410018_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Division of Water Resource
Facility Number - O Division of Soil and Water`ervation *..
O Other Agency
gift
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection O Operation Review C) Structure Evaluation p Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: (A Routine O Complaint 0 Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region: i?_Q
Farm Name: &VA rnan DaOwner Email: C, d, rOpW�ngrZ_��J CtriyCx�� , e �Yh,
i
Owner Name: NyiG E Oayia kyyyylayl _ Phone: �311r- oG20_ ,1_1 d 9
Mailing Address: L;-C>1 , VyjV\1(V\ y1 oOI u Rdl 1)1 a►'l , ry c, Ala 16b
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: chy�S 62)Nman Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone:
Integrator:
by �1,eeded
Certification Number: 6 hr Olnr�i1[�lG
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 0a' Longitude: J S C 3-1 t 0 V
1 qc;j, sa , % omi o HVQ y 62- t U otn*,o r�owmckn M r,f PW -h Inter901'0q
J &WV-Kon _Qq;L,4 (MCxbLI Ln 1-iw ba-
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
WL
er
Non -Layer
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
b. Did the discharge reach waters ofthe State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Da ry Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [] No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
[]NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA []NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of'3 21412015 Continued

Facility . Number: - Q� Date of Inspection: l 1
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate'?
❑ Yes
® No
P❑
❑ NA
❑ NE
a, Ifyes, is waste level into the structural freeboard`?
❑Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: \N S
Spillway?: Yl {}
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
" No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
R. 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
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
TT
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes W 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
ii f{ �
12. Crop Type(s): W � (A T , V e- [ [� eN ` rcau rLQ
13, Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes [5fl No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination? 7N
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
TM No
�`
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available`?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
" No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping neA�imemcnt? Ifyes, check the appropriate box below. Yes ❑ No
D4aste Applicationv Freeboard 21waste Analysis El�e+k- p�❑
ainfall �tocking �C rop Yield �20 Minute inspections lonthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the lacility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
Page 2 oj'3
D. Yes [A No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Weather Co
❑ NA ❑ NE
1P NA ❑ NE
21412015 Continued

Facilit Number: 4 j - Date of Inspection:
-1
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
1] No
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
[:3 No
NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
1' No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
f K No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
a 1. 661 i-ts-� J ue,
V
v�lere u ljates +a "u ( Ca plc l-e.a ��
• ) J �urrCC� i o
dN Celt brrlh"or1 due.
. Vje(,tI.ter Codes Nt;55inq Irn _'00y*% aV\.wCjinr)
y it 5y1 rF 113-uQdctce ccerL 1n wvP - p�sa.-rr ytl`I F 4 -tom vaUP
y - fes et3e, "y PW
Tr. qQi_kl va•.' -rr• M lxe LVrIcrl
(,A 1 educe UCern'cS-- . "ruQk�-en
� [�CfaG1 rC. F b C'A W4`p-C�•r
Sala 5,%.b
y tia a $S 3 �S .SS �X'
I L �til4er<�� 6u 1�iD `��' ��{`cert� k�cAy.
eG � % n
1.7 1-QUC)��} q0� Y1 1
sun'5b rd 41,Lfe _ --� c°p @YaAao_ c
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Sibnatut
Phone: 33j -1-U`9-105
Date:
21412015
Page 3 of 3

- vision of Water Rcsources
Facility Number - 0 Division of Soil and Water C4 rvation
0 Other Agency af,
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: (XRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Timer Departure Time: County: clllLirago Region: W S"
Farm Name: (3Owm*,M pptrq Owner Email:
Owner Name: CVQAS -1 DAV'tlJ & WfAMl Phone: 33 �G� 7 C
Mailing Address: 6�Qs 130WM/UJ �Jn.,�y R� ,ULtR►J f�G 9-i0-83
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
VS Bald 1 1,-Et2' 00 "WI � t star 0,)4 13dU3^VNs:b h&N RP . ToToze-cTt" 01C soW?A#w Pts &Wc4--t,x
Nr 644-1 / 6'A
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
RL
aLayer
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Dry Poultry Canacitv Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
i'ullets
Turkeys
El
Turkey Poults
Other
I
Discharges and Stream Impacts
i. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated ac ❑ 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.
Dairy Cow
Dai Calf
Daia Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes JKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE?
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: UcL ` - �t � Date of Inspection:
qW
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure
6
Identifier: V,)
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 30
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan'?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
�g 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
E! 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): UM
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Er No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'?
❑ Yes
PO No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
VN No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
LLJ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available'? If yes, check
❑ Yes
MN
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
®WUP ElChccklists �] Design 9Maps ® Lease Agreements
er:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Yes
R
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Waste Application y oar
Waste Transfers
off"
rop ie d ❑ 120 Minute Inspections
ns
e
at
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 ff NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of'3 21412015 Continued

Facilit Number: be - It ection: Date of Ins
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste appEicon equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes Q�CNo
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes w 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 MNo
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [�"No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the 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 Reviewerllnspector 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
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 12� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 45 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
15�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
IN No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
CK 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).
P67"WAV-GR \-knUp'� COMPLaco `-A�+ OQ6+k
S a' L `Tevl-S pub �tj 8
(b D���{�
N CONW1G�Glrj(.
E p j� S �? d u E{
,b �c K 0ij
MW EO 7-0
1� NECC5s '
Fc D �S
to 0
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewerllnspector Signatut
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 33 4 tt0C '4"a1
Date:
21412015

Division of Water Resources
Facility Number - O Division of Soil and Water Conservation /Q A AI{
11 O Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection n Operation Review p Structure Evaluation p Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine O Complaint 0 Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: & I
iFarm Name:a�1�41 I�g >� U Owner Email:
Owner Name: �(►�'�.� �, ql t� Phone:
Mailing Address: A��Q � —a-) win" -JlPQ I/ 4 P4 , , `T U / 1,o—n . I V C O� /
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
�*v- 15 _Raom m ., Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone:
Integrator:
Region: � o
6,
Certification Number v U�
Certification Number: ! �"—
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
v s a 1 s! C� , w Y z, L w 1'Y1CLt'� r� y
?Au na-y% 1)0aru IM&he_l 1,n,/ 4111vAZ
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La cr
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
Design Current
Dry Poultry Canacitv POD.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Fieid ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
❑No
❑NA
ONE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3
21412014 Continued

[Facility Number: M I- Date of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No D�-3GA ❑ 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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes 0 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 VNo
❑ 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 N'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 F1 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes [�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes jWo
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes 'W-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).
!qy i-rK��- RP.rn�I to T7� � p�ces5 or5endiU Q)ru-Pe.(e0y CA I
1� 9� sP n.Ln eiAWMP? /Vo e)vld � be. foul!-¢,
T 4 �{ r tab k ey 'i n vw u P Ad 4e.d to Y1e o CA contp
56 i I fes f-s no+ d t3 e u ao 1 S,
a W1braq�oti Aug 201S Pay -
Al e=Q.e�.�- Lo
�-�e k/ Cam.✓ %o �.
���hw✓ �4 vw I)MZ2.p�%� � q' �i4S POJI'$
3h*zol -5-
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
1 0 oL 145 . Nl 1000
' Lsb
N 6 5 - Us&, F�7_
Phone: -7-76 ` 20 9
Date: 2/346Z,9_61,57
21412014

Facility Number: -U70 1 Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes jNrNo ❑ 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: Vy
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes N40 ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �To ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) 7�
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes J'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, ete�)C
[] 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?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
❑ Yes
Eallo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
tgfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
1�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ,Da"'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes jNr&o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping nee�irovement? ❑ Yes No ❑ A ❑ NE
[Waste Applicati n [ekly Freeboard aste Analysis �il Analysis E aRIfers Weather Code
[2ainfall Stocking Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes �Q_No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No JR<A ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Division of Water Resourc
Facility Number - Division of Soil and Water nervation Q AM
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: C mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: CaU1 ��Ot Region: Vlj5plQ
Farm Name: 1r'
Owner Name: Y,
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ran riS Bd1._)rYl an Title:
Onsite Representative: ari S Rou.)MOX)
Certified Operator: C.-.1'lr l':5
Owner Email:
Phone: 44--
t �u ,1,a 0 27 ;z r3
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: aV Z Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ° 570 T 211 Longitude: 7 9 a _ 371 O `% f
u5 ffujy V ;Z 1
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
Design Current
Dry Pnultry Canacitv Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
ITurkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes ,fNo ❑ 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 DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes �§No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes D�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

[Facility Number: 141 jDate of Inspection:
Q
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
,�(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
0 Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
' � 5 Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
�U Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
Dj�'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
[4"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
C'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
CQ"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
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
J�I`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 Pon ing El Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
a . 1
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
X10
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
XN o
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NG
18.
is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
(10
❑ 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 D(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21 Does record keeping nee improvement? ❑Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
aste Applica ion = eekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis ❑Weather Code
Rainfall Stocking, Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspection
s
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No B;�rNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste app9tion 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 r'0 NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. VU
❑ 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: *�10
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
27, Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes V No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes b�'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 C)�Ko
❑ 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 jWNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes JQ'Slo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes Po"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes WNoo❑
NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
�Ko
❑ 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 Dag -es as necessarv).
Revicwcr/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
.a
Phone: —� 7%— 9637
Date:
21412014

(9 Division of Water Quality
,,,Faeility Number - 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation `O
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: 9 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: :i County: Lf" I Region:
Farm Name: L)_xlt, jyvN e % DC. t v- t, i Owner Email:
Owner Name: O.kr S 2-b Cxi �A��:nn •• Phone: G7�j5 G74 j
Mailing Address: I0 SO (n ?jb w ^-- rL r V iJ ic..►•�
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: •,&/)yt}YLI�"� Title: (�}/�
Onsite Representative. �.kr ;s op_ Integrator:
Phone: (yk) 2Q�-t TGr1
if
Certified Operator: I' r Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
I—iovi - 4 z-r 5 _ (0 Z E - 4 [ ,w "'_ r , -I
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
Certification Number:
Latitude:
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
-Non-Layer
pry rouitry
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Design Current
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Z-Z 5
l44
Dairy Calf
Igl
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Z3
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
[]Yes 2No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
m NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
&/No
[DNA
❑ NE
r)
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facilit .Number: - . Date of Inspection: I i+
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 4t Tpot
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): +1 1
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes 1� 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 E� 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 Ef No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes ff No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground
❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift
❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): W hLPn(, j'tra 4,+ I
_.
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
[fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
[f No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[EfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
[] Yes
[dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
E6o
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
YNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. []Yes &No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? [] Yes [o ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility,Number: L4 I - u Date of Inspection: Z ;
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applica lion equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes F2/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes E/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E3 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [,�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [2/No
❑ Yes [�(No
❑ Yes [El 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).
1. �()✓: r:. t✓�vw %J. — -)Oo
ZS fB fir, •'� cwcc. �" i _��� '{'O GW
1Y��>�ffnT 1r 1( iS VI5'We J1 i-;e"J 61A WJ� iM'""JEv1+-1 CV�i71�1-tSSilL!
/YicQ'�zil� V l� rT Wu I ✓tdell_
L 5 0� WAuS Wy)s' y1. -� AD ilk' . yw 10
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: >36.141- 52M
Date: I Z 1 l 13
21412011

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number - Division of Soil and Water C nervation
O Other Agency .1: 30
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: �'� �� County: 6L4 f-t-ntd Region: tj5)eO
Farm Name: Gvw► McLy) �A± lv) _ S� � • T Owner Email:
Owner Name: 61,,r f 4- Do�lvj d i5 oo mrto Phone: (Ii) 6yr y % Z I dll is
Mailing Address: G S 0 30,,,JMAY1
Physical Address:
fi
Facility Contact: C k r;J 56'j J a-iiTitle:
Onsite Representative: 61, r I f_ ! `� :���y� j Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back. -up Operator
Location of Farm:
Dow! d 3OW M11w, Certification Number:
Latitude:
7_09 - 37D9
Longitude: -77 J 0
wy Liz-1 5.1 7 6Z. ! L i3t+w Man Past, T�C1. - yn'%� c:{,�,,� of 3a,.t w• MAL.-d LA • 414 w> ( Z
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Dry Poultry Canacitv Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge? I -
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
2 2j
DaiEy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes [❑ No
❑ Yes IXI No
)Xyes E] No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility,Number: - Date of inspection: I! ZGj
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes IKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 II Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 4 as o„ 1
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
N
Observed Freeboard (in): Iwo
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? A
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land 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 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop
r Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
J
12. Crop Type(s): Ma / I q /gM 4- 6o t,1 5JAtz
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? ❑ YesXNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
acres determination? 4
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes o
tN
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes o
❑ NA
❑NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
M WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall 0 ❑ Crop Yield 0 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facili o install and maintain a rain gauge? Yes kNo NA NE
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facilit ,Number: jDate of Inspection: j
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No X NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No '.KNA ❑ 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? Ix
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. 4
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application) 'PIA
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. Yes 10No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond 0 Other: �ex> qU 001k I"j '
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
_0 6-1�'14 dt4Y— 01�44e­'- 2t> /3 /
Z1. z5l1 S�,' j f- z�""Ad d,„ 1] 1 cnllle j� I",mac 4 j
ZD 1 Z- f c, A I r'� R �a 1 � � , it i tt l � /�. - 14 //C
St4 Iylr Urr.A:>6Nk% W"i) �/a d �. J�/�•6 !dam 4�
I' P'�
C^etk_ 6044-14 Can Sck4\ C-A4- t�c��C!� Wru r�1 - n���t,vw GJL oII1 er'r
w a4c,- ctm�, f
1 � ,
�+3ccM,�c/�t< � ✓ 1 / I 156..TFFfrJ��IMiJJ '!
,
reeeh
kAnr IyY
3, IG� ib�,.Lo;r�Paa - z9 jb �1
712.a1L- 3.D$��1,i
312-011 � '7. ri 1b n�
Reviewer/Inspector Name: Ict 4'r 1 e:lc M , zJ-'..2I' Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ' �� Date: Z Zf) I Z
Page 3 of 3 21412011

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 410018 Facility Status: Actiyg Permit: AW100018 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Follow-up County: GuilfoW _ Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 002 012 Entry Time: 12:30 PM _ Exit Time: Q],J5 Epp Incident #:
Farm Name: Bowman Dalrv, Inc. Owner Email:
Owner: rhristooher D Bowman Phone. [phone]
• • • . :3CLl�F1Ta�. � m •IFTiir•Ce7'•i7'��k
Physical Address: 6506 Bowman Dairy Rd ,lulian NC 27283
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant E Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°56'42" Longitude: 79°37'0,$
From WSRO: 1-40 west to US 421 south to NC Hwy 62. Turn left at top of ramp. Turn left onto Bowman Dairy Road. Intersection of
Bowman Dairy Rd., Mabel Lane, and Hwy 62.
Question Areas:
ji Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Certified Operator: Christopher D Bowman Operator Certification Number: 22423
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Chris Bowman Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Chris Bowman Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebrock
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Date: q I 1101 2=-�
T
Page: 1

_r
0 i
Permit: AW1410018 Owner - Facility; Christopher D Bowman Facility Number: 410018
Inspection Date: 09/1112012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Inspection Summary:
Today's inspection was to follow-up on yesterday's discharge of 80,000 gal. (estimated) of animal waste from the suction hose near
the waste storage pond into the N. Prong Stinking Quarter Creek, Mr. John L. Payne, Chemical Planner/Asst. Emergency
Management Coordinator with the Alamance County Fire Marshall's Office was also on site and participated in the monitoring or
downstream impacts from the discharge.
Discharge from the ruptured hose was abated on 9-10-2012, The safety valve was shut today and ruptured hose removed. Chris
Bowman delivered waste pond samples to commercial lab this morning per permit requirement and planned to replace the hose this
afternoon.
The receiving stream appeared clearer today and the odor was less pronounced. The stream embankment below the discharge has
been treated with lime. Excessive numbers of flies (as expected) were not present.
To date, all permit requirements resulting from the discharge have been met.
Downstream sites were also sampled for: 1) specific conductivity; 2) nutrients; 3) turbidity; biochemical oxygen demand (BOD); fecal
coliform, dissolved oxygen (DO); and pH. No pH or DO violations observed today. There are no NC water quality standards for
nutrients, BOD, or specific conductivity. We are awaiting turbidity results from the DWQ lab.
Fecal coliform results for 9/11/2012 are as follows:
Waste storage pond = 900,000 MPN1100 mL. MPN=Mast Probable Number of bacteria.
Upstream = 2,400 colonies/ 100 mL. Specific conductance = 173 uS. Contamination of water upstream due to "geyser" of waste from
hose? Contamination from upstream source? Upstream sample location too close to discharge? Resample again.
Highway 62 = 8,200 col.! 100 mL. Could see stream bed today, however, lots of brown organic matter still remained. Specific
conductance = 697 uS. Some live minnows were observed.
Phillipi Rd. = 144 cold 100 mL. Specific conductance = 141 uS.
Alamance Ch. Rd. = 180 col./ 100 mL. Specific conductance = 135 uS.
Ferguson Rd. = Visually observed. No odor, foam, or unusual coloring or organic matter present. healthy minnows present.
Spoon Rd. in Alamance County = Visually inspected. No odor, foam, or unusual discoloration or organic matter noted. healthy fish and
minnows present.
Page: 2

Permit: AW1410018 Owner - Facility: Christopher D Bowman Facility Number: 410018
Inspection Date: 09/11/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
aste Pond WASTE POND
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWO)
❑
❑
❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
❑
❑
❑
❑
from a discharge?
Page: 3

0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 410018 Facility Status: Active Permit: AW1410018 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Emergency County: GI(Cd - Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 09/10/2012 Entry Time: 03:30 PM Exit Time: Q6:00 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Bowman Dairy. inc. _ Owner Email:
Owner: Christopher D Bowman - Phone: 336-685=6455
Mailing Address: 6144 Mabel Ln Julian NC 272&3
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant 0 Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°56'42" Longitude: 79°37S9'
From WSRO: 1-40 west to US 421 south to NC Hwy 62. Tum left at top of ramp. Turn left onto Bowman Dairy Road. Intersection of
Bowman Dairy Rd., Mabel Lane, and Hwy 62.
Question Areas:
0 Dischrge & Stream Impacts Other Issues
Certified Operator: Christopher D Bowman Operator Certification Number: 22423
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Chris Bowman Phone. [phone]
On -site representative Chris Bowman Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Patrick Mitchell
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Melissa Rosebrock
Phone:
Date: D Y y U a w l --
Phone:
Page: 1

Permit: AW1410018 Owner - Facility: Christopher D Bowman FacilityNumber : 410018
Inspection Date: 09/10/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Emergency
Inspection Summary:
On 9/10/2012 WSRO DWQ staff responded to an emergency call received from the Permittee/OIC for the subject facility. The OIC
reported that piping associated with the irrigation system servicing the facility had burst releasing approximately 10 inches of freeboard
waste from the waste pond, flowing into the surface water below. The OIC indicated that they had irrigated waste on a previous date
and that staff forgot to turn off the value following the irrigation event. The subject piping eventually burst under the pressure. It is
suspected that this piping may have burst due to the age and/or wear and tear.
The PermitteelOIC had constructed an earthen berm to contain the waste and lime was applied to the spill areas. The volume of
waste that is estimated to have been release is approximately 80,000 gallons. An unknown quantity of the waste did reach surface
waters.
Samples were collected from the subject surface waters. Results not returned to date.
DWQ discussed the actions required by the permit with the Permittee/OIC. DWQ to send an NOV. DWQ will conduct a follow-up
inspection/sampling.
L_
Novi 31 S
Page: 2

Or
0
Permit: AW1410018 Owner - Facility: Christopher D Bowman Facility Number : 410018
inspection Date: 0911012012 inspection Typo: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Emergency
Waste Structures
Designed
Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start pate Freeboard
Freeboard
aste Pond
WASTE POND
30,00
Discharges S 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. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)? 80,000
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
from a discharge?
Other Issues Yes
No NA NE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge, ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field ❑
Lagoon I Storage Pond ❑
Other ❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
33, Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page: 3

9 Division of Water Quality
Facility Number - Division of Soil and Water'eservation (� 3
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: I Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Arrival Time:
Departure Time: County: Region: Ls �eQ
Farm Name:
bbiQ w as1
Dak r U In
Owner Email:
Owner Name:
C �} I" 1
.j (Lu t (� p L\ YYI
a Phone: InKLYT91 (fit ri S
Mailing Address: 4 ) a I ru Ka
Physical Address:
R,
Facility Contact: _ �- S law, M q.Yl Title:
Onsite Representative: s� tLY 10[ Integrator:
Phone: ] A0 — 2 1 AIC
Certified Operator: CJInlr1 S rOl►:{i -0-n Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: 4\) d Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 3s '56 dam— Longitude:
U5 qAI 5o oth f-a IuL -2- 4 Turn le-F4, Le and 6c0hjC_A1
h�+f�-1 d ,n�S e art rn- �bi, mc;zn �ni ru 11i1� ate �.a�ne a--
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
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
Design Current
Dry Poultry Canacitv Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Otber
Discharges and Stream Im acts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
a
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
[] Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes ❑ No [] NA [] NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ['j No
❑ Yes 7� No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection -
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes eNo ❑ 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
1 �] Identifier:
/D Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes jiEf 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 0 NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify 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 f�6o
❑ 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 yNo
❑ 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): .SA) C.i
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
�(
I w No
T&
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
El Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
�9(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
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
.&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
� o
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
7�
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
�6waste
oes record keeping need improvement. , c afl�zapte-Heele;w ❑Yeso ❑ NAB ❑ NE
Applic tion L�J kly Freeboard aste Analysis oil Analysis s ❑-Weather Code
ainfall [Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections a—Susuey•
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste a cation equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes E5 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [—]No C NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
1 ❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
1� 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 N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes 1%No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes rA No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes [�(No ❑ NA [] NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes 'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any otber comments.
Use awings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
C. ns4r u c.,-i can a reoLs 64" i t i Z 7 qet
j C� Uu M Q ? J l l� �ao l J 7`e c j� /�S �e/Ct C t S_ S��yl�t cul
O' 1 SIY1.�l `t rVV � S 11`�1 S P
ab�o doll Sol Pests ao to ao)
a 1) 7. 0 1 � N/-F6
Reviewer/Inspector Name: rQ Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 3 of 3 21412011

. s
Facingy Number
b
l"
Ppivtsf Water Quality
Divtston1.
of Sotl>and xVatcr
r
Cot ervation'
zQ, Otther Agency it
Type of Visit
Compliance Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
Routine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 'l + Arrival Time: = Departure "Time: County: 6 U j-1 &i j Region:
Farm Name: InI I )hla-r\ I dj rq rXC. Owner Email:
Owner Namc: v Y ��' I S °�Q] If
t i� Phone:
RS -
7a 9 e�he�s
Mailing Address: D 0 6o LU MCM
i��
n
J)o_I r y R� f �V I I Qn
27 a $ 3
Physical Address: Sam -e-
Facility Contact: C k rtS I'�0�' an. Title:
Onsite Representative: ' 1 6�Oi� MQV)
CertitiedOperator: Ci1rIs Bpwma-n
OV t-t tx.
hone No: �o tJ q 5 5
YG1 ao9 - 3109
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number -
Back -up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: � ®f f, Longitude: � e ©f f�
uG 4o-i o c o N c y (o q- I-u rn je . Le_f onfo ibow mQ n
�Q� r PA. _rlytp_r5ec+ton o.V bowrna n fit; c� ��� Lang er ba
Design Current Design Current r ?Design s Current
Swine Capacity Population Vet Poultry Capacity Population €Cattle C pacity�aPopulatton
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
�,Othcr•�� �. �. �� _
❑ Other
❑ La er
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
Dai Cow
�a
Dairy Calf
❑ Dai Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Num,,IoO
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?
fures
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ N E
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

fv�
Facility Number: L4— O Date of Inspection
[Mir 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?
Q Structure,
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
+ Identifier: U�Ya�`��P F'nod
�.
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes PNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes PNo ❑ 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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
Waste Application �,
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need El Yes L No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
I. Is there evidence of incorrect application'? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
ElExcessive Ponding ElHydraulic 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)
-44,14-A ia) JLJ
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[ slo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
(NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
> o
❑ 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`b . �AroA fo r ru 11 aarvinnM ? (de- pa:i red .
-e—ycc.[udej �rom Schoo( disch ? �es
3 �
atw
Reviewer/inspector Name E Phone:
Reviewerllnspector Signature: Jj l A„ A A Ad I h /f]}P Date: r'o� i lie) I
Page 2 of 3 „ r of � � � •� 12/28/04 Continued

ream S ldal
Facility ]Number: q — + 10of Inspection
Required Records & Documents lL �3�-_'"ice
.ch,me
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA U NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check El Yes JNo [I NA El NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps [I Other
21. DWW'Waste
record keeping nee�Zeekl
vement? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
.q
Application Freeboard ❑ Waste AnalysE Soil alysis ❑-Este-Prartsfers -64ta€�eatie�r
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1 "Rain Inspections Bather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? El Yes CkNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
ElNE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
Yes
otVNA
NA
NA
El
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ 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
WN o
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
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
�,_,/
�J No
❑ 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
❑ NA❑
NE
General Permit? (ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative'?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
ElNE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:'
AS. ► e_L0 Gelds added ?WuP is beaM revlsec�
() barn + I c)+ s or ace a�
ort? �,f �� , �0. Q
C° al i brat? on due c
0-3 � t" I n J-o t I
of � .
S h i r r f s o l 1 c! C� 11 �) rc�� t o >n ? l -Q-�

rvision of Water Quality -
[Facility Number _ J Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency k '„
Type of Visit 16�Outine
Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: I 1=Fg5 Arrival Time: © b Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: gc)o M par— -.Ia- i a Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: _
Back-up Operator: _
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Title:
Phone:
Phone No:
Integrator: 112
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o ❑ I ❑ Longitude: = ° ❑ 6 ❑
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
11
FEILan
er
-Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
s
Design Current'
Cattle Capacity Population-,
❑
Dairy Cow
ZZ
UFDairy
Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
ODry
Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cowl
I
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes, o ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ NA
❑ NE
F- YesV�No❑NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — is Date of Inspection IZ U •
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): 5_7
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed`?
(ic/ 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 . N NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental thre %Goofy DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No A ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? El Yes No A ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require El Yes No ❑ NA [I NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes �[Ell
El
maintenance/improvement? '
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application'? If yes, check the appropriate box below. El 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) �iiY' n i'a- i'1 Si Cn.,F'L
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15, Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
ZNo NA ❑ NE
No " NA ❑ NE
�N 0- NA ❑ NE
[__1 NA ❑ NE
El No DNA ❑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):
Reviewerllnspector dame Phone:
Reviewer/inspector Signature: _- -ti4 Date:
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — f D3�e of Inspection
y i I' �
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No A ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
�oO
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
J2
❑ 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 ❑ Weather
Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
EKEl NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No _NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facilityfail to conduct a sludge survey as required b the permit?
g Y q Y
❑ Yes
A
�rNo0
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ YesA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ YesA
❑ 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

Facility Number
Division of Water Qualit,
Division of Soil and Water "onservation 10,00130
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit q Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit yRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: � /2 a7-D County: iD (�� lfvre� Region: Lo5leo
_cowman 4 h� 1�-@�meicr
Farm Name: _ Owner Email: �
Owner Name:
`C h r 15* b()-Oil Phone: 8
Mailing Address: b bb%ornaii Dal q l ' ►Jullc n C -1- 7
Ph' cal`Address: Same— 6reamefv
ll__ 101 3.10
Facility Contact: _ (I WE I S 86 W iY Q0 Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: bw Integrator: '�—
Certified Operator: 6 k r L.5 jk tl]mG n _ ____ Operator Certification Number:
Rack -up Operator:
Rack -up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: �o ®�Longitude: ®° 3 O
US HWj (0 a 4- turn lep ,Mnfo -boll., nG_n calf-
ok b� ma n l4► t' Y /Ko-b'e-1 LAn-e- l 14W Y 6 ,�-
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
❑ on-Layet
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
oia 5
Daia Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
I
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: IT
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
�(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
)? No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection 0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2
Identifier:}��
vt ' Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
Structure 3 Structure 4
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
El NA El NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes t5ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ 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 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes XNo ❑ 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 grop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifi ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
X No
El NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'?
El Yes
XNo
❑ 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
o
ElNA
ElNE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
rNo
❑ 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� ��dIay+5? u it ir
ixma5v viavz
e,tPL alw tme- 415c 1l1t�jL`�I*►li
(.OLL- ✓✓ $ fi r i n f_n e�A o v k? IJ�PryI/�
. )ante- roK &-hood d;sc�inv�e_ d i��n ? l� rl�� ov1 05 — eo5f5
I n u 1, e. its
+o e �C C r oh 5ej
Reviewer/Inspector Name
pS f 0 Phone: 5 a
Reviewer/Inspector Signature.
Date: a
12128104 Continued

Facilit NuDate of � mher:. ; — Inspection a •
y _... 1
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 appropiiate box
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes *No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
' ❑ WUP Li Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. D s record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. El ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Applic, tion Wee ly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil alysis Waste Transfers
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly anndd V Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No >(NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?�I� YesNo El NA El NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ o ] NA ElNE
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 XNA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes �No ❑ 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 XN o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
a goo'? Sore 6'R'
1 NA 90140 PUJ J 4 lei, 31 b N aver 7 NO a U-X� i ss ue . �c w
e-ct41J�} j 5 wor l�i� oR`�1iS.
P .�
t o s/o -7 3 N /) ooa
k3. ti NJ roNs
12128104

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 410018 Facility Status: Active Permit: 8WI410018 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Guilford Region:
Date of Visit: 03/0612007 Entry Time:10100 AM Exit Time: 11130 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: BqVman Dai[y.Owner Email:
Owner: Christooher D Bowman _ Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 6144_Mabel Ln Julian NC 27283
Physical Address: 6506 Bowman-Qgiry Rd _ Julian NC 27283
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 25;;6'42" __ Longitude: 79"37'09"
From WSRO: 1-40 west to US 421 south to NC Hwy 62. Turn left at top of ramp. Turn left onto Bowman Dairy Road. Intersection of
Bowman Dairy Rd., Mabel Lane, and Hwy 62.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Christopher D Bowman Operator Certification Number: 22423
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative
24 hour contact name
Primary Inspector: M li
Inspector Signature:
Secondary lnspector(s):
Chris Bowman
Chris Bowman
Rosebrock
Phone: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Phone:
Date: 167
Inspection Summary:
3. & 9. Need to fence corner of lower "highway paddock." To be completed by April 1, 2007. Getting run-off of sediment and some
waste into surface waters.
3. & 9. Must fence out lower spring (below crossing), at minimum. Check next visit. Getting run-off of sediment and waste into surface
waters. Y
9. Suggest fencing cattle from school discharge ditch.
18. Check hydrants next visit.
21. 2006 soil test results ok.
Page: 1

Permit: AW1410018 Owner - Facility: Christopher D Bowman
Inspection Date: 03106/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 410018
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle -Milk Co, 225 170
Total Design Capacity: 225
Total SSLW: 315,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
aste Pond WASTE POND 170.00
Page: 2

•
. is
Permit: AW1410018 Owner - Facility: Christopher D Bowman
Inspection Date;,03/06/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Discharges & Stream Impacts
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)
Facility Number:410018
Reason for Visit: Routine
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
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
00011
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
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)?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
■
■
■
Page: 3

• 0
Permit: AW141 001 B Owner -Facility: Christopher D Bowman
Facility Number:410018
Inspection Date: 03/06/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
..............P.P........._......._....... ...
Yes No
NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley,
Oats)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
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? ❑ ■
❑ Cl
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
Q ■
❑ ❑
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

E
•
Permit: AW1410018 Owner - Facility: Christopher D Bowman
Inspection Date: 03/06/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Records and Documents
Checklists?
Design?
Maps?
Other?
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
Facility Number:410018
Reason for Visit: Routine
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■ ❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ ❑
❑
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

Permit: AW1410018 Owner- Facility: Christopher 0 Bowman
Inspection Date: 03/06/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Otherlssues
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: 410018
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page•. 6

Facility Number
Division of Water Quality 10A M
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 i Routine O Complaint O Fallow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
`C
Date of Visit: U Arrival Time: �� Departure Time: County: U Cif Region: t4-�
Farm Name: I )AAA n C i 1`ZY1 C `1 o Owner Email:
Owner Name: r "i DO V (� �OI�J `+tY1Q n Phone: 6 ?_5 - Ll 7 D1_ 1 _
Mailing Address: �._S-Ne boLoman laRd. U(Gt ri ,__Nic-, R %fig_
Physical Address: C/F D A Me -AL gS5—
Facility Contact: L1i1.)i(XA Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: � Iti'. Man Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number -
Back -up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: E530 � l H3 Longitude: l D
S. -to NC Hwy6 -?-y furn e-. LQ f anf6 86wma*i .irY .
n k -sew i on of _bomar� , bou ry M.c_jqe_ l L a_ne yw y 6a
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 -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
IN
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy i-leifei
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cowl
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: IT—]
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — j 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?
1
Structur Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
. identifier: IA s? ohd _-
Gpi l l way?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes 4NO
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
[I NA El NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes 0(1 0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ 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 XNo ❑ NA El NE
maintenance/improvement? XNo
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 l0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence
gof Wind Drifl ElApplication Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) _'4""j l r , .;'j C�A"CJW
� —�f vv '
13.
Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement`?
❑ Yes
o
ElNAQI❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yest�No
X�INA U NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
)dNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
L
Reviewer/Inspector N me a r6cK Phone: — S $
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu Date: �J (p Q
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — 01'Ate of Inspection p 0
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. f `
ElWUP El Checklists El Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA El NE
Waste Application Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis ❑
Rainfall'Stocking N Crop Yield Monthly and I" Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge`? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No kfNA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by�the yper it?W ❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? "�- ❑ Yes ❑ No ofNA ❑ 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 �(N. ❑ 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) 1
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
CommentsAdditional r Drawings:
`• i
12128104

f
Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 410018 Facility Status: Active Permit: AW1410018
❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comoliance Inspection Inactive
or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Guilford
Region: -
Date of Visit: 08/15/2006 Entry Time: 10:00 AM Exit Time: 11:30 AM
Incident #:
Farm Name: Bowman Dairy, Inc.
Owner Email:
Owner: Qbristopher D Powman
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 6144 Mabel Ln Julian NC
27283
Physical Address: 6506 Bowman Dairy Rd Julian NC
27283 -
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Faun: Latitude: '4 " Longitude: 79°37'09"
From WSRO: 1-40 west to US 421 south to NC Hwy 62. Turn left at top of ramp. Turn left onto Bowman Dairy Road. Intersection of
Bowman Dairy Rd., Mabel Lane, and Hwy 62.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment
Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Christopher D Bowman Operator Certification Number: 22423
Secondary OIC(s):
Phone
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title
On -site representative Chris Bowman
Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Chris Bowman
Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector:Melissa Rosebroc
Inspector Signature I�� ��s �1Dt_��
Phone: ' /
Date: _� 1 Q SO
Secondary lnspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
3. Pasture and creek at the Shaffner Farm (wl 20+ calves) look good.
21. 416106 waste analysis= 2.3 lbs. N/1000 gal,
21. Records look great.
21. Don't forget to obtain 2006 soil samples.
24. Calibration was completed 9/20106.
Page: 1

• •
Permit: AW1410018 Owner - Facility: Christopher D Bowman Facility Number : 410018
Inspection Date: 08/15/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
O Cattle - Milk Cow 225 148
Total Design Capacity: 225
Total SSLW: 315,000
Waste Structures
Type identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
taste Pond WASTE POND 40.0
Page: 2

• •
Permit: AW1410018 Owner - Facility: Christopher D Bowman Facility
Number:
410018
Inspection Date: 08/1512006 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 (l.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
❑
moo
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

• •
Permit: AW1410018 Owner - Facility: Christopher D Bowman
Facility Number: 410018
Inspection Date: 08M 5/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Rouline
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
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?
Cl ■ ❑ ❑
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.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AW1410018 Owner - FaclIIty: Christopher O Bowman Facility Number: 410018
Inspection Date: 08/15/2006 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? ❑ 0 Cl ❑
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 fall 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?
❑
M
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑
E
Cl
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
Cl
■
❑
❑
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

• o
Permit: AW1410018 Owner - Facility: Christopher D Bowman
Facility Number :
410018
Inspection Date: 08//512006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DVVQ of emergency situations as required by Perrnit?
0
w
❑
❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
■
❑
Q
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■
❑
Q
I$
Page: 6

Division of Water Quality Tervation
Facility Number 0 Division of Soil and Water
-- --- Q Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit I Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up O Referral ()Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 000 Departure Time: l •• 3o County: Region:
Farm Name: LY1 Gt9f loa�11-U Owner Email:
Owner Name 1C' S f U LiIV �1lilfY1 Qr} Phone:
IIi
Mailing Address: �s lb P _rQlnLA.) Mat 1)Q1rS1 � � Z UI;a r) L .2 -7
Physical Address: c��►e-r4 to
Facility Contact: C)AV 15 L]p0`'m4Xi Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: liC,lS ___ __ ___ Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: �QV t Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ®
I J� i �-s Longitude: ° ©Q
vS dal Sov`M -�o KI E t4wb a . L e P+ a� - oho �.
P,owmo�,n �i� pd•
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
❑
Daia Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cowl
I
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: IT]
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 (o d L
he�.S � i m R2lP.r-
12128104 Continued

N✓
Facility Number: q I — , Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
1 Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
1KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
�f
JyNo [I NA [I 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
1�
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)+`YNo
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require El Yes
ElNA ❑ 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 l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
0
12. Crop type(s) C&,O, 4
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Iko ❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
o ❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No El NA
El NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
o El NA
El 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):
Reviewer/Inspector Name I 0 rOC.I 1 Phone: -1-7
Reviewer/inspector Signat�AjlqDate: S
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — 'Rate of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes ,No [I NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 1No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does ecord keeping need im rovement? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12 ste Applieat' n Weekl Freeboard aste Analysis S�Zthlv
ysis lAnnual
[N Rainfall Stoekina Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections and 1 " Rain Inspections [5<eather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
�NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
I%NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge'? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No YNA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
*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
�lo
❑ 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
El NA
[I NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
�
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
IVNo
El NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
/`�' No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
F5T a20010 so I 5 2
ao�
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 410018 Facility Status: Active_ Permit. 6W141001a ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Gull oLd Region:
Date of Visit: 05/31/2005, Entry Time:12:00 PM Exit Time: 01:45 PM
Farm Name: Bowman Dairy. Inc.
Owner: Christopher D BBowman___
Mailing Address: 5144 Mabel Ln _ _
Physical Address:
incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35 56'42" Longitude: 7*37'09"
From WSRO: 1-40 west to US 421 south to NC Hwy 62. Turn left at top of ramp. Turn left onto Bowman Dairy Road. intersection of
Bowman Dairy Rd., Mabel Lane, and Hwy 62.
Question Areas:
0 Discharges & Stream Impacts 0 Waste Collection & Treatment 0 Waste Application
0 Records and Documents 0 Other Issues
Certified Operator: Christopher D Bowman Operator Certification Number: 22423
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
24 hour contact name Chris Bowman
Title Phone
Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Chris Bowman j- baVidWMW'} Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: N&elissa M.Rosebr Phone: [phone]
Ext.383
Inspector Signature. Date: _ 5 1 ,1-13 ( b5-
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
21. 2005 soil test results look ok.
28. Operator says that pull #8 (in tract 9016) is 4.09 acres while the WUP states 2.05 acres. Check with tech specialist.
4128105 waste analysis=2.4 lbs. N11000 gal.
Page: 1

Permit: AW1410018 Owner - Facility: Christopher D Bowman Facility Number: 410018
Inspection Date: 05/31/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
0 Cattle -Milk Cow 225 150
Total Design Capacity: 225
Total SSLW: 315,000
Waste Structures
Type
Identifier
Closed Date Start Date
Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Page: 2

s
•
Permit: AW1410018 Owner - Facility: Christopher D Bowman Facility Number : 410018
Inspection Date: 05/31/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Dischargeq,& Stream Imp Yes
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
No NA NE
moo
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
moo
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify 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 Stale other than from a discharge?
❑
Yes
■ ❑ ❑
No NA NE
Waste Cnilartinn. 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 (Led large trees, severe erosion,
❑
■ ❑ Cl
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed andlor 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 P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelstudge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Pag e: 3

Permit: AW1410018 Owner - Facility: Christopher D Bowman
Inspection Date: 05/31/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 410018
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Crop Type 6
Yes
No NA
NF
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan(CAWMP)? 00
❑
❑
15, Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
0 ❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■ ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
■ ❑
No NA
❑
NF
Records_ and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
moo
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?
❑
M
❑
Cl
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
0
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
0
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0
❑
❑
27, Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0
❑
❑
Page: 4

•
•
Permit: AW1410018 Owner - Facility: Christopher D Bowman
Inspection Date: 05/31/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 410018
Reason for Visit: Routine
nthpr Igsups
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-oompliance 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.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewilnspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ M ❑ ❑
❑ M ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ O
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 5

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: QtJ Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: Q County: Gu t .1 6 Region: WSRO
Farm Name: �� �n b211 V- � C Owner Email: //
Owner Name: °�- �Qy� d .Q b W ry) a.n Phone: 33� . to M. 7 9
Mai 'ng Address: 1 t i oAoe La -e_ Ju r Q Vi P C—
StN0 1�DVDman DoUr j
vsreal A ss•
ry WM Facility Contact: C�r>y� � QY� ,R, } Title: Phonene No: No:
w M a �y� ny�
Onsite Representative: bon 0��
)
f t�tall'f}t':,
Certified Operator: C-h �� I>W mom Operator Certification Number: ;�
Back-up Operator: 01�11 � Back-up Certification Number: ),;La 4 01
Location of Farm: Latitude: EW ®' e [ml Longitude:
US 42I So N u a . t- p "' aL c.fJ . I.. Le o n'fo
Wr►'1 Y1 ci1 {` f�i ` +PEI' SeC`�7d t'1% OL D-F W I'1 ayl la 1 r Lt
U �-0� 1 f_
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 e►
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
l . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
oZ a,s
Ll Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: t r t
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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 9
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No
*A
ElNE
1 R. 'Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
t V�1
Identifier: QS
1
Spillway?: 25
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑Yes No
El NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
/``
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) )(0
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ElYes ElNA ElNE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes )dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)f�.J
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination`: ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
E�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
TTTTTTNo
9Iff�`0 NE
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
No
❑NA ❑NE
Comments' (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. 4
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
ReviewerAnspector Name l (,t TP Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date:
s$7
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — *of Inspection 13P1 1 1 0—
Re wired Records & Documents `T
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists JI ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Z
ecord keeping need irwec
vement? If yes, ;:Waste
the appropriate box Clow. ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
ste Ap�Stocking
ion "ly Freeboard Analysis Lld S;�Monthly
nalysis
Rainfall rop Yield and 1" Rain Inspections Weather Code
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes *No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility tail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE
1
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit'? �' O ❑ Yes �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 QQ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes I❑ No YNA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA [INE
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 KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application) �Ao
32. Did Reviewer/]nspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative'? ElYes ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ElYes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
r� T-5JtfPr
9olb)
J

*ision of Water Quality.
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency' '
Type of Visit *Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Eval. O Tech. Assistance O Conf. for Removal
Reason for Visit *Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 41 lg I)ate of Visit: 10/19/2004 'time: 125t1
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: j3i7.YrJnt;atl,. Dairy, Inc ................................................................................... .. County: Qrrui!ford............................................ N!NRQ.......,
Owner Name: Cltriawphet:.sR:-lb- id...... 1O.R..W.Main..................................................... Phone No: J3-A85.47.Z9..........
Mailing Address: {,j4.4.Mahel.LAlAC..........
Facility Contact: CJkX'l AQ..WJMA1A.....
Onsite Representative: Chris.Rommu................
................................. I......................... d.alAaia... NC.............................................................. 2.7.2.8.3 ..............
......Title................................................................. Phone No: �latlt. f,6. S.1�4S5...........
.............................................. Integrator: ................
Certified Operator:.Ch,risxoub&K..l?.................... 130,W AR.......................................... Operator Certification Number:22.423................... ......
Location of Farm:
From WSRO: 1-40 west to US 421 south to NC Hwy 62. Turn left at top of ramp. Turn left onto Bowman Dairy Road.
Intersection of Bowman Dairy Rd., Mabel Lane, and Hwy 62.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 56 42 46 Longitude F 79 • 37F 09 1«
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
CapacitV Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
JEI Layer
® Dairy
225
141
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
225
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
315,000
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 0
1
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ......Was1.e.Pand......................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 61
12112103 Continued

r
Facility Number: 41-18 • Date of Inspection 10/19/20fl4 O `
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 Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Graze)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes ® No
Air Quality representative immediately,
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ield Copy ® Final Notes
3. Must establish a 30' buffer (minimum) from fence near creek (lot closest to the main road). Evidence of sediment washing from lot
into the creek. Fence to be installed within 30 days per operator.
1015/04 waste analysis=2.3 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Me]Wsa Rosebroc
Reviewer/Inspector Signature Date:
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 41-18 1*A Inspection 10/19/2004 •
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ® No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ® No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ® No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ® No
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes ® No
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
®No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
® No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33.
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
35.
Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below,
❑ Yes
❑ No
[:]Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield form []Rainfall [:]Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
0
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
pv� Od�Lle (0
�Ql�l vI GCLr� S�arT
cJ
Ala co
'VC z '7 �a
v�. oc ROL.,
12/12/03

` � u � � ..�•.. .�.� r ..n�nry`�`w?� '�§'."��',� ] ^wj `=`'"�ar ,P,g`6y�'�.°' r'Y (`+'�;��'xW �a �. `�K 1+, � € y� �h � --. �i_ � �" Ms•� - l� y. i ���`"'; �'s«�
a �„y yt� _ r vlsioDcilf�Vii$terGQuahty r ga r z Si�y s
�' `� �.�i �������".' �� �s �.� .ten f- Fa Y :y«- tom- "�• � r. f a-e- r � ri�`"�•^, � � .rya
M ty; • �} c i . L laD:Of SOIL and Water CODSetVAtiOn +�. „ � a k .A r 4
;'i.-„Yt g s �'k�• ;�7� � r � � a �.''tr_T� � !-".� F��.�1 - ^���. a c r 3 � F� � ��
i {r a �''T+'�t• f �•c r� '." �,y a ~er Agency c �''�� •. 1 Y.a"�:..`� st - -a ;. a a- P
�, s � � e r5� ��'� fffF � � -.�' . i+,g �-� °s � dS w _ A _ ... 4"s�..•iSE s � � _ _ r �i '.��� �,,, �• Y
',�,t?Sr�� a4n".h%.Y§�s,3'aY? w� aaE. a,. ..��--«.wni,,�.z `�¢� „u'}..�`z..w4:,-.za s� ..w�?'u: ::»�1e.°f�«ti ,P;!.''�i..J:x. :•y .��.' �. o q•�,�.c . �r. '�1��.:5""..,,t^'�-x!-'��,. �..
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit � Routine O Complain# O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other © Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: 6 Time:
O Not O erational O Below Threshold
Apermitted [3Certified 13 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operat or Abo(e Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: ........ .-!-�1C.,r ..................... County:
Owner Name:... h .l. � �" 1%.i ......f�. W.� arl ' Phone No: ? g6_-.. � ...........................
Mailing Address:.. L�.�.27. .......... b� 1 .. �. ...�... U_ LaX .........
Farility Contact: ...� Jt��i........Title:..................` - Phone No:
Onsite Representative:.. ..V�!�(j, _ _ _ _ _ „ Integrator-
Certified Operator:_. .q_.-_%,`5,i jJv r}(�,G n. .... _... Operator Certification Number:...... aa.` ,
Location of Farm:
� Spuv,) is NI✓ b �- Lei t g-+ p f-' Left a� rrkp 66vum" -1
ru [�. � rS��c'�1%ton nF' wm� tru 1 �ae1 Ln. ] Hwv bZ. �I
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitudes �`" Longitude'
Design Current: Desr� Curreflt Design Current
Swine po iiii'' " Poultry r 'Ca P 1 'ti 'Cattle a 'Po ai do
acr - a on,
❑ Wean, to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
acx o o a on • cc n
❑ Layer Dairy
n ❑ Non -Laver I I Non -Dairy
r ❑ Other
To ;Desig1f.Capac><ty -
`
<x �/.�
TotaIESSLW oob
Number of Lagoons
i�nlrlmasPrinrirt%,Cn1iA�''1'anc'ri - 'xrav'
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes gNo
Discharge originated at: [I 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 galhiiin?
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 owe. a 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
�n riur Structure 2 Structure J Structure 4 Structure S
Identifier: ? __ ._ .._................._....... _...�...... ._ ___ ........ .
Freeboard (inches):
12112103
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes )<No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes o
Structure 6
Continued

Facility•Number: 41, Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the i ity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tree severe erosion,
❑ yes ko
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑yesNo
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 XNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenanceJimprovement?
❑ Yes 0�_o
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 o
11, Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes fNo
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ P ❑ Hydraulic Overload Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
~
12. Crop type S rj
eNo
13. Do the receiving crops er with those design ted in the CertifiedAnitnal Waste Management Plan CAWMP)7
❑Yes
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes o
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 o
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes o
Odor issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
19. is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
_)�o
❑ Yes 0
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
�ff
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.
/ `
�Com�i�nents (iei'er�to 9ves6on #) '�Expiau�az�y�YES aioswersiand/ar-any recommendations or.aay,othcr a�rriments., : ��a"
rUse d�rawrngsbf.�rxLty to better tarp ,lam s,dratzoas {use additional P�� � necessasj'} field Copy ❑Final Nantes � u �£
a
o C w&5te- Axw_lys13 .31 . N/1oa
k.*
r
ur-1 a or Co vil�)rA *&kjZ:A bQ� W
Reviewer/Inspector NameIII
ReviewerAnspector Signatuk- A 1 jW j , Date:

Facility Number: Da a of Inspection Q�}1
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 60
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes o
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes JXNO
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes XNO
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes X No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes No
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes No
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No
29. Were any additional problems noted which causa noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes o
Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) ❑ Yes [Ko
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? ❑ Yes ❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After I" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Forst
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
r • • p
ddes ILI
1
M

chnical Assistance Site Visit Re
• DilWn of Soil and Water Conservational_
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 41 - 18 Date: 127104 Time: 1 9:40 Time On Farm: 75 WSRO
Farm Name Bowman Dairy Inc. County Guilford Phone
Mailing Address 6144 Mabel Lane
Julian NC
Onsite
Representative Chris Bowman Integrator
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
•rl
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
pp Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWCISWCD referral
Q Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
Q Fallow -up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy
ElNon-Dairy
pp Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWCISWCD referral
Q Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
Q Fallow -up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy
ElNon-Dairy
® Dairy
ElNon-Dairy
136
HL5
❑ Other
336-685-4729
27283
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
6- Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
❑ yes ® no
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Identifier WSP
Level (Inches) 42
CROP TYPES Fescue -graze lCorn, Silage Small grain silage
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES Ce132
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

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

Facility Number 41 _ 18 Date: 1 4/27/04 '
COMMENTS:
Waste analysis: 10-15-03 LSD 1.2 Ibs.N11000 gals. 1 1±j
* Remember to get your 2004 soil samples.
The facility and records are in good shape.
Good farm.
TECHNICAL. SPECIALIST lRocky Durham Millie Langley
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 130104 I Entered By: [Rocky Durham
3 03/10/03

'vision of Water Quality
ision of Soil and Water Conservation
O ther Agency
Type of Visit © Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit OO Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Time: 094�
Facility Number 41 18 pate Ill Visit:O9Ifl�iIZOO�
Q Not O erational O Below-Ihreshold
Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above "Threshold: ....... -- --
harm Name: ftY! 11 �.�a11X.1Alr.................................... .................... ....... County: Qtkiffilrd ................................. Y.V5RQ......
.
Owner Name: Ch>isxn�l��&_RaYld.__ �D}Y[tl;t7l-------------------------- Phone No: 33�=G$5_4'I24-----------------------------.
MailingAddress:6144..1Y1Ab�L.Laz1c................................................................................. >l.lt all..N.C............................................................... VZ$3..............�...
Facility Contact: ChriS.0Q.W AAA....................................ritle:............................................... Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Ghri��4YYtUau------------------------------------- Integrator: -------------------------------------------•
Certified Operator: CZtrjstQp.he,T..D................... JD.Q.W.Mam ........................................... Operator Certification Number: 22,413............
Location of I -arm:
prom WSRO: 140 west to US 421 south to NC Hwy 62. Turn left at top of ramp. Turn left onto Bowman Dairy Road.
ntersection o1 Bowman Dairy Rd., Mabel Lane, and Hwy 62.
I —
[I Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 56 426, Longitude 79 • 37 1 09 u
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I Dairy 1 225 1l57
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 225
Total SSLW 315,000
Number of Lagoons 0� ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area JE1 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? []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 ofthe State? (If ves, notify DWQ) ❑Yes ❑ No
c. I f discharge is observed, wheat is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If ves, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: lYastr-Rud..... ........................... -•--•--•--•-----•---•-----•--•--•--•------------------------------------- ...........................
-reeboard (inches): 36
05103101 -Al Fp'wl f q Continued

Facility Number: 41-18 D:►le of Inspection 09/09/2003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the m egrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ treVevere 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 Anglication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Fescue (Graze)
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
® Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ®No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? []Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit 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 OR No
❑ Yes ® No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy - ® Final Notes
3. and 8. Need to move fencing back from the creek in some of the low areas of the pasture so that vegetation can establish to help
_
control sediment run-off. Operator to move fencing within 60 days.
19. Records look great! 2003 soil test results look A. 7/31/03 waste analysis = 1.7 lbs. N/1000 gal.
w
wer/Inspector Name 'Melis a Rosebrock
E
wer/Inspector Signature-, _ / / t --� Date: ��
05103101 1 Continued

Facility Number: 41-18 ])of Inspection 0911}9/2003 .
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation'?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged till pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
gray water discharge was discovered while performing today's inspection. Discharge is from a washing machine at 6522
Bowman Dairy Road. This property is owned by Chris Bowman. DWQ notified Mr. Carl Parsons with the Guilford Co. Health
Dept. Mr. Parsons said that Mr. Joe Johnson would be handling the complaint.
J
05103101

Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 'OtherA�ency
Type of Visit compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit �"outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: 'rime:
10 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified D Registered Date Last Operated r Above hres old:
Farm Name:
County:
p J
Owner Name: [ j� }O �A I/I Phone No:
Mailing Address: l 14 W() lip 1 60 n-e— ZU ion ► 1`3C_
Facility Contact: _ Title: Phone No: 1n sc id j-% s s p�{
Onsite Representative: "' a ! Integrator:
Certified Operator: �m arl)perator Certification Number: � � .2,3
Location of Farm:
o ca,V- L6 6 2-, Le_�I_ o4 mm*
1 a t r- �
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry W Cattle ❑ Horse latitude FRID' ®� LT Longitude �' ©
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacitv Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder I ❑ Layer I I im Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish 10 Non -Layer I 1 10 Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity �n2�
❑ Gilts ❑ Bours Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ID Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps JE1 No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischart!cs & 'tream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Z. 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 Xspillwav
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): n
Structure 5
❑ Yes *o
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
XNo
Yes
❑l No
❑ Yes
A No
Structure 6
05103101
Continued

Facility dumber: — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
El 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?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
❑ Yes
XN0
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify- DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
XNo
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
L�SI No
N aste Anniicat9on
'T``
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
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated i e Certified Animal VNIAte Management an (CA\kW)?
❑ Yes
o
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑YesZ�N
o
b) Does the facility need a aTertable acre determination?
❑ Yes
14No
c) This facilin• is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
j� _o
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
I S. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ ,VUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) 1//
❑ Yes
No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ imgation, freeboard, waste analysis & s i] sample reports)
❑ Yes
No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
El Yes
'o
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
22. Fail to notii.- regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie' discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
No
X
,3. Did Reviewerllnspecior fail to discuss review'rinspection 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.
Gomments'(refei to auestiori :'`Ezplairi:aiiy YE5 agiswers and/orany'recommendations or any other,,iromments.: s
Use drawings of facility to better ciplaut situations. (use additional pages as necessary): Field Copy Final Notes -
�.01 �a�. Ei•Gr� �}"rV. :a .' '3�.__.aR -
j31 /03 l� °�' P 4c�, 1. 7 t �5 N) 000
IR-n le
i s � i q., .� .y. '^�'-,� "� r--+«. y w •-Y.�r +n�v�ra�--S»-"`+6p
Reviewer/Inspector Name t' c a'�� g •sit x
_
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur . I i Date:
05103101 t 1 11 Continued

Facility Number: q-- Date of inspection
-Qdor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below YeS e—
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 N0
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? yrs
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.) Elyms - El No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes *0
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
Additional Comments and/or Drawings,
t-�,�
'2 coo
®aI
Clbwma�a E.ne�4-
ei¢e,lb..199q ?
05103101

TAANMknical Assistance Site Visit Report
Divi.swun of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
0 Other...
Facility Number 1 41 - 18 Date: /16/03 Time: 9:20 Time On Farm: 70 WSRO
Farm Name Bowman Dairy Inc. County Guilford Phone:
Mailing Address 6144 Mabel Lane
Julian NC
Onsite
Representative Chris and David Bowman Integrator
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
I ❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated: [3 Operating
Operating below threshold
LE] Swine ❑ Poultry IR Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
336-685-4729
27283
O Routine -
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
Q Requested by producer/integrator
Q Follow-up
Q Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
336-685-4729
27283
O Routine -
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
Q Requested by producer/integrator
Q Follow-up
Q Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
150
H25
❑ Other
GENERAL. QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier WSP
Level (Inches) 46
CROP TYPES Fescue -graze Corn, Silage Ismail grain
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES CeB2
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 41 - 18 Date:
4/16/03
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
[18. Waste spill leaving site
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
El 10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
[111. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
El
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
[113. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
30. 21-1.0200
❑
❑
[115. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
re-certif[cation
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organ] ze/com puterization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWO Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation desigMnstallation
❑
❑
El Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation Information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
❑
❑
46. Wettable Acre Determination
1
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
The WUP was amended for crop changes
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
The irrigation pump and gear box was rebuilt
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
-
3.
52. Buffer Improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
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

IFacility Number 41 - 16 Date: I 4116103 I
COMMENTS:
Waste analysis: 10-08-02 LSD 1.4 Ibs.N/1000 gals. I
AL
3-26-03 LSD 1.9 "
Facility has the bottling plant in production now. Facility and records appear to be in good shape.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST IRocky Durham I Millie Langley
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: /21/03
Entered By: lRocky Durham
03/10/03

sion of Water Quality
0 sion of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
(Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit OO Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 41 18 hate ul' Visit: 10/10/2002 Thin,: 0930
O Not Operational 5 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified [3 Registered
Farm Name: I1A5 mix.D.Ary.1mt~n....................................................................................
Owner Name: Cltxistophex., .1?oLyid...... Bowman .......................................
Mailing Address: 61Q.4.]►.'tabel.l,Antc................. .................................................
Facility Contact: ChrjA.J3.9.wWAl....
Date Last Operated or Above 'Threshold: .............. ..•••••...•
County: Guilford ............................................ WSRQ ........
Phone No:;3-4.7.2.Gt�ris..(111,.6t.91.,.?.z&.�t'ag1.
ditliam.. K........
Title: ............................................
Onsite Representative: ChCis..Arid..DAyiSI.ZA.}hMAA................................................... Integrator:..
...... 2.7.283..............
Phone No: 68.5,605. Platit.
Certified Operator:.CjlrisXQFlicr,1),................... HowKna.......................................... Operator Certification Number:22.423............ ................
Location of Farm:
From WSRO: I-40 west to US 421 south to NC Hwy 62. Turn left at top of ramp. Turn left onto Bowman Dairy Road.
Intersection of Bowman Dairy Rd., Mabel Lane, and Hwy 62.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 56 42 Longitude F 79
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 I I 1 ® Dairy 225 148
❑ Non -Layer I I I❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 225
Total SSLW 315,000
Number of Lagoons ® ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps I _J ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges -& Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. Ii'discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. Il'discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection R Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .....Waste.Pand......................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 93
05/03/01 � rf a,,q l Ctinued

Facility Number: 41-18 1 0 Date of Inspection 10/I0/2002 0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste ADDliCatlOn
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ® Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required Records_& Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) -
® Yes
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
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 questio Explain any YE5 answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments ,
sUserdrawm s,of facilit to bettee ex lam situations. (use additional a es as necessary ;
g r I y t p p g�� ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
3. Keep an eye on any erosion or wash of soil and/or manure from bare areas near creek in pastures. Is ok today.
_
18. Mortality and odor checklists were not available. Oper operator, these were at the house. Need to put these with the CAWMP.
19. Operator is awaiting waste sample results to complete the PAN balance on his SLUR-2 forms for Sept. 2002 applications.
19. 2002 soil test results call for 1.5 tons of lime/A for field 1.
19. Make sure to use wettable acres from waste plan (not maps) in calculating a PAN balance.
19. Equipment maintenance and calibration records look good!
13. and 25. Per operator, the SWCD is currently working on a revision to the waste plan to include I and I of T-9016 in crop rotation
and changing alfalfa hay to wheat silage small grain).
w
Reviewer/]nspector Name Mena R sebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date: �-
0510310I t Continued

Facility Number: 4f—I8 Ihi lnspcction 1011U12002 •
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
Tributary containing sand filter discharge from nearby Nathanial Green Elementary parses through pastures. Looked ok
05103101

9 3an r ?
Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ime:
7 1 11v-k _ — Oft — . 7. . .. I
facility Number
Permitted IxCertified © Condi 'onalh: Certified Registered Date Last Operated r Above Thresho d:
FarmName: ( 1�`� Counh: .,
Owner Name: 6r a I!
Phone No:
Mailing Address: _91 0 alyl Jo jiQ � �_ � i � —7
Facilih' Contact: ! �� mCi, � Title: Phone No:
1_3 6. 9l3
Onsite Representative: a' * Integrator: �� l�fi�l•
MILL_ v
Certified Operator: r� b Operator Certification Number: Z
Location of Farm: O� a a
rod �o.�o l� '� '�a r� S� L . P U onto 1 y
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ,YCattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®' �" Longitude
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Ca acitri• Population Cattle Ca acity, Population
❑ Laver Dairy
❑ Non -Laver i-DaiDLL
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Design Current
Swine L:a acity ro ulatton
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Boars
Total SSLW
Dumber of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area ❑ S rav Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
f Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes KNO
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? El Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If ves, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑Yes IgNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes )4No
Waste Collection & Treatment ,�j�
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate.) ! d villway ❑ Yes XNo
S ucture I Sr6 Structure Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: — date of Inspection D 0 0
5. Are there anv immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
VNO
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
YNO
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
�/
7. Do anv of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
qp No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
XNO`
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ YesNo
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
' o
'
12. Crap type AAA AMA
13. Do the receiving crops differ with 40se designated in the Certified Animal Waste Vanagement 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
EXNo
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
XNo
18. Does the facility -fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
rup
DO
El No
(ie/ V checklists design, maps, etc.) ✓
Yes
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, fredboard, waste analysis & sotl sample reports)
❑ Yes
XNo
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
o
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
ElYes
No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
o
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 If): Explain.any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any of er comments.
Use drawings of.facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): Fieid Cory A ❑Final Notes
Review'er/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

Facility Number: —
Date of Ins1welimi
0
Oder 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? (Le. 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. "'ere 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 {lush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
a
r uraNvi
.� t N/IDC,1-
/1LAXIl di s!C.'i VA el 111.A 11 M /i/w. 1
Cl Yes 10
0 Yes XNO
El Yes X,�lo
Yes No
No
05103101

ision of Water Quality
ision of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 41 18 Dais of Visit: 4/1ti/2002 'Tillie: 11:30
t,7 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered pate Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: D!).]L1R1aOl.Qa1>iy.htG,................................................... ................................ . County: S.ruxllfQrd ............................................ WSR..........
Owner Name: Ctttr tapher..&.D;jy d...... B.Qwt>Qatn..................................................... Phone No: 336-fiK:47.29...........................................................
i
MailingAddress: 614.4.MUk2g1.Lmljr................................................................................ JM110KI.-N-C .............................................................. 272.$3 .............
FacilityContact:..............................................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative:.CItri5..&..Dayad..BoAtwix.....
Certified Operator:C.hristopher.D................... 13.9mmaat......................
Location of Farm:
Integrator: ..............................................................
Operator Certification Number:22.423
Intersection of Bowman Dairy Rd. Mabel Lane and Hwy 62. �►
w
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 3S ' S6 & 42 '* Longitude 79 ° 37 . 09 14
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ® Dairy 225 134
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 225
Total SSLW 315,000
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps IEJ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts i
t. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originaled at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance nian-matte? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
WasteCollection & 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 66
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 41-18 - Date of Inspection 4/16/2002 �y
Ptegrity 5. Are there any immediate threats to the of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes ®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload []Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) 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'?
4
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
[:]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
0
E3 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question ff): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommen ationslorjBy other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
Mr. Bowman is making irrigation pulls according to the current irrigation map until the irrigation contractor can update the irrigation map
and pull acreage.
25. The grass strips have been taken out of fields I A and 1 B of T 9016 and therefore these fields need to be in crop rotation in the
UP.
Overall the facility and records are in good shape.
The facility has the bottling plant operation included in the waste calculations and is discussed in the narrative of the waste plan. The
bottling plant is still under construction and has not begun production to date.
Reviewer/Inspector Name rRocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 41-18 I),i6 Inspcclion 4/16/2002 0
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge allor below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
® No
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
® No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Additional omments.an or rawmgs:¢
Waste analysis: 2-26-02 LSD 3.0 ibs.N/1000 gals. I
10-25-01 LSD 2.3
Soil analysis dated 3-07-02.
J
05103101

*.Sion of Water Quality
'Sion of Soil and Water Conservation �.
0 ther Agency
Type of Visit *Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
FFacility Number Q] I8 Date of Visit: 9/2U/2001 Time: 1215 Printed ton; 9/26/2001
0 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified CI Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: ........................................................... ......... County: C.ruA1fQj:d.......................................... i. WSRQ ........
Owner Name: CttrhtotpJ.ex.A.DoL d...... I3awmaa►..................................................... Phone No: 3,3.6:A S.-47.29...........................................................
Mailing Address: 6144.Mabel.l AM ............................ ........................1mlxam...N.C............................ ....... 271$3 .............
Facility Contact: Cha'j6AQ.WMA11................ ........ ..... ................. 'Citle:................................................................ Phone No: 336.113,87.28.kager..........
Onsite Representative: Cbds.,a1td..QAXAd..Uo.wm;Aa................................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:CIldsloplxcr......................... Domman .......................................... Operator Certification Number:22423.............................
Location of Farm:
Intersection of Bowman Dairy Rd. Mabel Lane and Hwy 62.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry IN Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • S6 G 4244 Longitude 79 ' =4 0946
Design Current
Swine Capacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ® :Dairy 225 165
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 225
Total SSLW 315,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Im ac
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. li'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. ]f discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Dees discharge bypass a lagoon system? Of yes, notify DWQ) [--]:Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ..............WSP............ ................................... .................................... .............................. :.... ............................................. .......:........
.........
Freeboard (inches): 36
05/03/01 � �`3 ^ /. Continued

Facility Number: 41-18 Date of Inspection 9/20/2001 Printed on: 9/26/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the 3f}fegrity 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?
WastcApplication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application'? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Hay) Wheat
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit 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?
Ir ON
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
(]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
[:]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
[:]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
[-]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit:.
IC-4v
iComments (refer. to question #) Explain ariy YES answers andlor any recommendations Many other comments��
r , ray . _ :,..� n
se s of factlit to better ex
g y p al a
situat►ons. (use addition ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
w V, p ages as necessary)
' .
Adrawn Clain
-
18. Facility needs to have copy of most recent WUP (one that describes bottled milk operation). Contact SWCD for assistance.
_
19. WUP pulls/acres don't match irrigation design or acres. Irrigation map needs to be revised. Need to keep application records by
pulls. Contact SWCD for assistance.
19. Soil samples for 1999 and 2000 did not analyze for copper and zinc. 2001 samples still need to be taken.
27. Need to bury calves at least 3 feet deep ...... and at least 300 from the creek. Some calf carcasses had been layed in the woods. Larger
cattle are picked -up and rendered.
ilo trenches look A No leachate noted.
Reviewer/Inspector Name fMeli sa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. 11 Date: _qZd
O5103101
6M9
Continued

1
Facility Number: 41-18 1) f Inspection 9/20/2001 Printed on: 9/26/2001
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 till pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
Additional Comments and/orDrawings:
❑ Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[--]Yes ❑ No
05103101

r la m
flivision of Water Q ality:
s . h ivision of Soil acid Water Conservation ;
w; t 0 Other Agency < 3 rK
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit xRoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time: a S
Q Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
ffPermitted '(Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: .. .ic.. ......- a..................1....................... County:...... .. ..� 0. rj ....................
Owner Name:
Phone ............... Phone No:..���lO.....g,�:...702 :.
e� 6.7 7, ..gram,...
Facility Contact: ff! j T Ma: � e � Lq n � �i�. �{,� I � a �'l N Phone o: a % � -3
y................. s.. ......... ... F..................................................................................
Mailing Address: [ -h �p1,v►rY�4Y�
..... �........................................................................................................................................................................................I.................
Onsite Representative: , .,,..r „ b�a,}I!1!1 Lj .......t1a it . u,,,m Q
Certified Operator:.Nm 5�p 0.�?M r) . Operator Certification Number: ............ ........ ...................................................... ...
Location of Farm:
I-rl-ersec4ion of Px� an �ti-y Izd .1 Mabe.t Loner I-� w Ybz .
[]Swine []Poultry O� Cattle []Horse Latitude �• S( � ©�° Longitude ®• 7 �
Design Current
Swine Canneiry Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current
Design Current '
Poultry .
Capacity, Population Cattle
CapaCitY Po ulation:
❑ Layer I
I
Dairy
I Zaj "
❑ Non -Layer I
Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
aS
Total SSLW
315, C0:0:jl]
Number of Lagoons JE1 Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps JE1 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discha es & Stream impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway
Stti uctI Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
��' Identifier: YYv ..........................
.............................................................................................................
Y,4 WFreeboard (inches):
5100
Yes 'No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes
Yes )(No
Structure 5 Structure b
............................I ................ .................
Coniinued on back

Facility Number: 4 — j Date of Inspection o20 O
5. Are there any immediate threats to the in4prity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees evere 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 XNO
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes )No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ 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 Pondingo ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes 'YNo
12. Crop type
01 �-Z�
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Ani al Waste&Canagement Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes rNo
o
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ElYes
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes O No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes fNo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes Al o
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑,Yes 1XNo
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes X 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.) tZs
s 'JNo
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? []'Yes t5ZNo
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes XNo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(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
�VQ YiQ1a iQriis. I . cpenctes "re n0 ed• 00ing 01s'visit; • Y:oor wiii •t ooiye iio ]futlher • , ,
6 respondence. aboi uk this visit: '
Comments (refer,to question ##)::Explain aay,YES answers'and/or any recommendations or, any other comments:
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
In A
106
Q
took
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur
Date: _ _ f /ab 101 5/00

1 y
Facility Number: 4— Oe of Inspection L Q 0
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? P(Yes ❑ No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ YesXNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
24. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? -E3 Ves-- a 040
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? cs—�-P11� o
32, Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? S4es—�,^ No
Additional Comments andfor. Drawings:
Pon
/200/
017. /laee'`$ �.G� Ca-P,uea� a-t ,1edu-t" 3'.dzzY —
3Co
�9. e��P q��/��dext ✓�
444VMV,—(�v ✓,�,l944 v ao� �ilret
GuvLn.
40A to -tltl
5100 -

C LoM at, �,� �. AC+
lik
0
5 �
ti

*Vision
ision of Water Quality
of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 4t l8 Date of Visit: 4/4/2001 Time: 9:50 Printed on: 8/29/2001
FO Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ..................
Farm Name: .. County: Gufl[Ord............................................ �ns��natn�.l�aixx..[ntc....................... !'Y R..........
............................................................
Owner Name: Gttriat.Qphtr..&.JDaLrid...... B.a..naan..........................
Mailing Address: 6144.Ni t?dUat.....................................................
Facility Contact: ...............................................................................Title:
Onsite Representative: Chr!5.,Aptd,.DAY!d,.BQ.W Aix ........................
Certified Operator: Christophcr ......................... UAYXxl A11...............
Location of Farm:
ntersection of Bowman Dairy Rd. Mabel Lane and Hwy 62.
................. Phone No: 336:485:4729
.. dullaxi..SIC.......................
................................................
I ........ I .... .... ZNU..............
Phone No:
......................................................... ...............................
................... Integrator: ...............................................
Operator Certification Number:22423..........
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ' S6 6 4246 Longitude 79 • 37 ' 0946
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pouulation
❑ 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 225 152
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 225
Total SSLW 315,000
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps JE1 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State`? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. ll'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 8& Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Identifier: ................................... ......
Freeboard (inches): 60 _
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: 41-18 Date of inspection 4/4/2001 O Printed on: 8/29/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement'?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Wa: to 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, Fescue (Graze) 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?
[]Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Rewired
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
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Com=entsrefer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.Use
gs of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
,,
Records and facility look good.
_
aste analysis: 12/1l/00 LSD 11 lbs. NI1000 gals. I
Facility has individual permit which includes a bottling plant that will be constructed on site.
acility sent off waste sample today. Application had been made to small grain in March.
w
Reviewer/Inspector Name lRocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

tFacility Number: 41-18 1)��f Inspection 4/4/2aal
. Odor Issues
. Printed on: 8/29/2001
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
AL
05103101
J

vzsiozi of Water Quality
r ision of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 41 18 Date of Visit: 9/7/2000 Times 134i1 Printed on: 9/8/2000
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified (3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ...................
Farm Name: 131,.)x=[XDAixY..lxlg........................... ....... County: Guiff9 d............................................ WSRA........
Owner Name: Cillristophe.r..&.11 yid.,.... Rowman ..................................................... Phone No: G- ..-47.7.9...........................................................
Facility Contact: Chris.. om# a .............................................. .l'itle:....
Mailing Address: 6].9�k.akzei.C.�l�...........................................................
Onsite Representative:.C:lir.iS..alad..f)AY!d.D.P.Y.►APAIx......................
Certified Operator:.C.hrNlophor......................... B9Yt'1mix.....................
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
.............Jmhaxi...N.0 .............................................................. Z.718.3 ..............
Integrator: ................................................
......................................
..... Operator Certification Number:�:Z423
ntersection of Bowman Dairy Rd. Mabel Lane and Hwy 62. A
I -
[]Swine ❑ Poultry ®Cattle []Horse Latitude 35 • 56 42 z. Longitude 79 37 09
Design Current
Swine Capacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacitv Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ® Dairy 225 180
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 225
Total SSLW 315,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 0 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. 1 f 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 now in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ®No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ......V�aste.T.and...................................................................................
.............................. .................................... ....................................
Freeboard (inches): 48
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: 41 i8 Date of Inspection 9/7/2000 Printed on: 9/8/2000 r . 4
5. Are there any immediate threats to the in rrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trelevere 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
I2. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Timothy, Orchard, & Rye
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ®No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for 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?
Reguired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design'?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
No•yiolatitins:or def"tciencies •ivere;noted dur•ingthis: visit.• ;You:will receive nti•i'urther: • ;
correspondence -about this' isit. .. . .
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):
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
El Yes ®No
3. and 8. Runoff from silage bunker was about 50' from creek. Recommend contacting SWCD for suggestions regarding containment +
or piping to pond.
9. Need to put in armed marker per permit.
19. Start keeping weekly freeboard.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melissa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu Date: q do 5100

Facility Number: 41-18 D of Inspection 9/7I2000 . Printed on: 9/8/2000
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 stnictnre, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ®No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted'? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional Comments and/orDrawings:
r
5100

• *Iivvjision
sion of Water Quality
11 of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit ACompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit $ Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
y Number
Date of Visit:P-Nlot
Time: Printed on: 7/21/2000
Facilit
O erational 0 Below Threshold
11�Permitted WCertified © Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above �T-hhrr+eshold: .........`......�..'..P....
Farm Name: .....1<..lir l.t.+...1. a.ri... Q .t. r... . Tri G • County: .......o U.�......... .!............................`:"....!'"Q
.. .... ...J .r � .........................................
Owner Name: ...��.Ji.Rl.•."?V.. G�1 ........... Phone No:.�1�1.!.?..s.....�9.........................
Facility Contact: .. �. .{, ......bo. m.J r......... 'I'itle:............................... I ll`,ne`No ..... ..l.�.t ......53- �
f� l f ......T.. .... > .
Flailing Address: w ...........�.�,.�.�,-...1.........iL a.n.�........................ .....r,_1.u.�..ian...-.�..'...".�........................ d �..�g ..................... .
Onsite Representative: .... a.h.r.J.'n......... &0mao .............. I ........ I ......... . Integrator: ......................................................................................
Certified Operator:.. .h.r.+.. .}�..(} �- ......... 6O.L.O...m.an ..... Operator Certification Number:.......'�p`.1120
Location of Farm: t
1-n4e,r6e,efian ©P BoOMan b4i ry Pj. , Mabo- I L-oj)e, op 9 w 16 d? . A �
[:]Swine []Poultry 0 Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �• ®° V • Longitude �• �� U l
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 Dairy o
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity a00
Total SSLW oZ g o �QQ
Number of Lagoons ILI Subsurface Drains Present ❑ 11-ignr�n Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps JE1 No Liquid Waste IN•lanagement System
Discharges & Stream ImpacLti
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 it observed. did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If dischar�!e is obscrvcd. what is the estitnaled flow in gal/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 o
oten 3. Were there any adverse impacts or tiat adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? �!j Yes t
o
Waste Collection &. 'Treats►ent
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'? ElSpillway ElYes A No
SL ucturc I D L•ucturc 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure
Identitier:.l..on...............................................................................:..................
Preehoard (inches): l { S1
5/00 Continued on back

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 0 Printed on: 7/21/2000
TM
5. Are there any immediate threats to theority of any of the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
V0
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan'?
El Yes
XNo
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
�NO
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
Yes
❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maxima n and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
XYes
❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need main tenance/improve ment?
❑ Yes
No
11. Is there evidence of over application'? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ wit those designated in the Certified Anit I Was Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
Wo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
ElYes
No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination'
❑ Yes
XNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination'
❑ Yes
Y No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'
❑ Yes
VNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment'?
❑ Yes
$No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
XNo
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
XNo
19.
Does record keeping need improvement'? (ic/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
XYes
❑ 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? ,
El Yes
ONO
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
t
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
El es
No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'?
Cl Yes
XNo
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
XNo
0; N,6- iolati6ris;oi-- deficiencies -were ;n+nted- dirririg phis:visit: • :Y;oir will •receive rio; f'ui thee . ; .
corres� oridence: A' if th" '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):
i un D —Cnowt S r e � un Vex- 0306 oL+ rtwk- Creed `
Qe,o rmme J eor 'ng Ul t r S u ejho n5 l Go a
P meht or l p -to
n, o
qNge� 4t po.�"jn moryex- Pe4- 'Pgrmt�,*
Reviewer/inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: g/pit

Facility dumber: — 1 c of Inspection I �1 / 7 I /?j'1� Printed on: 7/21 /2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge At/or below-99-Y.e+—B-No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation'?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
28. is there any evidence of wind drift during land application'? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
24. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes \No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) []Yes JKNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? B-i el B-No
OM r r a,apd
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? j •B 3Fe9�o
Additional Comments and/orDrawings:
A,
5100

10
avision of Water Quality
visionn of Soil and Water Conservation 0
O Other Agency
(Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 6/14/2000 Time: 9:5o Printed on: 9/6/2000
Facility Number 41 18
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
0 Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ...............•••••
Farm Name: bom mA>xDAlk..0iftc..........................................................................
Owner Name: Gktxi tahher.. ,t?arld...... 1.RtYfptan.........................................
Facility Contact: .............................................................................. Title:..............
Mailing Address: fiA4A1ake11;six.....................................................................
Onsite Representative: ikt s>X!?Abt�X i3!?.)5I1tl�t................................................
Certified Operator:Ghtri5lQplacr......................... DAWmAn...............................
Location of Farm:
Intersection of Bowman Dairy Rd. Mabel Lane and Hwy 62. +
w
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ' S6 42 Longitude 79 °
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
County: G.uUkrd............................................ W,SRQ........
........... Phone No: - - 7.29...........................................................
Phone No:
............................
.......... hAllau.. N.0 .............................................................. ZUNI .............
Integrator:......................................................................................
......... Operator Certification Number:22.423.............................
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ® Dairy 200 ! 68
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 200
Total SSLW 280,000
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Arca
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: .......:.:.................
.......... ...... ............................... ............ .................. ..... ................... :................ ..................:...........
Freeboard (inches): 112
5100
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Continued on back

W,
Facility Number: 41-18 Date of Inspection 6/14/2000. t
Printed on: 9/8/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the irity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tres.vere 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
(1f any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement'? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Hay)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
M. 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 ,& Qocuments
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? (ic/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
Rio violations:oi• deficiencies-were-noted:during•this visit::Yot�:will "receive nti further
corxes' oridence. about this'visit.....
::::::::::::: ::: :
farm. Records look good. No problems to note.
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham Millie Langley
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5100

Facility Number: 41-18 1) ' if Inspection 6/14/2000 Printed on: 9/6/2000
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 IN 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 IN 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
Additionai Comments and/orDrawings:
5100
5100

Facility Number 41 l8 Date of Inspection 12/14/9y
Time of Inspection 10:15 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Permitted ® Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered ❑ Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
....... Count)': G.Ujlft?1Cd........................
Farm Name: �t7MM;xtx.gaily.-1lne. .................... .................... WttA........
Owner Name: 01r1FkRpher.. .PaYxd...... .apt.naaxt..................................................... Phone Nn: b-ff-.4.7.2,4.................................I........................
Facility Contact: ..............................................................................Title: .. Phone No:
MailingAddress: 6.144.AaAOIatke................................................................................JMU011,1,qC ............................................................... 272N.3 .............
OnsiteRepresentative:........................................................................................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:.hT..3SxAphcr.................. PQV vstl,Af)........................................... Operator Certification Nmnher:�,Ma .............................
Location of Farm:
'-
rr-
Latitude 35 ' SCE 42 Longitude 7y ° 37 09
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacitv Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
JE1 Layer
® Dairy
200
186
[I Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
200
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
280,000
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Arco ❑ Spray Field Arc:
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps 1 ❑ Nn Liquid Wasle Management System
Discharg .ti & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge ori,,irr►ted at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field []Other
a, li'dischar-,e is observed. ,xas the conveyance nian-made?
`--- ------ --h.--If discharge is observed.'did-it reach -Wafer of-ihe-Siate? (If yes. -notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes - O No- --- - -
c. if discharue is ohserved. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? I if yes, notify DW )
❑ 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
11`aste Coileclion & Treatment
4.
Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
❑ Yes
® No
Structure l StrUCturc 2 Structure: 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 SIRICtnrc
6
Identifier: Pond #I
Freeboard (inches): 90 ......
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 12/14/99

1`acility Number: 41-18 [ e of Inspection
12/14/99
6. Are there structures on -site which are teoperly addressed and/or managed through abe 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 ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Timothy, Orchard, & Rye 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'?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment"
Re(mired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18, Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24, Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency'?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
0. No violatioris or detic'tencies Were noted dut'ling this: visit. You:will receive no further
corresO 66dence about this :visit. : : : : : : : . . . . . . . .: . .
17. Renewal forms sent to Raleigh on 11110 by certified mail (Inspector was shown receipt for certified mail)
ote: Farm has two certified operators: Chris Bowman and David Bowman
Reviewerllnspector Name Tom Yo um
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 16,1 Date:
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
AL
Printed on 12/14/99

❑ Division of Solid Water Conservation ❑ Other MWcy
Division of Water Quality
fi v,
0 Routine 0 Com taint 0 Follow-u of DW ins action 0 Follow-up_of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection 98
Facility Number
Time of Inspection /p 24 hr. (hh:mm)
13 Registered jj Certified U Applied for Permit 0 Permitted JE3 Not Operational/�� Date Last Operated:.... .
�OcJ►h u . J ,(�7 ` Farm Name: 4- .. ... r.-�........�.� ,..................... Count usAV/ .........................
Owner Name G Phone No; ?3 685 " -9 % 9,
!il.....,,.. �� . 5 f........ ..f, k`'�i—................................................ �...................... ...... .........................
Facility Contact: ur ........hs,G?. aR.•a..........., Title: ........... a ................................ Phone Nw -OM 0 ....►�7Z.1..
MailingAddress: ......... 61..Y4...... a. 1...... t/................r%4.�� .4 ...... .......................... . i�4.74.&T....................... ..........................
Onsite Representative:....-knr'S......,1�Q.4J !�.�?--.. Integrator: ................ ........
Certified Operator: ...... C AR.f........09A.4 J.t!.-�.—........................................................ Operator Certification Number,... ...................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 3 S -�• ©' ®°�
31 Design Current
.: ,
-� Swine ;�..%�� <Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons / Holding Ponds
General
Longitude '75 • 3 ` ®"
..; ❑ Other
_C
G
Design Current
Cattle Capacitv Population
ter:
.x Total Design Capacity apa
` Total SSLW
Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Reid Area
No Liquid Waste Management System
t. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes 0No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 54 No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gaUinin?
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 ONo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes 9No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes KNo
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes Qq No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes JjZNo
7/25/97

Facility Number: —
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes Jallo
Structures (Lagoons.[ folding Ponds, Flush fits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (Freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'? ❑ Yes kNo
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: a, /
Freeboard (ft): ........r................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes OrNo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? ❑ Yes AX No
Waste_ Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes 9 No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ....... ,f!'?q.11.... 'ii.^.............................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes 2[ No
IT 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 reviewlinspection 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?
P, No.vio'lations.or. de dencie's4eire�noted,during this'.visit. You:will reeeive.no:furilzer; :;
correspondence about this:visif.:
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes a No
❑ Yes [RNo
❑ Yes 00 No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes jJ No
❑ Yes V1 No
c t�in�erliS rerer [V i ileSL1AO ir) Xplaln atEy T J RnSW£IS analOr an};`tezomillenaBLlOns or and otner commenTS
Use tlirawtngs of�fatyjtttra' eRplatn suaEir [use"adit oval pages,as necessary) y+z $I
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: f-L-Zt ,9 Q _ . Date:

p Division of Soil&Water Conservation p Other Ag4V
�®Division of Wat uality
I* ttoutlne 0 L0111plalnt 0 Follow-up 01 owy inspection 0 rc
Facility Number
® Registered p Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted
Farm Name: Bawman.DairyJ c..............................
.................
ow -up of uawL review 0 Vtner
Date of Inspection 8/20/97
Time of Inspection ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
p Not operatlana Date Last Operated:
••••.......•... County: Guilford WSRO
Owner Name: ................................................... Bawtonan..Dairy.Jnr.............................. Phone No: 6857.4729 ...................................................................
Facility Contact: llayicl.Bowman..............................................Title: Owner................................................... Phone No:....................................................
Mailing Address:.i1144,.11'.IaUl.Lam.................................................................................Juhan...NC .............................................................. 2728a ..............
OrlsiteRepresentative: Daxid..bOwmajn.......................................................................... Integrator: .......................................................................................
Certified Operator:C)lttriSWIihtr.f1.................. Rowtu"m ........................................... Operator Certification Number:20.9.1.9 ............................
Location of Farm:
�nter$ertlOn. .. O.w.nuan.. a1r�:............. a...e . a11JC.a�n......::................::::::::::......:::::::::: i
Latitude ©0 ®1 ®« Longitude ®• ©� ®fil
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feederto Fln1s
p Farrow to W7an
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finis
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
p ayer
❑ Non -Layer
Capacity Population
® Dairy
❑ on- airy
p Other
Total Design Capacity 175
Total SSLW I 245.0MT---1
Number of Lagoons/ Holding Ponds
❑
u sur ace
rains
resent p
agaon rca
p pray re c rea
❑
0 iqu1
rite
a I, ment
System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improverent? ❑ Yes ® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes 0 No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon p Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If'discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes ® No
b. Vdischarge is observed, did it reach Suriacc Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) p Yes ® No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (Ifyes, 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? p Yes ® No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require p Yes ® No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ® No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes p No
7/25/97

Facility Number: 41 _ 18 1 1 0
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on swhich need to be properly closed? [:]Yes ® No
Structures (Lagoons,Holding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.}
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure el Structure i titrucitire h
Identifier: l
Freeboard(ft):..............2.5.................................................................................. 2.5 ............................. 2.5...............
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes ® No
1 l . 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? p 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 maximtun liquid level markers? []Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? (]Yes ® No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .......C.arn.kSi.lagt.&.Gram)....... 5lnnatl.Graita11p!lieat.........................................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those'designated initile Animal 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 Onh,
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?
1[. oyi tions.or idencies-were.nte qg. t rs visit.. nu. �O .r,e.cetve nofurther
..
:
:corresponkiie� �Niutv...... . :.... .
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes p No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
�.T
w
Sa c
ti4
d
7125197
Le
Reviewerllns ector Name Ron Linville
a�
p t r
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

DSWGmal Feedlot Operation Revie�
`R :
j9DWQ,A'mmaLFeedlot Operatton Site Inspection
® Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DNVQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
15-7 92-0
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection U� 24 hr. (hh•mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status:
Registered [I(Applied for Permit ex:1.25 for I hr 15 min Spent on Review
Certified ❑Permitted or Inspection includes travel andprocessing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated: .......................................................................................................
Farm Name:........!.G?.1 �....5'!].A..hr.......0 ..t...tl................. ` County:?-!�.! ............
........................................
Land Owner Name: ;PQ;J..Uk.....'.�-..C�Y..:..:...........J .lA. J.. 7r.0.1 Phone No: ..... �zq/.._6 �S.J- . !.'S 1.........
Facility Conctact:..� j ...1.[ ......... ...0a...: ',n 42r............. Phone No:..S D 6s�5 'Y7 Z9
Mailing Address: ........ s .....1 r Q.f!. 1....._.L /•1:................ _y..Gi ra....f...1S.1.....0 ..............._rz`�..�.ti .?...........
Onsite Representative: Q 2. ... a. L......... .{a.4 J..:YxtiGv..Y- ................ Integrator:.............................................
Certified Operator:..... �.Y•.... _s .........� .................... Operator Certification Number: ..................................... _...
Location of Farm:
Latitude �•=<FVTI" Longitude [M•©1®«
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
Dessign Current Design vCurrent Destgn';
Swore ,= Current
." Poultr
«nti's Ca act Y� C�a tacitv'Po ulation Cattle CaDiCitV
.`Poiulattoni� " ,. Penn
❑ Wean to Feeder , I❑ La er IM DairyS
1011-
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -La er ❑ Non -Daily
Farrow to Wean,<VIX
v
�TOtal'DC
Farrow to Feeder gnCapactty � d
Farrow to Finish^✓ yr
❑ Other Total SSLW T"
Number of Lago os ! Holding Ponds��i ❑ Subsurface Drains Present
r
❑Lag oon Area ❑Spray Field Area's
genera
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 gaVmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes "R No
❑ Yes PM
❑ Yes 5 No
❑ Yes We
❑ Yes
®%No
❑ Yes
CRINo
❑ Yes
®-No
❑ Yes
Epo
Continued on back

Facility Number:........... .... ...
6. Is facility not in compliance with any Iscable setback criteria in effect at the time offlign?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes [TNo
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
CKNo
Structures (La,00ns and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Freeboard (ft): Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Stntcture 4 Structure 5
.................... ................. ............... ............................
Structure 6
............................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
®`No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
P51No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
9No
(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
R(No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .. �.,.... J�Y�n ..........F . K'U::......................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
P1'No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
gNo
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
ENO
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Olo
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
DINO
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
5VN0
For CC'tifed Facilities, my
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Comments (refer to :question { : Explainany. YES answers and/or.any recommendations or any other comments.
—
Use drawings of facility.to be(t4ter explain situations. (use additional pages,as necessary):
(`
Reviewer/Inspector Name
ReAe►ver/Inspector Signature: ' Date: 9709- 2-6
CC.* U!VISIOlt of Water Jluahty, Water quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

- --- - ---- --------- - -- �+- -mac �� -
x_ x � -
�'
IM �•• }
:-'>}:�::'?}F�}��>�r�..-�r:.or -fir. �:-r�'-r}:. .:-rr: r}:-r}. rr:-rr:r:?�:-�F:��s.� ��•,��'��,•',•'.•.•..�..'.'......''... •.'.'.••,,, ••. �..•... •.::::::::::::::
Farm Status: Registered
Farm Name: c_........
Owner Name: Howmam...................... ....Dairy,.inc.....
Mailing Address: 4144 Mabel Lane
Onsite representative: Dayitl.Bowman ...............................
Certified Operator Name: Chidht.Qp:hU.D........................
Location of Farm:
Date of Inspection Time of Inspection
1511/96 0Use 24 hr. time
_
In Routine a Complaint 13 Follow-up
County: G.uilfoxd......................•....................... W.S.1t0.........
.......................I.... Phone No: 685:-.4.7.19 ....................................................................
Julian NC 27283
............................... Integrator:.......................................................................................
130.1xxnaa.............................................
Latitude ©•®` ®" Longitude ®• ©4 ®46
in Not OperationalDate Last Operated: ...........
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
I. 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?
p Yes ❑ No
p Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes ❑ No
r

6. Is facility not in compliance with any able setback criteria? ❑ Yes ® No
' 7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge (if inspection after 1/1/97)? p Yes p No
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
p Yes
p No
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds
9. Is structural freeboard less than adequate?
p Yes
p No
Freeboard (ft): Lagoon I Lagoon 2 Lagoon 3
Lagoon 4
2
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
p Yes
M 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?
p Yes
p 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?
p 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 Alt
16. Do the active crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan?
p Yes
p No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
® No
18. Does the cover crop need improvement?
p Yes
® No
19. Is there a lack of available irrigation equipment?
p Yes
p No
For Certified Facilities Only
20. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Anima! Waste Management Plan readily available?
p Yes
p No
21. Does the facility fail to comply with the Animal Waste Management Plan in any way?
p Yes
p No
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
p Yes
p No
23. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
p Yes
❑ No
24. Did Rev iewerllnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with owner or operator in charge? []Yes p No
Reviewer/inspector Name
Reviwer/Inspector Signature: Date:

State of North Carol,
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
e��
IDEEHNF;Z
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
May 10, 1996
CERTIFIED MAIL 4P-536-316-693
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Christopher D. Bowman, President
Bowman Dairy, Inc.
6144 Mabel Lane
Julian, NC 27283
SUBJECT: Follow Up Farm Inspection
Bowman Dairy, Inc. Farm
Guilford County
Dear Mr. Bowman:
Recent follow up inspections of farms in Guilford County were conducted by
Mr. Ron Linville of this office in conjunction with Mr. John Andrews and Ms.
Millie Langley. It was determined on May 1, 1996 that you still need to complete
construction of additional waste management facilities. It is our understanding
that you have applied for assistance from the Guilford County S&W Conservation
District and that a plan is being developed.
Please advise this office in writing by May 24, 1996 as to your specific
schedule for implementing these improvements so as to reduce the potential for
a discharge to occur from your dairy operation. Failure to provide adequate
actions could result in this Division revoking your deemed permitted status and
or pursuing an enforcement case for any discharges. Again, please be advised
that any non -permitted discharge of any type of wastewater to the waters of the
State is illegal per North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1. Discharges from
the lagoons and feedlots must cease immediately. Farms not in compliance with
these regulations will be considered in violation of GS: 143-215.1 and could be
subject to enforcement action with the possible assessment of.civil penalties of
up to $10,000 per day per violation.
If you have any questions about this letter, please do not hesitate to
contact Mr. Ron Linville or me at [phone].
Sincere
M.
Steve Mauney
water Quality Supervisor
CC: Guilford County S&W Conservation District
Central Files
WSRO
a:\d&cbowmn.2nd
585 Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27107-2241 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]��
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

. Site Requires Irngg&ate Attention:
tiity No. -ZZ-- i .
DMSION OF EN WI RONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIlvlAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: � C J_V / , 1995
Time:
Farm Name/Owner. _ (' 1.-- o /
Mailing Address: I V ) 6,6 4 ;..
County: _ r V1,
:,Z 7
Phone: 6'` i"' - s��z c"-C-
On Site Representative: _ _ L{ F _ _ ` ` Phone: G "; " ? 9
Physical Address/Location:
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: , l "7 S _ Number of Animals on Site: `7
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW__
Latitude:.3 S_�' ' Longitude: `79 ' -, PLC " Elevation: � Feet
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour stone event
(approximately I Foot + 7 inches) Yes or No Actual Freeboard: _-,LYt. Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes of:Eo:iWas any erosion observed? Yes or
Is adequate land available fc r spray' , No Is the cover crop adequate? (�&.or No
Crop(s) being utilized: c� - -.
Does the facility meet SCS rninimum setback criteria? 200 Fect from Dwellings%& -or No
100 Feet from Wells? Cor No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes M-19- �
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line? Yes of(��-
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes or No �.�i j If Yes, Yes, Please Explain. /}'� ;Y- w= ,. [C�c�a_ _--
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? Yes or No
Inspector Name
cc: Facility Assessmeat Unit
Use Attachments if Needed.
TOTAL P.02