Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
B r6co east �? 6AS , a.cr-e o- 2 , w- 1)14 N Q6w ed fa w u P ?
A 5d I i-e-s+ re
Mon-
t�-�et 0_X-eA ()eo-*- -A-ra.tkort' mace he'e� `t0 �CACR_'
P P -
(1)
As"o �h e
12128104

r
r
I

0
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 410014
Facility Status: Active Permit:
AWC410014 _ ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliancelnspection
_ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine
County: Guilford
Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 08/17/2006
Entry Time:10745 AM Exit Time: 12:30 PM
Incident #:
Farm Name: Reedy Fork —Farm
Owner Email:
Owner: Gage Y Teague
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 7092 Sockwell
Rd Elon Col_I_e4e
NC 27244_
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant
❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 36°10'23" Longitude: 79'33'28"
From WSRO: 1-40 east to GSO. North on NC Hwy 61. Right onto Sockwell Road. Farm on right at intersection of Sockwell and
Baldwin Roads,
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Waste Collection & Treatment
Waste Application
Records and Documents
JJ Other Issues
Certified Operator: George Y Teague Operator Certification Number: 21329
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title
Phone
On -site representative
George Teague
Phone: [phone] _
24 hour contact name
George Teague
Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: 31iiRosebrock
Inspector Signature: 111AahAjDate:
Phone: !
2
_
Secondary Inspector{s):
Inspection Summary:
14. and 28. Must get broadcast fields, acreage, PAN, etc. added to WUP to be able to document PAN balance.
16. Still need to get irrigation design added to WUP.
21. Check 2006 soil lest results next visit. Samples have been pulled but not sent in yet.
24. Calibration was completed Aug. 2006. Not due again until Oct. 2008.
3/31/06 waste analyses:
#1=3.6 lbs. N/1000 gal.
#2=3.5 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Owner has sold conservation easement. EEP project to be done by Mulke Engineering. Contact person is Tim Bumgardner.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC410014 Owner - Facility: George Y Teague Facility Number: 410014
Inspection Date: 08/17/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle -Milk Cow 200 94
Total Design Capacity: 200
Total SSLW: 280,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Waste Pond WSP 1 MILK 66.00
k1ste Pond WSP 2 FREESTALL 66.00
Page: 2

Perrnit: AWC410014 Owner - Facility: George Y Teague Facility Number: 410014
Inspection Date: 08/17/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ Cl ❑
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?
❑
■
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

•
�J
Permit: AWC410014 Owner- Facility: George Y Teague Facility Number: 410014
Inspection Date: 0811712006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN? ❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.? ❑
Total P205? ❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil? ❑
Outside of acceptable crop window? ❑
Evidence of wind drift? ❑
Application outside of application area? ❑
' Crop Type 1 Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
■
❑
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the reoeiving'crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAVVMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC410014 Owner- Facility: George Y Teague Facility Number: 410014
Inspection Date: 08117/2006 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. 1f selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑
■
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑
■
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
■
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
■
❑
❑
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑
■
❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑
■
❑
❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

0
•
Permit: AWC410014 Owner - Facility: George Y Teague
Facility Number: 410014
Inspection Date: 08/17/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑
■
❑
❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Q
■
❑
❑
Page: 6

-Facility Number.
Division of Soil an < '
`Division of VlWater Quality:°
d Water Conservation �1!n
Q Other Agency.
E
f Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
n for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: �-1-=-�-6--' Departure Time: [M—] County: r Region:
Farm Name: /} Owner Email:
Owner Name: 1 O P0 a.P l ` P_ U Phone:
Mailing Address: q x_ So I l 1 V 16 V) t% l e Qe— �_ N_ C 2 -7 2- Qv
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representai
Certified Operator
Phone No: 4 �O
Integrator: 420
Operator Certification Number:_
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: o ' ��� Longitude: o
o 056T. F,3c,, I c c no 4. on+o 11 Aj
T_WrW\ on f_,t 1�
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
_ ❑ Layer
I I JE1 Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dai Cow
a0
Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
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?
Page l of 3
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ElNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes I
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
11/18104 Continued

Facility Number: 9— S Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
❑ Yes 0 No
ElYes ❑ No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
El NA El NE
Structure 6
Identifier: re es, 1
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? Cl Yes *No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes b/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures tack 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 jNo []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 [:IPAN > 10% or ] 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)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? XYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes VNo ❑ 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 blNo ❑ 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):
re5s u re_� U n ? C�rXL-'
Z r I q [awl � -p- S 0 0, - � r� QQ � �t7�� W t" o
Co WWm' - C,t c_l 1'-3 7 Nonu
Reviewer/Inspector Name I �� ({][��� Phone: -3J'o- $1
Reviewer/Inspector Signat e: Date: 13 0
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: -- We of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes] No ElNA El NE
WUP ❑ Checklists
the appropriate box.
❑ El Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Des record keeping neeZ
ovement? , ❑ Yes )No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application e freeboard Waste Analysis S;roni
ysis [Waste Transfers
Rainfall ❑ Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections hly and I" Rain Inspections eather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes 1PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
*NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes-
)(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
A
❑ NE
❑ Yes
J�.No
��NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
I"A
lk
NE
)(Yes
❑ No
ElNA
ElNE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
El NA
El NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
AdditionalDrawings:
ti
� � . Its • �� � � ! t + r � ��
31311o� V I = 3,( *2-3•�
T1 Kk v PT6A LN\j/\) 6-9J U fir-) a . — r6
Page 3 of 3 U 12128104

E Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 410014 Facility Status: Active_ Permit: AYVC410014 Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Guilford Region:Winston-,galem
Date of Visit: 06/14/2005 Entry Time:12.50 PM Exit Time. 02:20 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Reedy FokEarm _
Owner: George
Mailing Address: 7092 Sockwell Rd
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Owner Email: 'f T q e Tq 3 Cf�)
Phone : 0-4 -4 rwuxM � 3jO i clCCYf
Integrator:
Latitude: 36°10'23" Longitude: 79'33'28"
From WSRO: 1-40 east to GSO. North on NC Hwy 61. Right onto Sockwell Road. Farm on right at intersection of Sockwell and
Baldwin Roads.
Question Areas:
0 Discharges & Stream Impacts 0 Waste Collection & Treatment Q Waste Application
0 Records and Documents 0 Other Issues
Certified Operator: George Y Teague
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 21329
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative George Teague Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name George Teague
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Ext.383 a
Date:
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
11. Slight overapplication with commercial nitrogen.
16. Operator needs to obtain irrigation operating parameters (psi, flow, etc.) and keep with records.
18. Operator has pressure gauge but still needs to install it on the irrigation gun.
21, Went over the new permit requirements with operator.
5/12/05 waste analyses:
#1= 4.0 lbs. N11000 gal and #2= 3.7 lbs. N11000 gal.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC410014 Owner - Facility: George Y Teague Facility Number: 410014
Inspection Date: 06/14/2005 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle -Milk Cow 200 130
Total Design Capacity: 200
Total SSLW: 280,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Waste Pond WSP t MILK 48.00
Waste Pond WSP 2 FREESTALL 42.00
Page: 2

•
Permit: AWC410014 Owner - Facility: George Y Teague
Facility Number: 410014
inspection Date: 06/14/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Disrhargec K Stream Impacts Yes Nq bla NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■ ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■ ❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑
Yes
■ ❑
No NA
❑
NF
Waste Coition, Storage & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e.l large trees, severe erosion,
❑
■ ❑
❑
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑
■ ❑
❑
closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑
■ ❑
❑
and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■ ❑
❑
improvement?
Yes
No NA
NE
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
■
❑ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
■
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 2
Corn
(Silage)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley,
Oats)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

1
Permit: AWC410014 Owner - Facility: George Y Teague
Inspection Date: 06/14/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 410014
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Crop Type 6
Yes
No
NA
NE
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan(CAWMP)? ❑
■
❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crap 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?
Cl
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
■
No
❑
NA
❑
NE
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)?
❑
Cl
■
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
Cl
❑
■
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
■
❑
Page: 4

S
0 •
Permit: AWC410014 owner - Facility: George Y Teague Facility Number :
410014
Inspection Date: 06/14/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
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 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 review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
❑
❑
Page: 5

G Mt
�
ac
dFItt} Number
"D��tsion of Wit, Quality
Division of•Soil•and Water Cl
0 Other Agencj
er�atton
Type of Visit ? C mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit , Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: a 5-lu � Departure Time: County: ���_OM Region: wsR-a
Farm Name: For L Farm Owner Email:
j �j
Owner Name: AeorQe, + P�'t�1 � v,I I n To as Le Phone: `# Y"1 - 43 b ;)- ba-m
Mailing Address: _70 2- 5DUewe_j j Pj",. _Eton tol ie4 C�7 a��!
Phvsical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representa-
Certified Operatoi
Back-up Vperator:
Location of Farm:
=-4o Ea5+.
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: _kLacgl _ _ _
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude:
1 h or +. o rrb 5oo&P-11 Rd
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Longitude:
o©o ®«
Farm a n r'e__11-. .
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
;FDairy
Cow
I A00
El
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: FEI
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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
❑ Yes W No ❑ NA
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State ❑ Yes [No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
other than from a discharge:_
12128104 Continued�$�
��� ///444�� fCCC......fffii'4( t �'�

a
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection Ito I] das
Waste Collection &Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? El Yes
No El NA El NE
a. If y�Stlrulscl
yaste level into�e structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
�p�❑No ��y NA ❑ NE
ure 1 Structure�tructure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: - 5/ Z
Spillway?: i! �
Designed Freeboard (in): rr rr jj ff
"t Observed Freeboard (in): `� Z
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
a �
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ElYes
vNa
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yesj�10
[INA 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
• ��Io
❑ NA El NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ YesY-1
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,
PAN ❑ PAN > 14% 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 A
12. Crop type(s) JI -A Lu 4• .R
13. Soil type(s)
A
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 ❑ A ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination' Yes * o NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? l Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? Ye o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Qd Lj
Ife-1-iewer/Inspector Name i rA Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu 1jdif Date:
:M q C7-
12128104 Continued

1P
Facility Dumber: — Djef Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? El Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20, Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes YNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP El Design El Maps El Other
❑ Checklists
21. Doe record keeping need i rovement? If yes, ch k the appropriate box below.] Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application Weekl Freeboard EtWaste_Anal 's Soil Analysis I Waste Transfers
PP y
'/ "I
Rainfall Stgcking Crop Yield 120 Minute lnspecti sC=1nspectionsfe=atherCode
r
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes h+Q No ElNA ElNE
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipme�ntt??r ❑ Yes ❑ No K NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? v; �t _ ❑Yes 9No
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑Yes �(NA ❑ 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 VA ❑ 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? El Yes I ❑ NA El NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by ❑ Yes No ElNA ❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application) �XNo
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes [I NA El NE
❑ Y
33, Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Ad ents and/or Drawings:
5 f [�L 65' j -4-,© -N3.�
a� lJouSi-��✓�.e,�'�Pi n^""f, h24-u`'"'"`-�,`%�
w�
12128104

sion'of Water Quality -
t;1 [vision of Soil and Water_ Conservation.'r
_ _
- 0 Other Agency
L
Visit O. Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
for Visit OO Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 41 14 Date of Visit: 10l19121?tl4 Time: t1946
O Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
County:. uAl1QXd .......................... Farm Name: � Pdx.furkFa.rm...................................................................................... .................. !!' RA.......,
Owner Name: G tlxgtr..&.F.xaWdjU........... T.Caguc........................................................ Phone No: 449-.4362.�tvt?x.................................... ............
Mailing Address: 7.09,Z.Snc.kW.d1.Rd............................................................................... Elen..Gaftti.M................................................. 2.7.244 .............
Facility Contact: Gcorgc.lragmg..............................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: 9.49.......................
OnsiteRepresentative:.Gomrpe.lcaguc............................................................................ Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator: �Qrgc:.X ............................... Tgagug ............................................. Operator Certification Number: Z13,29 ................
Location of Farm:
"rom WSRO: I-40 east to GSO. North on NC Hwy 61. Right onto Sockwell Road. Farm on right at intersection of Sockwell A
ind Baldwin Roads.
❑ Swine ❑Poultry ®Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 10 23 °° LongitudeF 28
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry Capacity
Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
200
120
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
10 Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
200
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
280,000
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 0
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 -a[/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (Ifyes, 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? Cl Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .......Milk.Barn................ Fxacstall......... .................................... ................................... ......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 30 30
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 41-14 • Date of Inspection 10/19/2004
1
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 > 30(
12. Crop type Com (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
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 4): Explain: any YES answers.. and/or any recommendations ormy other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
3. Heifer pastures and creek look good.
A.
7. Continue efforts to control burrow holes.
1. DWQ to send copy of permit by link.
2. Need to put irrigation design with records.
3. One of soil test results for a field reports zinc at about 2000. Check next year. Cease animal waste application after 3000.
Reviewer/Inspector Name }Melia Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur�AAOU&Date: 1611 Q
12112103 1 Continued

Facility Number: 41-14 1)0 1 nspection 1011412004
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ 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?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified A WMP?
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes ® 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
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
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
'rI
12112103

!Type of Visit ACompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
LReason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access I
...
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time:
- - - - -- --- WONot (Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified [3 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or �Above Threshold: .. .. _.
IFarm Name: ..W �� iaC __w_ _____._ County:. S.:L!��1
A y� j a
Owner Name: CJ C�Ar W, f I'�lYl_! Phone No:
Mailing Address: _ �Z..... --kt ._ . �. E to h 1 �� LPL _ .. 7'?1 .
Facility Contact: o �. C_ Title:.__ . _ . _ ._ _ __ __. Phone N 0 � �w
Onsite Representative: l'^ T ��P ___ _ w_ , Integrator:
_wIW
Certified Operator: A-e,& ne 0 1)e Operator Certificatio um r:
Location of Farm: a
_- 40 6a5f 113 G50• NC Nw'j 41 no r-41 _PC*+ 'ne Mill ,c�h� �'
Ono 0C_y— ls!l! PA - r n
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ® • 105 ©'° Longitude �' ©' ®64
Design ' ' :.Current"Design{} Current Desrga Current
Swore Ca ill . Po` ulation''Pbultry r Ca aci ` Po nlatioii; Cattle 1.
L Capac�==P6pahnn
Wean to Feeder
"•r
jai
❑ Layer
Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
El Farrow to Wean
�r.-
211,101
Other
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
� r _ T&AI Di ""
L.
t
,.
❑ Gilts
Boars
Dischames & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
i1
Non -Dairy
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 gallmin?
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
Struct I tructure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: LL.
Freeboard (inches): �,•_ � ,�
12112103 _ �r
�IYYIYI■ J "�'
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
&0
❑ Yes
'No
❑ Yes
�No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: q— . Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed. (ie/ tree cot erosion, ❑ Yes 10
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes
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 maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes XN 0
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes VNo
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancerimprovement? ❑ Yes XNo
l l . is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XNO
Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type (16 M 15M&tl r-GLi
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those desigl4ated 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?
❑ Yes a
❑ YesfNo
Yeso
ElYeso
Yeso
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes '�J No
Odor Issues TrriQ.o ' `t
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes 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 1XN0
Air Quality representative immediately-
»&..'.•L--".-_kY 1�" -1{ -r
�Gomm�ents (re%r to question #} Explaun any YES'answiers and/or any rocamrnendahons or: _ y�otlser eommeats. ; =
{
Use draw1nP o faciLty to better explain s��tuat,oas: (use aildrtronal pages as rY) Fseld COPY ❑ Final N
P
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signal
Date:
a
7.1/7'f Ant

Facility Number: — Dof Inspection
Re wired Records & Document~
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes10
22. Does the facility fail t all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklistdesi maps, etc.)
Yes
❑ No
23. D s record keeping nee provement? If es, check the aggro 'ate box below.
Waste Application �reeboard � Waste Analysis Soil Sampling
❑ Yes
o
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
)VNo
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
YNo
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
KNO
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
9d o
NPDES Permitted Facilities 30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) ❑ Yes 00
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? El Yes ❑`"No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? ❑ Yes ❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
dd 'Comments and/or;Dravyings �- _ ' � .
«3 Soil 5ar�le5or
1/1-7/04 W05+e Oa�a[g5r,5
k 1000
a.,Lt , ► ,
I2/I2103

,4 Jchnical Assistance Site Visit Re
OPIWn of Soil and Water ConservatiorW
p Natural Resources Conservation Service
p Soil and Water Conservation District
0 Other...
Facility Number 41 - 14 Date: 128104 Time: 1 14:00 1 Time On Farm: 75 WSRO
Farm Name Reedy Fork Farm County Guilford
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 7092 Sockwell Rd Elon College NC 27244
Onsite
Representative George Teague _ Integrator
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
OO Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producerlintegrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
0 Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
IN Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
IN Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
200
130
❑ 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?
6• Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
❑ yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Identifier WSP 1 WSP 2
Level (inches) 48 35
CROP TYPES 1corn, Silage I iFescue-graze Small grain silage Fescue -hay
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES EnB MhB2
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 41 - 14 Date:
4/28104 "
PARAMETER
O No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
5. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
2
❑
❑
❑ 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)
❑
El
® 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
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
❑
❑
❑ 1T Deficient irrigation records
1918. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removaliclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
[123. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation designlinstallation
El
El
❑ Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
11. MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
47. Evaluate WAD certificationirechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
El
❑
El3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
El
❑
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

� s
Facility Number 4i _ 14 Date: 1 4/28/04
COMMENTS:
Waste analyses: 1-29-04 ALD (1) 4.7 Ibs.N/1000 gals. I, ALD (2) 5.4 Ibs.N/1000 gals. I �I
Last soil samples dated 4-08-03 had several fields calling for lime.
# 13. Continue efforts to get rid of the groundhogs on the # 1 waste storage pond embankment.
# 18. There was a missing waste analysis for the applications made in September 2003.
Records look good overall with the above exceptions.
Good farm overall.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham Millie Langley
SIGNATURE
Date Enterer!: 5/3/04 Entered By: lRocky Durham
3 03/10/03

- vtsto`nofWater Quality
00tston of -Soil and Water Conservation
ther.Agency
Type of Visit *Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0• Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 4] 14 hate of Visit: 09/18/2003 Time: IODo
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted M Certified 0 Conditionally Certified U Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: RtedJ:JFRrkJVArw.................. .... County: Quilf lyd...--•--.....-•--•-.............. W.S&O .....
Owner Name: G�4Ck€_&�ra�tklio_-_-- Tcatl ue---------------------------- Phone,No: 3� 444-4.�G2_(6 e1--------------.------.
Mailing Address:..1.fl 2.aS9s<1C�iell. d...................................................................... Elon-Callut...NC.................................................. 7.77.4.4 ..............
Facility Contact: Gnat.99.1ugur..................................Title:............................................... Phone No: 33.6,449,4$83 .................
Onsite Representative: CcegCP,��eagJte------------------------------------- Integrator: -------------------------------------------•
Certified Operator: GeorgeA.. ............................ Itague............................................... Operator Certification Number: 21,3Z9 .............................
Location of Farm:
From WSRO: East on NC Hwy 150 to Osceola. South on NC Hwy 61. Left onto Sockwell Road. Farm on right at +
ntersection of Sockwell and Baldwin Roads. i
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 10 23 LongitudeF 79 • 33 28 µ
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Pnnulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ® Dairy 200 119
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 200
Total SSLW 280,000
Number of Lagoons 1 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds/ Solid'Traps 2 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharzes & 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?
Waste Collection & "Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S
Identifier: ------ ilkBarr>__.--...__._-FieeSUL... ..--------------------------- ---
Freeboard (inches): 36 60
05103101 f4a
❑ Yes % No
[:]Yes ® No
Structure 6
----------------------
Continued

r
Facility Number: 41-14 is
Date of Inspection 09/18/2003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trel severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes ®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? [:]Excessive Ponding []PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12.
Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Graze) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
® Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Reouired Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
® Yes
❑ No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Luse drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
7. Continue efforts to control groundhogs on dam of freestall waste pond. Looks better.
_
8. No stocktrail run-off observed this year.
14. Still need wettable acres calculated for F-18 since waste was applied here last year.
19. Don't forget to take 2003 soil samples.
19. No waste samples were obtained within 60 days for June/July 2003 waste applications. Don't forget to take waste sample for Sept.
2003 waste application events.
19. Need to transfer info from IRR- 1 form onto IRR-2 forms by crop and pull.
25. Acreages in WUP don't match acreages in operator's records. Contact tech. specialist for assistance.
Reviewer/Inspector Name rMelissa osebrock
Reviewer/inspector Signature: l 6 Date: Izz
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 41-14 D^0 of Inspection 09/18/2003
� s
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
,& I
J
�r]s`��i E/M

q '36PM
DtvjsJion of Water Quality
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit � Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:
d e:
L-LL1 V 1
Facility Number
Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted Certified
0 Conditionally Certified D Registered
Date Last Operates
r Above hreshold:
Farm Name: Q
County:
r
Owner Name:
L n- Q—
Phone No:
`
L
�n n
oe
NI ailing Address:
r�P
Facility Contact: 9eo
nae
V Title.
Phone No:
Onsite Representative:
Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry (Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' " Longitude ' 4
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Ca !e
Capacity Population
❑
Wean to Feeder
10 Layer
I
I
airy
❑
Feeder to Finish
ILI Non -Laver
Non -Dairy
❑
Farrow to Wean
ElFarrow
to Feeder
❑ Other
❑
Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
❑
Gilts
Total SSLW
❑
Boars
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oon Area 10 S rav Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ®I ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lalroon ❑ 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? (I f yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway
t uctu a ,' Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): _ i __
Structure 5
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ Yes
�(No
❑ Yes
yo
Structure 6
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
5. Are there anv_ immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion,
[] yes
Tlo
seepage. etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
❑ Yes
',�0
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
Yes
ElNo
S. Does any pan of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
X10
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate. gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
>40
IA'aste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenanceiimprovement?
❑ Yes
><o
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pondin¢ ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
XNo
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Ce led Animal Waste Management Plan (CA,VM1 P)?
❑ Yes
ISM-0
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
o
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
XW Yes
No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
�vo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
, o
Required Re ords & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readih• available?
❑ Yes
rNo
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certi#ed animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
�,/
(ie/ �' UP, checklists. design. maps. etc.) /
❑ Yes
J Y 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
rN
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yeso
22. Fail to notify- regional DVVQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
0e.- discharge, freeboard problems. over application)
❑ Yes
N o
23_ Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
ONo
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
�o
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
Yes
❑ No
LO No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments; refer to` i" n 'E� iam.aa YES nns iers a d/or ate re ntnmendittons er ark uther,comments �` +'J
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use addit ohal pages as necessarv) Field Copv Final Notes
�
� i.•.ii:. �,'...1[.c�i$s:�w '. { w. �^". h'S_...: «.l.t �.. �G�.�' mt_�Ye�'.1..:: w^.w%'v3T.ro" Y-w� 4 � 'fXtL`aai
Z4
Reviewerfinspector Name
Reviewer./Inspector Signature: i t! Date:
05103101 t Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection ! I v
F TT
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor 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 biade(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 ANo
❑ Yes
❑ Yes Xrgo
❑ Yes �o
? (,aaEa mil
1
I�. 069003
J
razz
bo 04te -31. 31103 '�-'z (00 1)
1'n'l03 R. �L (00'
121,,t 6�'� q19. 7,3. so�3
IV
05103101

Technical Assistance Site Visit Report "
Di1W9 of Soil and Water Conservation
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number 41 - 14 Date: /29103 Time: 1 9:30 Time On Farm: 90 WSRO
Farm Name Reedy Fork Farm County Guilford
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 7092 Sockweli Rd Elon College NC 27244
Onsite
Representative George Teague Integrator
Type Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
I ❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Norse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Purpose Of Visit
© Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
Purpose Of Visit
© Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
2001
144
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5- Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structures Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier WSP # 1 WSP # 2
Level (Inches) 60 72
CROP TYPES lCorn, Silage Fescue -graze I Ismall grain Fescue -hay
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES EnB MhB2
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

�I
i
Facility Number 41 - 14 Date:
4/29/03
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
El
❑
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
El
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
30. 21-11.0200
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
re -certification
[116. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
[119. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
[123. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
®
❑
40. Marker checklcalibration
❑
❑
Regulatory_Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation design/installation
❑
El
❑ Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
®
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1 • The WUP was amended for crop application
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
windows.
2
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
El❑
❑
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. Cropiforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 41 - 14 Date: 1 4/29/03 I
MENTS:
Waste analysis: 10-31-02 ALD 3.4 Ibs.N11000 gals. B
3-28-03 LSD 2.2 lbs.N11000 gals. B
Soil analysis dated 4-8-03: Some fields were calling for a ton or more of lime. Mr. Teague is waiting for field conditions to
low lime application.
The waste analysis dated 3-28-03 was actually sent in January and therefore, some of the applications are slightly outside
the 60 window of the waste analysis date.
Continue efforts to get rid of the groundhogs and back -fill the holes at the #1 waste pond.
The irrigation pulls still need to be calculated and for field # 18.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST Rocky Durham I Millie Langley
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 130103 I Entered By: IRocky Durham
3 03/10/03

•0 sion of Water Quality
Q sion of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
[Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
on for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up Q Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: t 1/4/2002 Time: 1300
Facility Number 41 14
0 Not Operational 0 Below'rhreshold
M Permitted M Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold : ....................
Farm Name: Lie03 Forkfarm........................................................................... County: Guilfgnd ............................................ N S.RQ........
Owner Name: Get rgir..cgc. Fratt,klitz.......... Teagle........................................................ Phone No: 33A-449-.4.362-Marm).........,.................................
Mailing Address: 7.991.S9..krig1URd................................................................................ hlant.�.atl�ge..iNC........................ ......................... 2.7.2.4.4 ...........
Facility Contact: George.1caglte..............................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: 336..449,4M3..G.caxge.......
Onsite Representative:GeQrge.1vagpV................... Integrator:
.............................................................................................................................................
Certified Operator:G ,qrIse.X.............................. Tf;aF'Ug ............................................. Operator Certification Number:2.13.2........................
Location of Farm:
From WSRO: East on NC Hwy 150 to Osceola. South on NC Hwy 61. Left onto Sockwell Road. Farm on right at
intersection of Sockwell and Baldwin Roads. �
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry M Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 •F 10 23 Longitude F 28
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
IM Dairy
200
122
❑ Feeder to Finish
JEI Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
JEI Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
200
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
280,000
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area I0 Spray Ficld 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 N 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 ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes M No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier• NAilkBaaa Freestall
c... .................. .................................... ............. I ..................... ........................... I—.... ...................................
Freeboard (inches): 37 60
05103101 Continued
�fI�rDar

Facility Nymber: 41-14 Date of Inspection I1/412002
5. Are there any immediate threats to the in rty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ treeseere 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? N 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 ADDlication
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
N No
12.
Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
N No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
N No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
N No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
N 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 or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
N No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
N No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
N No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
N No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
N No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel 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
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): N Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
5. and 7. Six burrow holes, of 6" diameter, were noted in the dam of the milk parlor waste pond. Need to try smoke bombs or traps agai
+
as soon as possible.
8. Getting run-off of sediment and manure from stocktrail into a surface water ditch. Suggest re -seeding low areas or installing wooden
ern -is in such a way as to contain solids but allow liquid to filter through rock.
14. Still need to have wettable acres determined for two pulls in Field #18. Contact Lou Graham with Mid Atlantic.
19. Soil samples have been taken and sent into soils lab in Raleigh. Check results next visit.
27. Animal burial is at least 300 feet from any flowing water.
Waste analysis dated 10131102 was sain led in Sept. 2002. Nitrogen content was 3.4 lbs. N11000 gal.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melissa Roseb{ ock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature` V/ Date: C�
05103101 L t Continued

Facility Number: 41-14 1 DO* Inspection F 1114120 22
•
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 permanenthemporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
rl
05103101
J

t% 3�(PI II
/OM
Division of Water'Quality, ,
`IDi"ision of SoWind Water Conservation
0 tither Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Otherr ❑ Denied Access
11 --1 �0-�„��
Facility lumber Date of Visit: e:
0 Permitted Certified [3 Conditionally Certified Registered
Farm Name: &el I GO ir IL
A JIT
• . , • GL1���'SC��J
U�
Mailing Address: rVU '15 C ALUX lI a • I
Facility Contact: � Title:
Onsite Representative: V
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Date Last Operated r AboJpThr es old:
County: Uf0r�
Phone No: 33 &- `"t 4T q 3 6 -r17
eo dew , ice(- a -7.2 q-�
Phone No: 33b.`I 8g3
Integrator: 4t
Operator Certification Number: c;2 3,2
Design Current Design Current Design Current
3r111C _ t_.a acity ro utatio3n
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Boars
Poultry Capacity Population Ca le Capacity Population
❑ La er Dairy ov _ oC
❑ Non -Laver I Q Non-Dairy
❑ Other
Total Resign Capacity
Total SS LW 4; A. Ann
Number of Lagoons _V- I l❑ No Li riteU
Lagoon
Area J, Spray Field Area
HoldingPonds /.Solid Trap s d Waste ManagementSystem
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes XNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Sprav 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 ❑3 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 9-40
�ruc 1 S eture 2 tructure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): GO
05103/OI Continued

Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, XYes ❑ 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 �o
(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? k<. ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? Yes to
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes XNo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes XN<
No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ElExcessive Ponding ElPAN ElHydraulic Overload ❑ Yes o
A A - •
12. Crop type f f
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those dUignated in the Certified AnimuWaste 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?
❑ YesNo
X
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage R General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified imal 7Wste Management Ian readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soEl 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
o
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
ElYes
kNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
)(No
❑ No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain.any:YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): Field Conv —❑ Final Notes
Olt
e
Reviewer/Inspector Name JQ.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Q
05103101 V - t I Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
NOTES
❑ Yes d No
❑ Yes )No
❑ Yes No
ElYes 3No
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
0/
m1d A+1a4-hC—
iQI�i - Loy (9'ra �czr�1
S 6 rounJ h
m ��P C�
W,/,rJ► /
�l
r
05103101

ivision of Water Quality
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation
�-O Other Agency ,.
(Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
(Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 4I 14 Date of Visit: 4/18/2002 Time: 9:5Q
0 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
.......
Farm Name: Rmk.JFUtrls,.k'ar:M ..................................................................................... .. County:!auxlkoird ............................................ WSAA.
OwnerName: G.cQj'gr..&.Frw"[k..........Tgaguc........................................................ Phone No: 449:4,162 ....................................................................
Mailing Address: 7.Q92.5tlskWA.Rd.............................
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative: Georgc.l.cagugg...
Certified Operator:.Cigorge.Y,
Location of Farm:
Title:
Umme......................
Washington Township, Intersection of Sockwell Rd. and Baldwin Rd.
........ lalapt..atlt*1C..NG................................................. 2.7244 .............
....................
Phone No:
Integrator:....
......................................................................
Operator Certification Number:21329 .............................
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude F 36 • 10 2364 Longitude 79 • 336 F-2-8-146
Design Current
Swine CaDaeitV PODalation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Po ulation Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I ® Dairy 1 200 1150
❑ Non -Layer I I IC] Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 200
Total SSLW 1 280,000
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 2 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges R Stream Impacts
t. 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 ,al/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ...........WSPA........... ...........WSP.2........ I..............................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 30 55
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 41-14 Dale of Inspection 4/18/2002
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) Fescue (Hay)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted.during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments {refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and Ior any recommendations or any other comments.
Use,drawrngs of facility.to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
4 i
19. Missing a waste analysis for the Fall 2001 applications. Mr. Teague took the sample and gave it to a Southern States representative
_
to deliver to the lab. It didn't make it to the lab. Recommend checking on the status of waste samples at the NCDA agronomic website
and resample in the future if possible to stay within the 60 day requirement.
14 Mr. Teague has put another field under irrigation at the request of the DWQ. This field is in the waste plan but it still needs to have
the individual pull information calculated by the irrigation contractor and be included in the WUP.
7. Continue efforts to get rid of the groundhogs and back -fill the holes in the # 1 WSP embankment.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
ReviewerlInspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 45 114 of Inspection 4/1$/2002 •
Odor Issues
25. 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:
Waste analysis: 4-3-02 LSD 7.0 lbs.N/1000 gals. B
+
Soil analysis dated 4-12-01
05103101

4
ivtsion:of Water. Quality
tvtsion of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 41 14 I)atc °f Visit: 9l20l20Q1 Time 0915 Printed on: 9/20/2001
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ....................
Farm Name: het; x.&A.l'.iitt:titt........
County: G.tuilfQr.d............................................ WSW. )........
Owner Name: GgQrgr.. .. rWlkla[t.......... fgagUC........................................................ Phone No: 33.6 449- 362...Dun.............................................
Mailing Address: 7.092.SQrk.W.pll.Rd...............................................................................EJ.Q11.QQUC9C..NC ................................................ 2.7.244 .............
Facility Contact: Gcorgg..T.Cagme..............................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: 33.6,449,48M.G.earge......
Onsite Representative: Gml:geJ.eagu....................... .. .. ..... integrator:..........
Certified Operator:.Gcorge.................................... Tragm ............................................. Operator Certification Number: 213.29.............................
Location of Farm: _
Washington Township, Intersection of Sockwell Rd. and Baldwin Rd.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry IN Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 3G • 10 ' 23 44 Longitude 79 ' 33 ' 2$
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer JZ Dairy 200 150
❑ Non -Layer ID Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 200
Total SSLW 280,000
Number of Lagoons 1 0 1 JCI Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area I0 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 2 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges R 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 dischari-,e is observed, what is the estimated flow in val/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
_Waste Collection $ Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ..._...1lrfilk.Baru................ r=ctal.l......... .................................... ................................... ............................................................ I.........
Freeboard (inches): 54 48
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 41--14 Date o1' Inspection 9/20/2001 �Printed on: 9/20/2001 w
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 maintenancelimprove men t? ❑ 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) Sorghum 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?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Regt►ired Record& Documents
17, Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
[]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
CO'nts.(fefer to questiont#} Explain any YES answers andlor any i6c'omihit dattons or any other comments
.'_ :+��'�,pYE Fr. ..
...�.-
.�
Use drawings of facility to better<explain situationsRuse•addition. l pageasmecessary) _== ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
7. Continue efforts to control groundhogs. may want to keep grass shorter.
_
8. Need to repair guttering on barn to keep excess water out of freestall WSP.
19. Waste level records were missing for several weeks. Must keep weekly per permit. 2001 Soil analysis results have been received,
Sent operator electronic copy of waste level recording form.
Ld
Reviewer/Inspector Name Meli a Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: k Date: Q
O5103101 � t
Continued

• Facility Number: 41-14e of Inspection 9/20/2U01 IsPrintedon: 9/20/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101
J

rDivisi�o'ri�atYr..ty:. a a' F.'tZ 1 �a' (�
�/'YSalzViS oh of Soil and Water Conservation
O, Other Agency-
s d ¢
x, g
[Type of Visit ompliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
(Reason for Visit Atoutine Q Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Acxess l
Facility Number Date orVisit: Time:
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
0
Permitted jiCertified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ............
Farm Name: ... /.... T..�?.t'.�....:T...Cr!r.% Count V 11 �O,,�f ............... .... i.1'.... ... . �.. y:......0....... �...1.... r4
Owner Name:... ° i .� °� . Fj'an. l.L. n.... � U e- ................... Phone No: 3 3� . � �9 • � � 9-3 C � prG ...
Facility Contact: ....'`........r ...... jJ-1 4�Ue.............Title:................................................................ Phone No:
�0 �- c�'-W e l �1D 'C� I i L 7 �� n F
fJ� .
MailingAddress: ....................................... ...............................-!...1................r! ................. ` .........}...............................
Onsite Representative:
Integrator:
v
Certified Operator:,,,,,, ,P Q t 2 U Operator Certification Number: C; I p
1•.............
Location of Farm:
SoGL-L� l 4.- &13 w t vi
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Ucattie ❑ Horse Latitude • ®° ®�� Longitude ®• ®� ®��
Design Current
Swine Cnnacity 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 Ca acii ' Po ulatioii
❑ LayerJEJ Dairy 3Od =
❑ Nan -Layer Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity oD
Total SSLW 77 C)077
Number of Lagoons [❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 2— ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System .
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes XNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-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)
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?
S�ruclurc I Structure 2 r Structure 3
Identifier: ... .�..I'.�L.. n ..........Fr....(.�..............................
Fre
eboard (inches):
5/00
Spillway
Structure 4 Structure S
.................................... .......................
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
ElYes;No
No
❑ Yes x
No
Structure 6
Continued on back

li'acility Number: ZI — 1 Date of Inspection C 1
5. Are there any immediate threats to theitf egrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive�Poonnding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic �Oveerr ooad�]
12. Crop type 1..l'
,�(/��� /I„G�.[!.h-/ t� TA.Lc. 1 lld�t.4" t,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with thos? designated in Qie Certified Anifttal Waste
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes '�No
❑ Yes O(No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes XNO
❑ Yes kNo
❑ Yes o
? ),111 aj
Plan (9AWMPr dyes
)<No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
gNo
❑ Yes
0
❑ Yes
.
a
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, fr a card, wast8 analysis & soi 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?
N+*iolafipnjs.or-. Onc}o i0 re o ed-d(rring eismsjt,- Yo>1► wilvteeeiye iio ful•tho .
cories0orideRce. abouf this .visit_ .
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes X
No
'Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes NINo
❑ Yes YNO
❑ Yes jWNo
❑ Yes 'WNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Comments (refer.to giiesd6n.0 .Explain any YES-answers'andlor any recommendations or airy other commentv.'_° 1#
Use drawings of fact>tty to better ekobdu situations. (use additional pages as necessary)
I I- 5(0 frp.�esdaE l 1 (� . �- �l�aa JL
o?eoi o?oo
�?60
-9
-Ago
- / T
Reviewer/Inspector Name -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Zea zSloo

Facility Number: Oe of Inspection 0
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below der —&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
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes XNO
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? "C] fro
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
P "-P.
Nov. rs
♦t
5100
J

Cf^;�G&ision.of Water Quality
ion,of Soil and Water Conservation
ther Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ©Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit: 4/10l2001 Time: 15:00 Printed on: 8/29/2001
41 14
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
E Permitted ® Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .............
Farm Name: Re.0y.fuli a.rm...........
...............................
County: Guiffiti'.d............................................ W.SRQ........
Owner Marne: Gcor.a.&k:ranklatx.......... Ttague......................................................... Phone No: 4449.:4.52....................................................................
Mailing Address: 7.092.S.Qckw.cJ1.Rd..............
Facility Contact: ....................................................
Onsite Representative: Gearl;e .Paguv.........
Certified Operator:..Gp.Qrge.................................
Location of Farm:
.............................................................. E1.Q.yx.QQUcgv..NC ................................................ 2.7.2.44 ..............
....................... Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
................................ ............ I................. Integrator:......................................................................................
TgAgmg............................................. . Operator Certification Number: Z13,29 .............................
Nashington Township, Intersection of Sockwell Rd. and Baldwin Rd.
❑ Swine ❑Poultry ®Cattle ❑Horse Latitude 3ti • 10 23 Longitude 79 • 33 1F 28
Design Current
Swine Canaritv Ponnlation
❑ 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 200 165
❑ Non -Layer JEI Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity F 200
Total SSLW 1 280,000
Number of Lagoons 10 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 2 ❑ 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 galhnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: .......Milkbarn ....... ......... ):zeestall......... .................................... ................................... ............................. ..... .......
[-]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Freeboard (inches): 37 34
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: 41-14 Date of Inspection 4/10/2001 Printed on. 8/29/2001 r�
t,
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 maintenancelimprovement'? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement'? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Fescue (Graze)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Cl 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 guestton #) Explain any YES answersiand/or any reecommendations�o,r� y,,other comments..
_Use d a ings of„fac t better e, plan s�tuat►ons (use additibnai:pages inecessary).- Field Co ® Final Notes
❑
py
7. Continue efforts to get rid of groundhogs on the freestall Waste storage pond.
Overall records and facility look good.
Reviewer/Inspector Name ERocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Faellb!y Number: 41-14 Df Inspection 4/10/2001 Printed on: 8/29/2001
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? Ox. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101
J

I
dulawvision of Water Quality
Wision of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
lReason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
D
Facility Number ate of Visit: 9/19/ZD00 Time: 140o Printed on: 9/20/2000
41 14
Q Not Operational O Below Threshold
[] Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Rc.Pdy.karl JFArw............................................................ County: Guilford ........................................... WSitO........
O-wner Name:,gQxgg..&..hrApliAlla.......... T.eaggc........................................................ Phone No: .................................
Facility Contact: G.0.9rgc..Tmgw:..............................................Title Phone No: 33.6.449'�8i�3
................................................................ .r. ........................
MailingAddress: 709Z.5.Q.&wx11.Rd................................................................................ El.otx.Uftc..NC.................. ............................... 2.7.2.4.4 ..............
Onsite Representative:Gg.9rgv,.q.Ogug..................... ..... Integrator: ................................................................................
Certified Operator:Gg.P.igtt.Y.............................. Tompm.............................................. Operator Certification Number:Z.X 29...............................
Location of Farm:
Washington Township, Intersection of Sockwell Rd. and Baldwin Rd.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 a 10 23 4. Longitude 74 ' 33 1 28 «
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer 7 1 IN Dairy 200 150
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 200
Total SSLW 280,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JE1 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 2 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischart=.es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N 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 (low 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 N No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? N Spillway ❑ Yes N No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .New.,Puud..(2nd)........ P.azlaz.pond..................................................................................................................................................... n
Freeboard (inches): 42 54 I 1 --`—
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: 41-14 Date of Inspection 9/i91200Q Printed on: 9/20/2000 7
5. Are there any immediate threats to the inoty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tree0vere 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 Ievel
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?
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?
yiolatiolis:or deficiencies were;noted during this: visit. ;You'Will receiye•n6•ft rth;ee.' ;
correspondence about this.visit. -.
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
19. may want to contact SWCD regarding a change to your WUP to include tropical corn. Application events in August were outside
corn application windows.
Reviewer/Inspector Name IMelissa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: j,, l% d� f Date: qnZc) 06 5100

Fa r Iss.Number: 41-14 D6f Inspection 9/19/2000 S Printed on: 9/20/2000
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
gs:
5100
J

0_Drvrision,and,Water.Conservatzon OperationR�x'°
: D-Division o iland,Water,Conservatton CoMpliance Inspecdon
'Division of—WaterC Quality. Compliance I[iispectioxi "`":-- F•: ° �`�'�F�iti z •" ":
§ _
+_' Other Agency • Operation Review - .t xFa
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of
Facility Number
© Permitted'M Certified 0 Conditionally Certified
Farm Name: ........-a
Owner Name: ..... 6Q
Facility Contact: ..
Mailing Address: .........
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:...f.
Location of Farm: `
section 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection r. (hh:mm)
[] Registered [3 Not O erational Date Last O erated:
..........................
.......T......I....,.,........ ...... .................. County: ,....1��1. �. �ijJr�..........................I.................
�...r.'j" .................. 2
F1.`oA14-11 1 ..... e- & ........... Phone No:......3 1.14...4.41......q..9.3.....
...1. ?-- . .. ................ Title:................................................................ Phone No:. .... ..{..I.... ............. F j
Bo�ur
4 ....................�.,�-�.,�.. }.. ........a...
....I`.Q.�.................................. Integrator:...................................................:.......................
Z............. .. . .......................................... Operator Certification Number: Q4.,.I.,b�
..... ......... ...................... .................... .................................................... .....................
Latitude �• �� ��� Longitude �• �� 0«
Design Current Design • Current Design Current
'pwrne
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Poultry Capacity Population " Cattle. -.Capacity ` Population'`
Number of Lagoons ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JEJ Spray Field
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 1XNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ElYes [INo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (Ifyes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Dues 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? pillway ❑ Yes No
�� llure,l`a �� Sty �� Pots Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: NNo�xc
Freeboard(inches): .......... ..r...................................................................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99? Continued on back

Facility Number: — 0 Ste of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type 0 brh rl� t 1 in Q e a- 4 r-4 ► n f ar le u o a4—, � t�
13. Do the receiving crops differ whOthose de3titnated in the Certified AnimYl 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? 1` /A
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, free oars 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?
....... yi.. titgns:or def:66ncies -were noted• O wing this;visit. - Y:oii witl•ree�iye do fui-thO ,
correspondence.abo' a this visit. • . ... .
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes *0
❑ Yes X90
❑ Yes 0
❑ Yes AK""
❑ Yes 4 No
❑ Yes 1ANo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes I
❑ Yes I
❑ Yes I
❑ Yes tNo
❑ Yeso
❑ Yes a No
❑ Yes XNO
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ YesXNo
Comments (refer to questtori #) Explain any: YES anvWers and/ot~any recommendations or any other corriments ' ''
Use,dra�►nngs of facility to better explarri situations (use°additional pages aseneeessary)
19 . ma -Li
o n
a
up A-
1W
Reviewer/Inspector Name D 1 1TIE
LW, ,
Reviewer/Inspector Signatures � d ,_ J n f r , —I. — 0 __1 - Date: Cl liq - JAI)

�.c of Inspection
Fatil9ty Number:
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
tTyes
LMJiNO
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? OM
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? 6m j T— r ne"ir
o
am
3/23/99

1* Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number 41 14 Date of Inspection 12/13/99
Time of Inspection 10:10 124 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted 0 Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered 10 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ReWY.F.Ot'kfsalm................................. ...... County. G flfor.d.......................................I--. E' SRO........
Owner Name: Ggctrgg.,&-1>;aula ix.....---..Iezagllte........................................................ Phone No: 449r4.362.................. .................. ..... ..... .....................
Facility Contact: ..................................................................... ...Title:...........---......... .......... _ ........ Phone No:
,jklailing Address: 7.092.Socalk d1.Rd................................................................................ W.Qn.C.oUcw..NC ................................................ 2.7.2.44 .............
Onsite Rep resentative:..Gil:QCgCXC!.agtt.e........................ ....... Integrator ..........................
Certified 0perator:..teee.0rge. X.............................. Imuc .............................................. Operator Certification Number:Z13.'29 .............................
Location of Farm:
.aQd
Latitude 36 • 10 23 Longitude 79 • 33 2$
-Design Current
Swine 'Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Cai3acity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer :::::]IN Dairy 200 1 130
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 200
Total SSLW ' 280,000
Discharges & Stream [nip S
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. It discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'?
—_b_ If discharge is -observed. -did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes,-no(ify-DWQ) W
A,
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes-❑ No- - -
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in ('al/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
I 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 Struc:ure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Idemitser: Pond #1 Pond #2
Freeboard {inches) : ..............$4......... ..................9b...-..
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back
Printed on 12/13/99

Faciliiy-14un, er: 41-14 _ D to of Inspection 12/13/99
6. Are there structures on -site which are Oroperly 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
8. Does any pan 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
W05te 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, Fescue (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?
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.) Y
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard. waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22, Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Rev iewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
0..N6-violaii6ns.or :deficiencies-wefe'noted :duringthis: visit.:You:will receive further
.�.•ctirrespatideitce.t3boufthis.visit.�.�.�. .�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.-. .�.�.�.�_�_•.�.�.-.�.�. .�.�.�.•�.•.�.
[]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes % No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Active ground hog holes in dike of Pond #1; had made efforts to eradicate, but not fully successful. Recommend continued
arts in this area. No serious problem evident yet_
in excellent shape and up-to-date.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Tom Yocu
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: , ��i��y. ��� Date:
AL
Printed on 12/13/99

State of North Carolin
Department of EnvironWnt
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
CERTIFIED MAIL
_RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
eorge&Franklin Teague
Reedy Fork Farm
7092 Sockwell Rd
Elon College NC 27244
Farm Number: 41 - 14
Dear George & Franklin Teague:
/ 0 •
�J
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
April 6, 1999 RECEIVED
N.C. Dept. of EHIVR
APR 12 1999
Winston--Saleln
Regional Office
You are hereby notified that Reedy Fork Farm, in accordance with G.S. 143-215.1 OC, must
apply for coverage under an Animal Waste Operation General Permit. Upon receipt of this letter, your
farm has sixty (60) days to submit the attached application and all supporting documentation. In
accordance withChapter626 of 1995 Session Laws (Regular Session 1996), Section 19(c)(2), any
owner or operator who fails to submit an application by the date specified by the Department
SHALL NOT OPERATE the animal waste system after the specified date. Your application must
be returned within sixty (60) days of receipt of this letter. Failure to submit the application as required
may also subject your facility to a civil penalty and other enforcement actions for each day the facility is
operated following the due date of the application.
The attached application has been partially completed using information listed in your Animal
Waste Management Plan Certification Form. If any of the general or operation information listed is
incorrect please make corrections as noted on the application before returning the application package.
The signed original application, one copy of the signed application, two copies of a general location
map, and two copies of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan must be returned to complete the
application package. The completed package should be sent to the following address:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section
Non -Discharge Permitting Unit
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
If you have any questions concerning this letter, please call Dianne Thomas at [phone]
extension 364 or Ron Linville with the Winston-Salem Regional Office at [phone].
Sincerely,
for Kerr T. Stevens
cc: Permit File (w/o encl.)
Winston-Salem Regional Office (w/o encl.)
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

r�
:A:
[j Registered E3 Certified [3 Applied for Permit [3 Permitted JE3 Not O crational Date Last Operated:
.
Farm Name: .........................................................................................County-�/
:. ,�. . .r.t.�
OwnerName: .......................................•................................................................................... Phone No: .............................. 04 ..........'...� ......# ........
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No: ........t ................
MailingAddress:....................................................................... ................................................................. ...... ....... tii►���..:`�ltC
OnsiteRepresentative:,,.........7L.................................. integrator:..................... a
O ..-...,
Certified Operator; ..................................................
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number;--.---.--
C
C
Latitude E__10
04 0 « Longitude =• 06 61
Deli n Current ,z Destri Current `Design
�Caxacrt'Po `gPoulECa "�
:Currents„-.
Ca Aci £ PoulatYon
elation acit P,o ulatton�CaEtle
Swore .� ... :_.. P .... !'3', ., n P... _ Y=,
❑ Wean to Feeder _� a€
to Finish
* Layer ❑Non Dairy
EEq::411`'EF-1NLaycr❑Feeder
❑ Farrow to Wean
- ,.0 ,:, r .:. .
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Feeder
a
❑Farrow to FinishNr
4�
'w Total Deslgn<Capaclty
❑ Gibs
4
F
❑Boars
o l`SSL
` T ta.
. ...
4s } f ..
Number of Lagoons /bHoldtrig P nds ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
isr ..... .... ... ....
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
jq
..c mksas. CaYa .K.„
General
1.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
Cl Yes
ITeYNo
2.
Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
O�No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
❑ Yes
No
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
/6
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
i io
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
0No
3.
Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
0.No
4.
Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
VNo
5.
Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
E;} No
maintenance/improvement?
ONo
6.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
7.
Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
P No
7/25/97
Continued on back

• •
Facility Number: —
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes E-31No
Structures (LaQoonsBoldine Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) Iess than adequate?
❑ Yes P No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: -Q L _ ......................---.-----..........•-----..
...............
Freeboard(ft):.._......... 4................. ........ v ..........................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes Vf No
It. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes ("No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
Yes•
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
/�
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Yes
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ...1/.V.1 ~.4! . ..............................
...........................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes ETNo
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
PrNo
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
�No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ es
No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
KNo
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
�No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes�VNO
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
P'&o
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
p'Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
/❑ Yes
EP40
[� No. violation -or' deficiencies:we're-noted-during this:visit.• You:w'if ieceive�no,ftirther•:-
eorrespondehtO Eibout this:visit:•:-
­47 N6mPLS--yj �vs
l'3
W 2ov�I! t� i4v 12C a- G6� Tt �UZ �� 1 C
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name �.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 4T 1'A- /(, -)0 Date; / 14R

Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency '�.
Division of Water Quality
0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of MVQ inspection 0 Follow-uE of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of inspection y
Facility Number
Time of Inspection Q 3 24 hr. (hh:rnm)
i❑ Registered El Certified © Applied for Permit 13 Permitted 0 Not O stational � Date Last Operated: .............'.......
Farm Name: _......!£GP�rt�..r�?-r �nr+1— County: ...... 5�.*..c%6n�.....................................................
Owner Name:....` .e°.r r_... ....; r4.! I It'-......� .5/L...................................
Phone No: 3(c� %�% /.` rr. ...........................
Facility Contact: ... xo, �....... ��tf�r ...................... . Title:...... e!ir-�................................ Phone
Mailing Address:..7f s�oi. �n//C �.....yC................. ...............Z'?�. ... ............... .. .....
OnsiteRepresentative:...... ........ .12'f�f�l.L.................................................... Integrator: .......................................................... ............................
Certified Operators.........eer .....Y,..........k.................................................. Operator Certification Number, ...... �.3.Z�7..............
Location of Farm:
CLyt �LC.4.. �?�.......��[JN..:.r�...... f....fz l�r'fSr.C�i2!?�.....�. F.....00!EJt I .............:..... .........c.... �SsL: �.�...........t................................. J
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Latitude 3fc7 ' ©` Z3 L{ Longitude 0 33 1 ®"
R Swtne
Design Current-,
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
?,.Design Current ,r Design C
Poultry Capacity .PopaJlation Cattle Capacity; I?oj
"� ❑ Layer Dairy W. AZOt7 /
❑ Non -Layer ro-Non-Daigi
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity.:. ZdC7
3.
Total SSLW
.7
a
Number:of I:agoons (Holding Ponds" ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area �`
g ... �.
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System �
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 i=ield ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made?
b. If dischargge 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'? Of yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
❑ Yes .a No
❑ Yes MNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ',No
❑ Yes 191No
❑ Yes MNo
❑ Yes Iallo
❑ Yes 'RNO
Continued on back
1*\1—

Facility Number: —
S. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structtlre$ I.a ootts l-ioldin Ponds Flush Pits etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2
Identifier:
.................................
Freeboard tft): .....................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures''
•
Structure 3 Structure 4
❑ YesNo
❑ Yes RNo
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes 0 No
l i.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
53=No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
`0 No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers'?
❑ Yes
RrNo
1i'astc Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application"
❑ Yes
KN0
(If in excess of WMP. or runoff entering waters of the State. notify DWQ)
15.
Crop 1�•......f.....T.:�.isC.u.�
type ....... ......................................................................................................................................................................................
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste ;Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
X1 No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
gNo
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
JgNo
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
®.No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[�JNo
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
P3.No
22. Does record keeping. need improvement?
❑ Yes
ONo
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Onlv ,
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
I3 No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit'?
❑ Yes
ONo
No.viola'tions' or deficiencies were noted daring this visit. Yott:mill receive- no further
correspondence ah.out this;visit.-. • ' .: ' :
Comments (refer to question #)a, -Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or,',and other comments
Use drawings of facility to better, 6plain. situations (use additional pages as necessary)
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name ,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: r' �1� j Date:

p Division of Soi> Water Conservation p Other Ag�
® Division of Wa Quality :
16 Routine 0 Conipiaint 0 0 ow -up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Mher
Date of Inspection
acilitv Number 7F1
r
Time of Inspection ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
E3 Registered p Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted in Not Operariona Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Reedy.Fork.Farm................ ...................................................... County: Guilford WSRO
Owner Name: Gear;ge.&.Franitlin.......... Teague........................................................ Phone No:.449-.43.61 ...................................................................
Facility Contact: Geurge.1tagtLe ..............................................Title: owner .................................................. Phone No: 9. 11449 UB3........................
Mailing Address: 7..Q92..Smekwell.Rd.Dr.5(BS..Eialdwin-Rd.................................... F.Ion-Coli,ege...NC................................................. 2724.4 ..............
OnsiteRepresentative: G.eorge-Teague ............................................................ .... Integrator: .................................................................................................
Certified Operator: G.eorgeA..............................Icagme .............................................. Operator Certification Number:2.1.329.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ®a ©'. Longitude ®•
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Weanto Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Capacity Population
❑ Vther I I I
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
II
��1:il�lIlll�
Number of Lagoons !. Holding Ponds . ❑Subsurface Drains resent Q ii oon rent JEJ Spray ie c t rea
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes R No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if dischar,,e is observed. was the convcvance man-made? ❑ Yes ® No
b. lfdischarge is observed. did it reach Surface Dater'? (If yes, notify DWQ) 0 Yes ® No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in g.alhnin?
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? ❑ Yes ® No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes N No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes ® No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ® No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
7/25/97

Facility Number: 41-14 is 0
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes ® No
Structures (LajZoons.Hold ing;Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Yes ® No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Sn-ucmi-e 4 Structure . StrUCtl1e 6
Identifier: 1 2
Freeboard(ft):................f�................ ....................................... �................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? []Yes ® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes N No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? []Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? p Yes ® No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .......CurxL (Silage.&Cirain.)....... Sma.tl-Grairt.(Witeal,.B,adey. ........................ E.esc"ue...................... ...:1_iawthy—Orchard..&.Rye....
Milo, Qats) [prase
15. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated int e ntmal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? []Yes ® No
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?
t ...o.vra rons.or fierencres.were.nnte . uryng t rs y!stt:, You. w.ill.reeeive na f.urther.: .
::�oir>�es�io��erie�ab�dtt�is•visit::-:............:�:�:�:-:�:�:�.•:�.:�:-:�::�:�:�:�.•:•:�:•:
p Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
p Yes ❑ No
p Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
,C.oinntcnts,(refer to,gtiestionA) ` Explain any YES answers and/or any, reconttnendations or'any`other-commcnt5 '-
usear�ings .:ar y e
`of facilit to=better ex Iatii`situ.ations. use additional pages as necessar_ •
Facility has appearance of being well organized and maintained. Curbing, gutters and ramp still to be completed. New storage .w
pond should increase design capacity to 300.
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name 9—o6-GHTNIO -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

® Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection Vid ff'/
Facility Number / /
Time of Inspection ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: J�CRegistered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:.1.25 for I hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
❑ Certified ❑ Permitted or ins zection includes travel and processing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated:......_.... .... _.... ..... .......... _.......... ..... ........ ............. ......... .._....__..... .........
FarmDame: ............. ....... ......... County:....U` .......(. x.......... ...... ......... ........ ......
Land Owner Name:., Y1. .A � .�............ . Phone No: 9l..V/ `���..� �h �--?� . Z:...........
&I ��
Facility Conetact:. ..... Title:. Q- h. ..... Phone No- ..JZO . ........��53
Mailin Address:..,.-�P-.._�.�. z G %•./..._ �s._.1��C Fx__C .A/...L �... _..--_ LC 7.1 `{T.................. g 1 ....... -T _.... .... - ............................
Onsite Representative:...4� ...... ....... Integrator:
Certified Operator- ,.-g1..[ ....... ............ Operator Certification Number: ..{........
a....._...
p pr.+.�.......... t!.. fp
Location of Farm:
Latitude 3 Fi • �' 0 3 Longitude ©0 1
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
'firms Design Current �� DestgnCurrent I%sign Current
Swtne h %, - ` =s Poult ::` Cattle .. Ca acEPo ul`ahon
city P`o ulation .ry 'l Ca iia Po ulation_: .
[] Wean to Feeder I❑ La er'. Da .. _ " `
A Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer [INon-Dairy
Farrow to Wean v �I
Farrow to Feeder Total De ign Capacity '' '
Farrow to Finish
�❑ Other
,. ..: . ---s::�.»-'n_. _:. ,-�.#$ N.:..�.: -_, , - •---,. m.. . .r t -:-:::.-_ per. -..:. :4 -:` a'�.,y
Number oftLagoons / HoldEng Ponds ❑ Subsurface Drains Present
❑Lagoan Area ❑Spray Field Area
eneral
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?
❑ Yes R"No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes PIN0
❑ Yes $LNo
❑ Yes /�No
ElYes N No
❑ Yes filNo
. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes UNo
Continued on back

Facility Number:..._ / ..........1....
6. Is facility not in compliance with any Ocable setback criteria in effect at the time ogn?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
..................... .�:>7..... _...........
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?
Structure 5
❑ Yes )@ No
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes & No
Structure 6
❑ Yes 5INo
❑ Yes P;rNo
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes Elm
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes ;RNo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type(.:.e.tv.1n.....)......r,�l. :r..�j ..f...T�.:S.S:��..�....�...1:a.J.�r,:.✓.. ��..'
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes WO
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
L'No
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
E57No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
W No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
PfNo
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
JRNo
For
Certified Facilities OnIv
22.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
23.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Reviewer/Inspector Name .f,rF
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: �-70
cc: Division of Water Ouat r Oualih, Section. Facilitv Assessment Unit 4/30/97

44
Farm Status: Registered
Farm Name: ELtedy.F.trk.F.arm......................................................................
Date of Inspection Time ofAinspection
14/16/96 --0_Use 24 hr. time
p outme p Complaint p Follow-up
........... County: Guilford ............................................... W'.SR0.........
OwnerName: Fraaklin.................................T.eague.......................................... I ........ .. Phone No: 444-43b.2....................................................................
Mailing Address: 5685 Baldwin Rd. Elon College NC 27244
Onsite representative: GeargeA.Frajaklin................................................................. Integrator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator Name: G.eorge.Y........................................... Teague .................................................
Location of Farm:
w
-I
.11
J
Latitude ®.®6 ©41 Longitude ®• ©' ®"
InNot OperationalDate 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
[]Yes []No

` 6. Is facility not in compliance with anycable setback criteria? []Yes M No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge (if inspection after 1/1197)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is structural freeboard less than adequate? ❑ Yes []No
Freeboard (ft): Lagoon I Lagoon 2 Lagoon 3 Lagoon 4
3
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 adquate markers to identify start and stop pumping levels?
❑ Yes
[]No
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type
16.
Do the 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?
[]Yes
® No
18.
Does the cover crop need improvement?
[]Yes
® No
19.
Is there a lack of available irrigation equipment?
p 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
®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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.....................
- -- - = --- -- --- ----F--:-ramri Iasi ------- ------- --- . .
------ram :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::::::::.. .
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................... ......�p ................
ntensive manure scrapping has reduced impact. Lagoon for this barn to be built soon. Design & contract pendingapproval by A
&WC. Significant rainfall required for discharge.to reach creek.
�7i
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviwer/Inspector Signature: Date:

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Steve W. Tedder, Chairman December 5,1996
Franklin Teague
Reedy Fork Farm
5685 Baldwin Rd.
Elon College NC 27244
Dear Mr. Teague:
jt�4 0
Mijow;1
A0M%MMU_M%ftM0 F2�ri
[DEHNR
Subject: Operator In Charge Designation
Facility: Reedy Fork Farm
Facility ID #: 41-14
Guilford County
FR1~Cr1VF-0
DECHNR
of 12 1996
i�.'1 f'tc.:4'n _ f-���T1C
R� JS J�Irw
Senate Bill 1217, An Act to Implement Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Study Commission on
Agricultural Waste, was enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly on June 21, 1996. This bill
requires that a certified operator be designated as the Operator in Charge by January 1, 1997, for each animal
waste management system that serves 250, or more swine, 100 or more confined cattle, 75 or more horses,
1,000 or more sheep, or 30,000 or more confined poultry with a liquid animal waste management system. Our
records indicate that your facility is registered with the Division of Water Quality and meets the requirements
for designating an OIC.
A training and certification program is not yet available for animal waste management systems involving
cattle, horses, sheep, or poultry. Owners and operators of these systems will be issued temporary animal waste
management certificates by the Water Pollution Control System Operators Certification Commission
(WPCSOCC). The temporary certificates will expire December 31, 1997, and will not be renewed. To obtain
a permanent certification, you will be required to complete ten hours of training and pass an examination by
December 31, 1997. A training and certification program for operators of animal waste management systems
involving cattle, sheep, horses, and poultry is now being developed and should be available by the spring of
1997. The type of training and certification required for the operator of each system will be based on the nature
of the wastes to be treated and the treatment process(es) primarily used to treat the animal waste.
As the owner of an animal operation with an animal waste management system, you must designate an
Operator in Charge and must submit the enclosed designation form to the WPCSOCC. If you do not intend to
operate your animal waste management system yourself, you must designate an employee or engage a contract
operator to be the Operator in Charge. The person designated as the Operator in Charge, whether yourself or
another person, must complete the enclosed application form for temporary certification as an animal waste
management system operator. Both the designation form and the application form must be completed and
returned by December 31, 1996.
If you have questions about the new requirements for animal waste management system operators, please call
Beth Buffington or Barry Huneycutt at 919n33-0026.
Sincerely,
FOR
Steve W. Tedder
Enclosures
cc: Winston Salem Regional Office
Water Quality Files
Water Pollution Control System ��® Voice 919-733-0026 FAX [phone]
Operators Certification Commission � An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Acton Employer
P.O. Box 29535 Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

JUL-14-1995 15:34 FROM ral WATER QUALITY SECTION TO
WSRO P.02/02
Site Requires Immediate Attention:
Facility No. - `1 F - i
DMSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: S/ 0 / ,f 41995
Time: �3
Farm N=e(Owner: 7r
Mailing Address: �? X�,
county:
Integrator. Phone:
On Site Representative: Phone: 5t3 Z---
Physical Addressli,ocation•
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle �Ccc�y
Design Capacity: alsstijj Number of Animals on Site: r s
DEM Certification Number: ACE _ DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: 3/ - 10 - z-Z3 " Longitude: 79 , 3 ' " Elevation:. __meet
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of I Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) Yes or No Actual Freeboard: Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes or64'Was any erosion obscry ? Yes o Ian
Is adequate land available for spray? es, No Is the cover. crop adequate? 'e�or No
Crop(s) being utilized: _ t&.
Does the facility meet SCS ' imum
ht l
criteria? 200 feet from Dwellings?<&or No
100 Feet from %110(iY f or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USES Blue Line Stream? Yes ot���
Is annual waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line? Yes orq�W
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state by man-made ditch, flushingsystem, or other
similar man-made devices? IWO No If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of f manure, land applied, .
spray irrixated on specific acreage with cover crou)? 'ss or,i �3y.-3�✓ cs �.-7�
CC: FUM-ty—Assessment unit use MEMO IT YNISENAL
.2 0 C 4,c,J Sl.
TnT01 P _ 02

��� �.itC'i�.�.'lQ3I'�5 jmI^.,:�SatC t�EF;IILICII
0--sciliVI Numbex:
SI ;- VI.Sdz' ATION RIECGRT3
DATE: E: % / 1995
Owner; Ir-71R94.licLIAJ TcAGu-arrnNa�rw ��Eci'u ia� ��2n�
G0(Mt,: Cs'WLFa2D
AgeatvisitngSiL—, —7—eirllr Phone:4/o-333-s5'00
(:lxtcr: �/ZA u (cuv �c/�rr cl� Phan$: 9l0 - 5r S� r— Sri 0 2
Cn She Repm--;cntadvo: C�a ��o� r� _ Phone: 7ios YY f'83
PhyslcslAddress: F3S
�2 Z;2o
,�f'siling hdarc:.3: -�� 8S �e C!` �� ip/ /2o.Q Ci �! ��•
�ecoj Co C Z?2-941
Tyne of OpcmLioa: _ Swine Poultry Catdc
f?esip Capacity; Z 0 0 ?dumber of Animmla on Sits;
Tppc of iriSCccticn: Ground Aerial
Circla Ycs or No
Doc.- the Ligecn have fi=-berr. of I Fcet T 25 ye=24 hour stoM, eveat
(aporc ei=(efy I Foot � 7 nc-eg) elg or No
Far facilities ALL mom th= cr-- Mien, plmsc address the edict Iasrmns' 'rczboard under the
cuirunc tts =cdoa.
�VF7s ony se_pagc aGscrve i L-3�aa L`'� lagCaLl(s)? Ye4 cresion of'dr. clam?: Yen v
Is ad:::u`:c lar ri avail7ble''ux f3fid anoicaiian? Yes or tic, Is t,hc 4-mvc; crop »d: quata? Ycs cr Nic
Addi6(inal Con:ir cnL-:
Fix to [phone]
Sim=ture or AR:at