760013_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Type of Visit: %Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: �4 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 4Arrival Time:-F-�-"�-'
Departure Time: County: ga_,do IP� Region:
f
Farm Name: 60_ILLj0e3d
FGl rms
Owner Email:
Owner Name:
W r C_e
t_a))
Phone:
Mailing Address:
��,,
t a w ce—LiC e
ra-my P=61 rove- N L
a 7 3
Physical Address:
U ih oex� 33
30�
Facility Contact:
U l l �.0.vJ I-t &C- e
Title: Phone: 336
S 7 ;2 4�
Onsite Representative:
Ph,l ltis
Integrator: AI
Co hU - -B
ro W n
Certified Operator:
`IT
l L1Q�Ij1lt �TQ ryt ll}�11 i�aL1l�-1r�1C +� Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: y G1
Certification Number: , / ,
Lnn¢itude: -7 q Ll (I Al .1,
�r l\j Z Z o v o r) C "I 0 R LC_wr-eitiCe.
resign Gum i� �g • current
Swine C►apacity Pop. Wet Poultry C►apacity Pop.
an to Finish La er
Design
Cattle Gapacity
Dai Cow
Gurrent
Pop.
an to Feeder
Non -La er
Dai Calf
der to Finish
00
Dai Heifer
ow to Wean
ow to Feeder
row to Finish
t
Design Current
Di, P�oultr, Ca aci P■o
La ers
D Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
s
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
rs
Pullets
Turke s
Turke Poults
Other
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes �allo
❑ Yes ris No
❑NA ❑NE
DNA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: - V Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier. 1't1
Spillway?:�i4—
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): '-12— J
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
�fNo
❑ 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
Dd 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
9No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA ❑ 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
fRrNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
rV No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes KNo 0 NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
JR"-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
A NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No [4NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes XNo
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [rNo
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21 Does record keeping need improvement? tF}� ❑Yes ❑ No p3A ❑ NE
Waste Applica ion Qwe Waste Analysisrlonthily
Analysis Weather Code
[Rainfall [V Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? I ❑ Yes $No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? []Yes ❑ No WA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Ins ection: 7
O1
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste pplication equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
tNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
% No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge
levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
[]Yes
IoNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
Cg 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
[yNo
❑ 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
�Z(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
YNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
D6 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer10 question #): Explain any YES answerst and/or -any additional:recommendations or. anyiother comments `; h
Use;di av�in�sof=facilitvtaEbetter eXplain' situations(use,additionalua�es_as=necessary)
5o t j fe,�rk vie) A- a ue u In D P 17
ao 13 Cali � rations Co IE? �{-ec� ? a s �. + �►' � �o c 3
Prim a(
&e-h�
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
LW_I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: j _ 5_a 139
Date:
214,2014

Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: larrival Time: Departure Time: County: do I p�l Region: WS RB
Farm Name: A OLY'.wOC)4 Forms Owner Email:
Owner Name: }Qrn(�s t. aw 1' °�'� C Phone:
Mailing Address: 4 (0 -7 I p Lau) ne)nc, e, F,)Lr (I (� - , 5 zLa r o -7 3 y,
v
Physical Address: ++aYA Q. _
Facility Contact: P } y 4 �S LQW r e_yi C e_Title: Phone:
I 0
Onsite Representative: TINO1N1 Q 5 Integrator:
Certified Operator: W 111 I Ok M ptiYl XV1 LOLw r'Cy% Le-- Certification Number:
Ij
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
14w\{ lab
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Certification Number:
Latitude:.3s 30 qIO Longitude: -7 f q4 �-
cLS ° h N c 7 0 5r L o�..t t..3 r e rg e e— F a,r m
Non -Layer
Dry P■oultry__
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)?
Cy ow
Cy alf
y Heifer
Cow
Stocker
Feeder
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes C5 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters [-]Yes rQ/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: -13• jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[Z"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[] NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: r u S� C� P 1
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): A Z
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ 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
NfNo
❑ 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
O 'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
ESOT�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
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > t0% or 10 l ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Win ow ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
,,n
d �p
12. Crop Type(s): SAAAJ/) a-9-A-1 A� . / -1 l�-Q .; f ' a — —
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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No WA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes JR No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes V� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes Vo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists [] Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. oes record keeping need improvement? If i Pt ❑ Yes tR No
Waste Applic ion �li�ebe Waste Analysis Soil Analysis r
[Rainfall Stocking ❑ Crop Yield @f120 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ["No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install an6maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 2 of 3 0 �e S
A ❑ NE
Weather Code
D&Wg""ffeY-
❑NA ❑NE
WA ❑ NE
21412011 Continued

Facili Number: Date of Inspection: �.ATrLE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applitn equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [] No 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 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
XNo
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
OeNo
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
�No
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
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
% No
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
QdNo
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Comments (refer to question #)i Explain any YES answers and/or any additional -recommendations orany;other,comments
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additionalpages as necessary).
Lo i f e c 7 Y&S . SjAuF&A I a.o I, r
- 2,0 13 61od rL o rns (! v r�n� l�#�d ?Mot- e+ 4
visi+.
L, P
14
4C"�.f 4a"�' __" 0 - q 300 a*_a4'V
pLp
w
/M�
o b 7 !a- SW'I 'e
Bee-
3 S p/13 t �.ab LsS
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector
Page 3 of 3 �31113
I.. Phone: ✓�tP.771.5a8�
Date:
65 = -?q 21412011 ys
l . �3 55� 16/1711; - 3,33 t.55 `�.sa

7
Type of Visit: (KCompliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance j
Reason for Visit: &Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emeruency 0 Other 0 Denied Access I
Date of Visit: Arrival Timer Departure Time: County: %Region:
Farm Name: `�-00_ F& r rA 5 Owner Email:
fO
Owner Name; nlM [� S_ L &—LO a ,0_nCP Phone: 7 9 — xaa y
Mailing Address: e-e- rOLI-K R-d • r SPA rC11f
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Phone:
�n
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Lo t l I ! f_lUl (TODILJOAM 1 1 &AADrt f'�Cd ertification Number:
- 4
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Certification Number:
Latitude: 3S 30 46 Longitude: -7
Swine
Wean to Finish
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
Layer
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
E INon-Layer
I I
Dairy Calf
eeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
1)r. P,oultr
Layers
Design
Ca aci
Current
P,o
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
keys
Turkey Poults
Other r
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?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes 19
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
21412011 Continued

FacilLq Number: - Date of inspection: Z
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ;2(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: LJ ",er J)f lower P1
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 �ZNo ❑ 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
j�f 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 /� ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) XNo
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application Vo
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes *10 ❑ 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 OutsideofApproved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in 1he CAWMP?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes ❑ No
A
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes ESKo
[DNA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes ,g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes A)ffNo
❑ 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. �Qs ecord keeping need improvement? }€ee�-s riat�be�rb�tow. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Applicati ply-leeboerd aste Analysis Soil Analysis [�astc�reusfeNs ❑ Weather Code
gaste
infall tocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections l trvey-
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes Q'14o ❑ 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: S Z
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste app ication equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [��N�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes IXI 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 'M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? [:]Yes �Io ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues 7�
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.
❑ Yes h10 ❑ NA ❑ NE
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes _NNo ❑ 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 , Vo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? [:]Yes <o ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes b1 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other. comments
Used ' gs of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
I• aolf 501s
11
30
�
A
p
aoo,
aS°lo — l L hP_ /'h
j a1 a-b� l= l �-s N r oom/.
of o-L j yc'I ' 3a6 lea P
Reviewer/Inspector Name: P,LS'so_Kose'bC6Cl '
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: Z 7 1— S 2-"—
Date: 51/ 1 1 Z
21412011
4,

r,
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 43 L7 Arrival Time: .� Qan Departure Time: ' j County: EAIL624Region: YAK D
Farm Name: Nk'^'—o ff-RrMS Owner Email:
Owner Name: _ n60^^j L" ite' "4- . } Phone:
Mailing Address: I _'�^-- }�tr,�h Rd.�re"L.
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:-, . �J %4 W Title:
Onsite Representative: 1 rs
Certified Operator:L-a h^^ J h^Ge_
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
w� 22-6 ,S aj o �G 70*E/
Phone No:
Integrator: ►M� 9v'vt
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ®11 Longitude: ° 0 ��
Design Current Design
Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity
Population C►attle Capacity Population
❑ Dai Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Wean to Finish I I I0 Layer
❑ Wean to Feeder I 1 10 Non -Layer I
Feeder to Finish pogo 3
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
ElNon-Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts ❑ Non -Layers
El Beef Feeder
❑ Pullets
El Boars
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other ❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other ❑Other
Number pf Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ YesXNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
El No
El NA
El NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

� a •
Facility Number: ZZ -- • Date of Inspection d3 a
Waste Collection & Treatment /
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? El Yes tg,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structurep2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: U 2r �r� LovJev- f �'
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): y
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No [INA ElNE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ElNE
through a waste management or closure plan? "I
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ONo ❑NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit`? ❑ Yes �f''t 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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Annlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA [INE
Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ElHeavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of AcceptableCropWindow ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift r❑Application Outside of Area
12. CroP types)
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 kNo
❑ 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 XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
i 1
1f4SU:fYi r at }F
Comments (refee-to 4`uestion #) Explain a=ny,Y1 S answers and/or anyfrecommendations,oreany other4comments a tR _V �`,
'Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use add ltional pages,astj
Reviewer/Inspector Name
€ '
Phone: 719 L
.:. �a
.S�-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
s
Date: 433 b Za !
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — �of Inspection
Re uired Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
j.k,,,No
❑ Yes ,�J No
❑ NA
El NE
the appropriate box. ElWUP El Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑ Other
, 1
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? I
❑ Yes *No
' ❑ NA
❑ NE
L'� Waste Application Meekly Freeboar=01V"a—ste Analysis Soil Analysis
rite Transfers'''yyRainfall
Stocking ❑-Crop Yield nute Inonthly and 1"
Rain Inspections [51" eather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes X.No
❑ 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?
14
❑ Yes ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ 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?
.,*o
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes 9'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes No
A
❑ 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?
❑ YeSXNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
✓✓✓✓✓✓l,�,
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes J No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
ElYeso
XT,
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Commeants and/, r Drawings
AL
/ N 1, o • ,
2I1�//�/ • °
Nliia0a 541.
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Ki e
Facility Number [p
Division of Water Quality -
Division of Soil and Water Conservation / L'
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 3 Arrival Time: a x .S Departure Time: dt 5-- 1 County: Q Region: W-690
Farm Name: O11�IL- _1 rarr4_5 - Owner Email:
Owner Name: — aL� i" �t�l!✓e.Yl G�Q� Phone:
Mailing Address: (D I to u rend Farm 1`-a 'eA r41rMC a) 3
Physical Address: _ __ sa-M-t _
Facility Contact: i. kot-tean C'e- Title: Phone No: pp�
ILL
11 {{
Onsite Representative: _Ul l 1� Integrator: —
iI M �Tnm�nn L��ur [� CNumber:
C.
ra�'n
Certified Operator: 1O.1� Operator Certification
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
[a►-LU- c) as
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
❑ Other
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ®c 0
SO 00), i ;a St M N�L -7 OS.
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
ram.
1 ❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ 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)
Longitude: ® ° Ft 4N 4 E �"
- ht onto L4wrr.Ace
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ 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 •
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? ElYes tNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
4'5 Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
j Identifier: Lo 2
"I Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 5
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or 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
�/To ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
�rNo ❑ 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 Drill ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13.
Soil type(s) t V
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
)dNo
❑ NA
ElNE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
ElYes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑
Yes
No
xNA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[)(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question 4): 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):
w
Reviewer/Inspector Name
ra Phone: 0
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Zh Atz—ate: g
12128104 Continued

���j��
Facility Number: 1 — 1 te of Inspection •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes �No
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ElYes ❑ NA ElNE
❑ ❑ ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Otherthe appropriate box. WUP Checklists
21. Doe 'ecord keeping need iim tovement?-If-�+es;-ak ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Taste Applic ion L`1 Week y Freeboard aste Analysis�SoilZA�lysis t2� Waste TransfersRainfall tocking o Yield 120 Minute Ins ections nand 1"Rain Inspections ae eather Code
p p Y p
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes *No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑``''No XNA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes O(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes 19 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 XNo ElNA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ElYes X No [INA ❑ 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 IIv�
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by ❑ Yes N;(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes [)eNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Addiddnaf Comments andlor Drawings 5a , R:S , i`. d x
a - oo 4 so. I f-est res u 1 fS
Wi'bra-h'on re uire- d in 0.h6ber aolo,
t
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit XO
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 or visit: , Arrival Time: Departure Time: ® County: Region: V
Farm Name: U306 tj a Owner Email:
Owner Name: _"flAADL1a5 LIOw9u82. Phone:
Mailing Address: ` ! LQW re->11C2 ��-�r1li 1�� • 1
Physical Address: rr
Facility Contact: _.p I Title: Ph9ne No:
h-jj omas Cj 3 -'f0S2 h
Onsite Representative: ��ll� Integrator: V r•
! l 1m � -�~ � Ybw
Certified Operator: ...2ti„__n._----, T� 11 Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 5De ®1 10Longitude: e IVr� 4�
u5 Rw I ;z 0 50 LN+ 4rofA 660- UtS+ o rnto N C -7 i - `
onto LoLwreince- F-arm ej , V
ME=MR.rrent IgIME
Swine Capacity Population
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
Design C►urrent
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer I I
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish 60
❑ Daia Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
El Layers
❑Non -La Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑ Dry Cow
ElNon-Dairy
❑ Farrow to Feederl
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
[I Beef Stocker
El Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
[INE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: — — Date of Inspection Q •
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 Structure er
2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: �' 11J
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): Z
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 *o
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes $No ❑ 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? ElYes 0No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑Yes N —)6NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) _,_0 V�A,2 A a A 4,
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes 1&o ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ElNE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
r)I c �e �rMai l � te¢ "
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers,and/or any recommendations ors eny other comments1
a ti' + diEe F n
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (useaddtttt►nal,pagesas necessary) a� :�� 5F
r
ReviewerlInspector Name
(^ '7`) `� �d> Phone:
-Z299
,
ReviewerlInspector Signature:
Date:
r 1 — 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: = Bate of Inspection ( •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 121 VNo
El NA El NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Do record keeping neeVWVeek
vement? 1 w. ❑ Yes (�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
re �
ste Applic;�nFreeboard Waste Analysis Soil =onthly
sis Rainfall Stockingp Yield and 1" Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ Yes
rr❑__ No
❑ Yes
No
19NA
❑ NA
❑ Yes
No
kA
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ Yes
[
❑ NA
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ Yes 3&o ❑ NA
❑ Yes o ❑ NA
❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑ Yes ko
❑ Yes �No
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
El NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
'aY:.r'Y
Wrsial Comments FAWRirigKa
l aoo� ot. aoai Soi I Fes+ res u �{ s ? a,( UMO(" off - .
I net_. �a on salt brcj-fed
r�zl
R
® a.o ! d
1 9CL
v�Moini

s a
i
Type of Visit C mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit WRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Arrival Time. Departure Time: County: N"0110h Region:
Farm Name: UU f�LA_XA- .t j C"Jl'1Z, Owner Email:
Owner Name: �nm� La W ren C e-- Phone:
Mailing Address: Cam. �Searokfe_
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: A LaLO rtflCe itle: Phone No t!' 15o2 Q p-
Onsite Representative. Integrator:
Certified Operator: _ _ ,Jk3�'i°�iCg&rator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Back-up Certification Number:
Design C rrenil
Design Current
Design C*urgent
Swine
Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
110
Layer I I
❑ Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
I
ID Non -Layer I I
DDairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Daia Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ La ers
❑Non -La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑ Other I
Number of Structures:
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)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
o
❑NA
ElNE
ElYes
kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: -7— Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Nclure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): ry
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes j11�No El NA [I NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) y, �(___
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed El �] No ElNA El 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
S. 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
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
- R
12. Crop type(s) ) . AWAJ907AZ�
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
No ElNA ElNE
' No ,El NA El NE
❑ No g,J NA ❑ NE
�No (❑NA ❑NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other.comments
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as.necessary)
,r.
i
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signai
Page 2 of 3
----{---._ _ � Phone:
1 Dater
12129104 Continued

Facility Number: —ZIP
Date of Inspection 5
Required Records & Documents �(
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? El Yes lb1 No ❑ NA [I NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes K.
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Do�Wxste
ord keeping need i rovement? 1 ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE Application Wee freeboard Waste Analysis SZzonthly
alysis
�ocking Crop Yield and l" Rain Inspections Weather Code
P
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes Vo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? El Yes ❑ No b( NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
?�NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
ElNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
I](1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
/ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
X
❑ NA
[INE
ElYes
YNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
A nal Comments and/or Drawings:
o 'm a -pp l�S rom on� wad an
? Socl fe5t resUHS ?

F/
bro3
Division of Water Quality' '
Facility Number 13 - 9Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit * Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: � Departure Time: County: Region: ��
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name:- 'dqw at [ wo ('1a1nx__e�__ _. _ _ .____...._ .. Phone: -% ? 9—
Mailing Address:09 FainPU - , f�-y CLa 1r'C nj e . j L(, 2 -7 3 C
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representa
Certified Operatoi
Phone gNo:
6' G�
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: �$Q
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: �o ®� Longitude: ffo Rq
a ap S f-row- G 50�M '5ee�- r&VQ- St a vL IBC. -7 0 S
L&w IrPr\ tP PA
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er I I :::::],
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Dischames & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co l
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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
El
❑ NE
12128 4
Continued

i
rFacility Number: �� — 3-.� • Date of Inspectionq'Inf a*
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): % T
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(iel large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA [I NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public 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 4 NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. 10 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
PAN ❑ PAN> 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
utside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
No
El NE
Ill❑ No
�❑NA
,,(
j�VA
❑ NE
No
i❑.NA
❑ NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
AL
T
Reviewer/inspector Name
Phone:
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
Date:
V Vic - " V v 12128104 ` ' Continued

FacilityNumber: -- + � , Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAW re ily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes V No El NA El NE
the appropirate box. ElWUP El Checklists Design ❑ Maps El Other
21. Doe record keeping need improvement? If yes, c,.,h_ecc he appropriate box below. XYes otA ❑ NE
Waste Application Ly Waste Analysis Soi Analysis Waste Transfers tifreMien
Rainfall Stockin Crop Yield s Monthly and I" Rain Inspections Bather Code
g P Y P .
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes Nov
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? oZ0Og ❑ Yes
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fait to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ No
Po
❑ No
N No
❑ No
Yes ❑ No
!❑ Yes A(No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes PW No
❑ NA
KNA
❑ NA
ONA
❑ NA
01
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
El NA El NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
El NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional
1
�.
l� f � � / � � s►,. , � f rl .
Mgwyig
ff/, i w w
0
El
r

1,
1;NR
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection 0*eration Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit (�outine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other El Denied `®esso �Q��
r ne„ " �l Otiice
Date of Visit: Arrival Time:
_W " 1 ; is� Departure Time: i �. I�, County: _ _.__...__ Region:
Farm Name:...... .. _ ._....-... Owner Email:.__--__�_
Owner Name:—_LYI�sV_hLl�2x!��! w..�... ._._ Phone:
Mailin Address•
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: !1� 1%Qz� Title:
Onsite Representative: 11__ if `1C r._.... ..... ... r._.-
Certified Operator:
Phone No: A75" 6q-1
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: _ _ _ ,._ _ .__ _-_ _ _ _ -. Back-up Certification Number: ------
Location of Farm: s t, Latitude: M] o KIT�11 1 Longitude:, ®° ®4
1. �®�I
�� V\ f l'��.i'J f1 W� g'10 S. —Ta" srei3 `W ``, blol�h1•
Design < 71 Current Design Current Design Current
=5winryet {'h cCapacitj+ Population` = Wet Poultry ` Capacity 'Population `,Cattle ; :,...;Capacity Populatieii
❑ Layer r
❑ Non -Layer
� a
Y
Poultry
t_
t
ti Dumber of $fructures b ''
El Wean
to Finish
-�
Q{
Discharges
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
�
El Farrow to Wean
❑Farrow to Feeder
El Farrow to Finish
El Gilts
❑Boars
1
yOtherx
❑ Other
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other
❑
Dai Co
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
D Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
& Stream ImQacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
El Yes
�'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: El Structure [I Application Field El Other
.
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
El Yes
❑ No
[.�NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
El Yes
❑ No
®NA
❑ NE
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)
El Yes
❑ No
IgNA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
El Yes
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
-----3: -Were there.any-adverse impacts -or potential adverse. impacts to the -Waters of the -State -..-----[]-Yes-
, o�-❑
NA' -'❑-NE
- other than from a discharge?
-
12/28/04 Continued

.
Facility Number: ---
Date of Inspection h.111116Lge
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
X1 NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[�rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or. improvement?
❑ Yes
in No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No �A ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes [Zo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or irnprovement7
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes US)No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [5bqo ❑ 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 Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[31Vo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determinations ❑ Yes
❑ No
BlA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
FNo
❑ NA
[INE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
) No
❑ NA
❑ NE

f�o
'�, 1 0
Facility Number: ' —e of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19.. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes EI(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑ other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ;9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis [:]Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute'Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1 ° Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
t�No
❑ NA
. ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
9 NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15n NA-
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0NA
❑ 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
P 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
�Y1�Y�i,dh;.�t, e,�asrtn a�`:..4�u�t<�. sick. a� h1� ��• �r0.ve.l U��n �,,.�.��
c 0 i Q\.
12128104

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection
Technical Assistance Needed Provided
34, Waste Plan Revision or Amendment ❑ ❑
35. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment ❑ ❑
36. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer ❑ ❑
37. Forms Need (list in comment section) Cl ❑
38. Missing Components (list in comments) ❑ Cl
39, 2H.0200 re -certification ❑ ❑
40. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA) ❑ ❑
41. Irrigation record keeping assistance ❑ ❑
42. Organize/computerization of records ❑ ❑
43. SIudge Evaluation ❑ ❑
44. Sludge or Closure Plan ❑ ❑
45. Sludge removal/closure procedures ❑ ❑
46. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
47. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
48.Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
Cl
49. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
50. Site evaluation
❑
❑
51, Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
52, Irrigation system design/installation
❑
❑
53. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
54.Operating improvements (pull signs, etc,)
❑
❑
55. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
56..Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
57. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
58. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
59. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
❑
❑
60. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
61. Buffer improvements
❑
Cl
62. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
63. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
64. Waste operator education
❑
❑
65.Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
66, Record keeping education
❑
❑
67. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
68. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
69. PLAT
❑
❑
70.Other
❑
❑
List Improvements Made b O eration:
1. 4.
2. 5.
3: _ ._....._.., .... _ ....._ .._ .. _......... ...._ __ 6. ... ]2a&104 ..._

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 760013 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS760013 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Randolph Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 05/31/2006 Entry TIme:Q9:20 AM Exit Time: 12+45 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Ogkwood Farma Owner Email:
Owner: Thomas Lawrence Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: D679 Lawrence Fgrm Rd Seagrove NC273418220
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°30'46" Longitude: 79°44'42"
Farm Location: east from Seagrove onto NC 705 toward Robbins and turn right on Lawrence Farm Rd.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents © Other Issues
Certified Operator: William Thomas Lawrence Operator Certification Number: 21611
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Phyllis Lawrence Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Phyllis Lawrence Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebro Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
11. A field was overapplied due to having two types of manure and not accounting for it properly in the records (slurry and dry).
21. Check 2006 soil test results next visit.
21. Don't forget to record soybean and small grain crop yields when harvested this Summer and Fall. Check next visit. Yields were not
recorded for corn or fescue last year.
24. Slurry tank was calibrated Dec. 2005. Not required again until Oct. 2008.
3/30/06 waste analysis=5.4 lbs. Nl1000 gal.
Page: 1

• 0
Permit: AWS760013 Owner - Facility: Thomas Lawrence Facility Number: 760013
Inspection Date: 05/31/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine- Feeder to Finish 1,000 1,145
Total Design Capacity: 1,000
Total SSLW: 135,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Neste Pit LOWER PIT 18.00
aste Pit UPPER PIT 30.00
Page: 2

•
•
Permit: AWS760013 Owner -Facility: Thomas Lawrence
Inspection Data: 05/31/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection
Discharnes & 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?
Facility Number: 760013
Reason for Visit: Routine
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
a, Is storage capacity less than adequate?
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
Yes No NA NE
❑ M ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ Cl ❑
11
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e.l large trees, severe
❑ ■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑
■
❑
Cl
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,
❑
❑
■
Cl
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
Cl
■
❑
❑
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

C7
Permit: AWS760013 Owner -Facility: Thomas Lawrence
Inspection Date: 05/31/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 760013
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
■
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Soybeans
Crop Type 3
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 4
Fescue (Flay, Pasture)
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■ ❑ Q
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?
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,
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS760013 Owner- Facility: Thomas Lawrence
Inspection Date: 05131/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Records and Documents
Checklists?
Design?
Maps?
Other?
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
120 Minute inspections?
Weather code?
Weekly Freeboard?
Transfers?
Rainfall?
Inspections after> 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
Waste Analysis?
Annual soil analysis?
Facility Number: 760013
Reason for Via It: Routine
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ Cl ❑
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 concem? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AW5760013 Owner - Facility: Thomas Lawrence
Facility Number: 760013
Inspection Date: 05/31/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues
Yea
No NA
NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
m ❑
❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Page: 6

r
Division; of Water uali
Q h q
Faculty 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: I p (ol Arrival Time: 9 O Departure Time: County: nJo 1 ! Region: ��
Farm Name: Vim} Owner Email:
Owner Name:._:VoomGZ.S La-Loce.nee- Phone: <71 9 ^ Azov
Mailing Address: a-Lore- nc2. P ar m ove. -7
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: _ o,4-t) re-n : Phone No:
Onsite Representative, �.lZwre-rn ce— Integrator: Pnej]q t t1 ft1 3 JL0 d
Certified Operator: l/l_J 1 i Q 1,&LuceancAe_ , _Tr. Operator Certification Number: 13 ml� 0
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: �e � Longitude:
a b So rarY1 C0,50
S Q rye_ •5 f a n �-o ��C.
pr1-E-� LGaw r e_o c e dour m PA. U
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity. Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish F
La er
❑can to Feeder
Non -Layer
FFeedto Finish
er
t
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
ETc M, �1
705 . 2I�h
Design Current
Cattle ..Capacity Population,,
❑
Dai Cow
❑
DairyCalf
❑
DairyHeifer
❑
D Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
xi r
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 prtential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 1 0 Date of Inspection 4
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes *No
El NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
El Yes ❑[INo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I a Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
P
Identifier: 1 u-�, 1
Structure 5
Structure 6
wwbo
IV 0
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 0 "
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
�No
ElNA
[INE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-5 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 ElNA [INE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ElYes tNo ANA El NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? r
Waste ADnlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ElNE
maintenance/improvement?jNo
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ElYes [INA ❑ NE
ElExcessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ElHeavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN X PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside Of Arnentnhle Crnn Winrinw n F.virlenre of Winr1 ])rift n Annliratinn ! )ntcirle of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13.
Soil type(s) - / it
v
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
N No ❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ 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):
(�4-4� t.�-rd�4
`
1
/v/
T
Reviewer/Inspector Name T
_ Phone: — soa ,
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur .
Date: d
/
Page 2 of 3 - 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — �� 1 173te of Inspection 0
Required Records _&_Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ;KNo [I NA El NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists El Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Do record keeping need improvement? If yes, chec the appropriate box b low. 11 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Applic tion aste Analysis Soil Analysis ( rrieeietr
VRainfall dtocking CCrop Yie! Monthly and I " Rain Inspections Bather 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? I I El Yes ❑ No �NA El NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? OCA- 0� Yes ;dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?C" 101p ❑ Yes ❑ No $NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Ycs XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Comments and/or Drawings:
a • ' ,r,
f
� r� � � fir► •� I
1
O
❑ Yes ❑ No 96A ❑ NE
❑ YesrNo
❑ Yes �No
El NA El NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes KNo
[I NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes V] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 1 12128104

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection f�Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 116�outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: (lb County: Region:
Farm Name: Owner Email: r� , f
Owner Name: �'1�.J Phone: _ 33 k ` Ool a- Glo
Mailing Address: �a�3� 1 -
Physical Address: LAW
—Cwqq_ _—q 1'—
Facility Contact: �-�� Title: 1 --�+���--� Phone N`"Dq"1_rZZ6
Onsite Representative: }!1U, Integrator:
1
Certified Operator: _ 1~-'~ i � L� Operator Certification Number: Z_l%, 4
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ©e MI, � Longitude: ©e ®4
�r1�w� t�v0u e TAc.tWj 705 S I iu1aAa,. t�15WMI,5
QA
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feede!
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
j ❑ Non -La ei
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Da Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes IRrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
bE NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
L"_I NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes [�fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �D No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection •
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [!�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
qNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
[}ND
❑ 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
G�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
JNo
❑ 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
5eNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
.I. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
)ZNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or i O lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CA W MP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination%❑
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
ff�&o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
JFPNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — 3 0 of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes I10 ElNA ElNE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check Elb Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists [I Design El maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [Vio ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual. Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
RNA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[3Vo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
WA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
$2 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
GrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
UNo
❑ 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�LNo
❑ 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
RNo
❑ 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
�fo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
�10
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional': Comments and/or Drawings:
u�
12128104

DFacili
0
Facility ate of Inspection
Technical Assistance
Needed
Provided
34. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
35. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
36. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
37. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
38. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
39. 2H.0200 re -certification
❑
❑
40. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
41. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
42. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
43. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
44. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
45. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
46. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
47. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
48.Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
49. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
50. Site evaluation
❑
❑
51. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
52. Irrigation system design/installation
❑
❑
53. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
54.Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
55. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
56. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
57. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
58. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
59. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
❑
❑
60. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
61. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
62. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
63. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
64. Waste operator education
❑
❑
65.Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
66. Record keeping education
❑
❑
67. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
68. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
69. PLAT
❑
70, Other
❑
❑
List Improvements Made by Operation:
1. 4.
2. 5.
3. 6. 12128104

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 760013 Facility Status: ActPermit: AWSZ99913 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Conpliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Randolph Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 06/28/2005 Entry Time: 09:30 AM Exit Time: 11:30 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Oakwood Farms Owner Email:
Owner: Thomas Lawtence Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 6679 Lawrence Farm Rd Seagrove NO27,1418220 _
Physical Address:
Facility Status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°30'46" Longitude: 79044'4 "
Farm Location: east from Seagrove onto NC 705 toward Robbins and turn right on Lawrence Farm Rd.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment (© Waste Application
Records and Documents 0 Other Issues
Certified Operator: William Thomas Lawrence Operator Certification Number: 21611
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Phyllis Lawrence Phone: - 336-879-4097
24 hour contact name Phyllis Lawrence Phone: [phone]
Primary inspector: Melissa M Rosebro Phone: [phone]
\_/jLExt.383
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
618105 waste analysis=5.1 lbs. N11000 gal.
21. Soil samples for 2005 to be obtained in the Fall.
Page: 1

Permit: AWS760013 Owner - Facility: Thomas Lawrence Facility Number: 760013
Inspection Date: 06/28/2005 Inspection Type: Compllance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 1,131
Total Design Capacity: 0
Total SSLW: 0
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
__TWaste Pit LOWER PIT 18.00
Waste Pit UPPER PIT 36.00
Page: 2

0 •
Permit: AWS760013 Owner-Faclllty: Thomas Lawrence Facility Number: 760013
Inspection Date: 06/2812005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yas 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? ❑ IM ❑ ❑
b, Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) 0000
c, Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
M ❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑ ❑
3, Were there any adverse Impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑
Yes
0 ❑ ❑
No NA NE
Waste Collectio Storage & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
M ❑ ❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any Immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe erosion,
❑
0 ❑ ❑
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑
M ❑ ❑
closure plan?
7, Do any of the structures need maintenance or Improvement?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
8, Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑
M ❑ ❑
andlor 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?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN n 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
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 2
Soybeans
Crop Type 3
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 4
Fescue (Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

•
•
Permit: AWS760013 Owner -Facility: Thomas Lawrence
Facility Number: 760013
Inspection Date: 06/28/2005 Inspection Typo: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Applicafinn
Crop Type 6
Yes
No NA
NE
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan(CAWMP)?
❑
■ ❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need Improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■ ❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■ ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
■ ❑
No NA
❑
NF
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■ ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
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?
❑
■ ❑
❑
23. if selected, did the facility fail to Install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■ ❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
Cl
26, Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
❑
Page: 4

Penult: AWS760013 Owner -Facility: Thomas Lawrence
Inspection Date: 06/28/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 760013
Reason for Visit: Routine
Qjher Isswej
28, Were any additional problems noted which cause non-oompliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fall 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 alr quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality
representative immediately.
31, Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situatlons as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 5

J
(Type of Visit 1�CgmpHance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: = Departure Time: County: ' dol Region:
Farm Name: ff 0 Farryi 5 Owner Email: n %
Owner Name: ____ w.) , P.p1cf - Phone: - < ,1
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: '_,iiLR
Facility Contact: P Law'r '
Onsite Representative: y I k e' Lam ar, C
Certified Operator: NM 1 lam -t ^ Law rgx�,C �r.
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
Phone No: JUnol
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: Mr IM, M, Longitude: ® o
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
- , --- - - -
�� 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?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ D Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ElNA ElNE
[--]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Y/
12128104 Continued

Facility Number:� — ..)� ID of inspection &$
l
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes WNo ❑ 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 El Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Apnlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes �No ElNA [INE
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 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window. Elw
Evi c of Wind Dritl [IApplication Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) _,�Modl anhih t So H �0,� 5_..1 "P iP�P_ Qlt,5 lore &r n _--
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
)No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination%❑
Yes
XNo
❑ 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
ents{refer to qu.estion') Explain ,any YES :answt;rs: and/or�anylr+rep omme, ations or any other commentsWIt
Use drawings of facility to,better explain sifuations:;(use additional;pages,f ecessary): f
\ abQS Solis ?
Rev wer/Inspector Name I - — Phone:
t:r
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. UIT-
Date: gn
12/2 /OQ Cantinue-d

Facility Number: = — 1 Do Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Do record keeping neeVwe
rovement? If yes, the the appropriate Vsoil
elow. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
V. ste Application
ly Freeboard Waste Analysis
nalysisRainfall ❑ Stockin Yield and 1" Rain Inspections M eather Code
6 r
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 thermlb W El Yes XNo ❑ NA El NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? v ❑ Yes rNo
o ❑ NA ElNE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ElYes ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes LvJ N ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ElYes LVs No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal? �(No
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ElYes ❑ NA ElNE
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 [io ❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (iel 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 dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
105 - N /to 00 ,
ale./os It (I
12/28/04

hnical Assistance Site Visit
Dillon of Soil and Water ConservatiorN
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number 76 - 13-1 Date: 12/15/04 Time: I 915 Time On Farm: 45 WSRO
Farm Name Oakwood Farms
County Randolph Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 6679 Lawrence Farm Road Seagrove NC 27341
Onsite
Representative Thomas & Phillis Lawrence Integrator IN G Purvis Farms, Inc.
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated;
❑ Operating below threshold
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
1000
0
Op Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
(] Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
I -
EE]
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier I 1
Level (Inches) I NA
CROP TYPES lCorn Soybeans wheat lCom, Silage -� Fescue- raze ISmall grain overseed I loats 71
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES Ge132 BaB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

•
C7
Facility Number 76 - 13-1 Date:
12/15/04
PARAMETER
p No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
[110. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
El
El
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30.21-11.0200 re-certiflcation
[116. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32: Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33.Organizelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
[123. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
[124. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38.iStructure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
1E]
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
Referred to DWQ Date:
42.,Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation design/installation
El
❑
❑ Other... �
system
Date:
44• Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45.0 Operating improvements p g rovements p (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
11. MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
47. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4•
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5•
56.Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6•
58. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 76 - 13-1 Date: 12/15/04
COMMENTS:
*WUP updated 1219104 - added small grain cover to allow for winter waste applic +
*waste analysis - 1216104 N = 6.5 Ibs11000 gal
812104 N = 1.4 lbs11000 gal
,il analysis - 3/22/04 - no problems
iplic records - no problems
i records - currently keeping for insurance purposes
-- may transfer to DWQ forms, but not necessary
)cking records - discussed possibilities
infall - complete, initial after more than V of rainfall
iq records - need to add weather code
*irrig cal - both slurry tank and solid spreader need to be calibrated by Oct 2006
Has received new permit
*Houses - look good, had to replace roof on House #1
---> mowed around house
s - look good, small grain corning in.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST 113etsy k. Gerwig
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 12/17/04
Entered By: lBetsy K. Gerwi
3 03/10/03

{'1
�I. 1 !FI L •v N 1 .••V • 1 lV ••f - 'll S� 1 1 E I fl+ 3 r,.i.
Of,
J.
t7l,i0OtherAg�ney.l��,!
Type of Visit OO 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 7ti 13-I Date of Visit: 8/24/21104 Time: 9:20
Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted 0 Certified E3 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ................
Farm Name: Q.at waod..Farm............................................................................. .... County: Rill j*......................................... W. SRQ........
Owner Name: Thorns .................................. Law.relau.................................................. Phone No: ..............................
Mailing Address; G6�7.�.�,air.�txissr.�ax�m..R�ad........................................................... 5.P-ftzr.Q.yc,JK ......................................................... Z.7.341..............
FacilityContact: l hYRis.Law.r9jam......................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: Playl)aS1meacc...................................................................... Integrator: N..G.Rt>a:As Fax.Ira,5a ac.....................
Certified Operator:.WjjAam.:1:h.l ...............La.>xxeatceAr................................... Operator Certification Number:.1838.Q .............................
Location of Farm:
US Hwy 220 south from Greensboro to NC Hwy 705. Turn left and travel east on NC Hwy 705. Turn right onto Lawrence +
Farm Rd.
®Swine []Poultry []Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ' 30 ° 4ti (i Longitude 79 ' 444 F-4-2 44
Design Current
Swine Canacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
1000
994
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Ca�aci{ Po "lulation ` Cattle Capacity Po ulation
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer 1 ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 1,000
Total SSLW 135,000
I *r • 'Number of Lagoons 0 subsurface Drains Present �� I
2
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3, Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ®No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ........U.ppecPit........ ........ La..ryer..pit........ .................................... ................................... ......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 42 30
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 76-13-1 • Date of Inspection 8/24/2004
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?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes ❑ No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?, ❑ Yes ®No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No
[]Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ' ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type Fescue (Graze) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Soybeans
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 OR 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.
q ) i j p y were and/or any recommendations or any other commepts ,l` ,'!
soffa y
Cnmrnents (refer,to uestion # Ex lain an YES ans M..
IJse'drawing cEUt to better explain at,
{use additional pages as necessary) �❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
9. Not applicable.
V3. 2004 soils are ok.
8/2/04 waste analysis=1.4 lbs. N/gal
WQ to send calibration info.
ReviewerAnspector Name Melissa Rosebroek n.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:/ k Date. --IV
«rl�iu� c.ontinuea

Facility,Number: 76-13-t DVf Inspection 8/24/2004 .
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?
(iel 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?
(iel 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 V 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.
dditionaliComments'and/or' Diawiri s r i I I,,. r+ i { ,,r 13F:»i li ri'}} ,IE,,l4' 'ri ; s I d r''E.r
,.r.+r. a rrr,f�.zhr�ualar r,l .,� lh � � r €e ,�„1 ll€ ,LNN! i'�_. fli i 24 ,,4, ly „9a� .a ��l' i ..:, ? 1 f<II E t ,a� �! I,la,..E <� ,� rl a€, l,,,u. �{.F I� �I ar �_ f�,.il� ; =<.r. r d ,r l rj 3 s r >,#,fil �'rl r.fh �a 3 . o Ia
L
7
12112103

Type of Visit Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other © Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: � Tune: L
Q Not O erational Q Bellow Threshold
Permitted [j Certified © Conditionally Certified Q Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
FarmName: ...,,..i.Jj. .»..ri . »....._.... » ...„ »...»....»._ County:
Owner Name:..iG�..�.....L �rQc.Cil ......_....» .._._..... 'Phone No: f1..1...1.._.....��__-1��.
?►+Tailing Address:.lt'_...... r1.....
� .
Facility C-►tact: l L1�1.... ram__ Title :.......................... » » ».„ ...._....._... Phone No:...»......»»............ ».„ ... ....
OnsiteRepreseatative: _ rza
C.__....„_.,,,.. Integrator:_»L�....;._
Certified Operator:J _ „„,„„ Operator Certification Number:.,
Location of Farm: Tr
Rah
I a
MAO II _r... ' .• ' t
G
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ horse "14"1uui 7Z - LhJ %X 1- L--L4J ;t;1 L l &--1
De31gn Current t,' G'A.
` ,,�Curreat 'r CiirrCnt
;SWlile C`��ae•e4v'.�iilnnni9hnn.��. �p� ... �
OnitrV. �r,"'f'n*w.w1s� .Pn.ai.l�Irnw.?r.:Cattle .. .,.,,.1"onsw.ly: ��einnielinn'
❑ Wean to Feeder
iv1.
s.
❑ Layer
Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
El Farrow to Wean`'.4
,;,
Other
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Total Desi�
❑ Gilts
❑ $ oars
"`f 7
••
4Y
Nu7aber'o%Lagooas �,�u
Vy
e - .:.y4�'t7�..'.]f s•s. _m '"�*:tr'3, '"�r.ylr, ti,xF- #� SI
Mcharees & Stream I_mnacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: [ILagoon [ISpray Field [IOther
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 rNo
o3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes �No
yy �Structure I fracture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure G
Identifier:
Freeboard inches:
12112103 Continued

Facility Number:' — — 11 Date of Inspection [�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the i*ity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tre , severe erosion,
❑ Yes
o
AN
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑ Yes
N0
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses as
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenan�mprovement?
aYesNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
o
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑Yes
No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type no r
13. Do the receiving crops differ wilh those designated in the Certified Waste Management Pan (CAWNT)?
❑ Yes
o
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
To
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
o
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
[IYeso
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
tNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yeso
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below - ^ E3 Ne
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes X
o
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.
Ak
wo
a ri rM I uovo' w 'Wq aff 6M
Field Copy ❑ Final Notes

Facility Number: D of Inspection
Re uired Records & Documents
21. FaiI to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes o
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ , checklists, design, aps, etc.) ❑ Yes �Io
23. D s record keeping need ' provement? If es, check the app priate 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 o
'
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes o
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 VNo
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes a
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 KNO
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 V Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
46mPh',1 r-+r► C rne+
as
lei h . On? Fer ,
-� f ze.f . 4r-5.
4/ 7
aoo4 -cam
12112/03

Type of Visit OO Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 13-1 Date of Visit: 12/11/2403 Time: 1300
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted E Certified 13 Conditionally Certified j3Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: . __
Farm Name: 0.31kW tQt3. 9runs................................................................... County: BAnAQj1a1L............................... WS.&O -•--•
Owner Name: TIlRu1SS-- 1.83YtEliCC Phone No:(33fil&72-2Z94-------------___._----------
Mailing Address: b .7.9..E��txxen c.Marna.�aad........................................................... > raY..ly .............................. .... 17341...............
.... ........................
Facility Contact: RbJ`.111s.Locarom...............................`I'itle:............................................... Phone No: ......................................
Onsite Representative: Pj�y��jSalYrxACE.---------------------------------- Integrator:
Certified Operator: WjjtjAm.TJhgmas„,,,,,,,,,,,,, LAtyretpcg,,,fix,,................................. Operator Certification Number: 21.61.1.............................
Location of Farm:
JS Hwy 220 south from Greensboro to NC Hwy 705. Turn left and travel east on NC Hwy 705. Turn right onto Lawrence i
7arm Rd.
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 30 b 46 4� Longitude 79 • 44 4 42 u
7'�'zYG%' /1' 'i�. F� - _ -0A 7
4. a;�ay„ ^ !� Destgn". Current Design. Currentjj.�Q�esign'MlRuriie 'Ca ac ' P.o ulation Poultry Ca aci Po ulation Cattle ation ;,
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy �.
ary ® Feeder to Finish 1000 992 ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy' ❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other.
��❑ Farrow to Finish w Total Design Capacity 1,000
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars TottilLW 135,000
Number of Lagoons 10 ® Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
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 galimin'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: ....... Upptr pil--•--...__._i-cmer.pii._...
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Freeboard (inches): 50 18 '
05103101 QO Continued

Facility Number: 76-13-1 1 Date of Inspection 12/11/ 0003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the 10grity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tree s"�evere 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 ADDlication
❑ 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 Soybeans Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Graze) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
•omm n ref o o ain an. a/ a i n a t
s ra ing of fa I t e e e luln i na io a on ❑ Field Copy ®Final Notes
19. Be careful about applying slurry and solid waste on the same field since slight overapplication occured after the June 2003
a►
application.
10/29/03 Waste analyses = 6.6 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Reviewer/inspector Name EMelis Rosebrock
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 ! Continued

Facility Number: 76-13-1 D f Inspection 12/11/2003.
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
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
O510.3101

S[,L)t6&
i PM
Type of Visit N
ompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
ReasonforVisil Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time:
Permitted 13Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Oper or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: County:
Owner Name: L1 IUtVjU.2 L
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: Nkg
10 Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: Lot
Location of Farm:
OehGe__ Phone No: 33(0 - g -17 - t7 LQ
rice 955 ron - } 5 a- v U!b 1�, Z 7 3W.
XL.twerence, Phone No:
Integrator: � P��V" �. M.S r��C
X5 1,010fe Operator Certification Number: t
w
wine ElPoultry❑Cattle
❑Horse Latitude
�' �°
��
Longitude E' 1 7 jr1° N
Design
Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
El Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dai
Weeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer I Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish " Total Design Capacity L 0QQ
El Gilts f,
❑ Boars Total SSLW '' bO V
Number of Lagoons Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Laloon Area JEJ Spray Field Area
, folding Ponds /.Solid Traps No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharegs 8, f &ream 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
Struct Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): .�Q ±1K
05103101
Structure 5
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
o
Yes
rx0
El Yes
�,
XIo
``
Structure G
//
Continued

0
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
05103101
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
XNO
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
❑ Yes
No
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
XNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate. gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level N /A
elevation markings? !
" PAT--9No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
KP 0
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydra is Overload
❑ Yes
I,L�No
12. Crop type
A
13. Do the receiving crops ffer with those designated in the Ce red Animal V�Jast ana e t Plan (CAv4'MP)?
❑Yes
No
I4_ 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
No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No
Re ed 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 An' ial Waste Management ian readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps. etc.) ✓ ❑ Yes No
19, Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) X Yes ❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes o
22. Fail to notify regional D%N:Q of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ic! 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 probiems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes )4No
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You wHI receive no further correspondence about this visit.
nvy Y- $ansS7wP rsan.. k✓.. 5'1L1.'SFSn tl%E' (!Yr..SGw mr b� m*-m: mealE gft�rA�
€:I'B4i�,YCom:.me-nts-;('refer to c6esiot; E.lan U
any;
�
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations .(use additional -pages as'eecessary). § , y :_ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
.. dr i:�.�i Sh x. }iE� afee!�nry.E.n-.r..�a,�.•�>*'-+'^W+!n•PriMY=w+y.N.��.:.�• 5 3(..
lo�a q a�3 - Iv
l600
�. a F e - ;�� YrF- t a?§
Reviewer/Inspect Name' „ ;� t.�;: 3'
vi
Reewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: LOO
T --
0S/03/0I Continued

finical Assistance Site Visit
DMWon of Soil and Water Conservatiorilill
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number 76 - 13-1 Date: 114103 Time: 1 10:29 1 Time On Farm
Farm Name Oakwood Farms
Mailing Address 6679 Lawrence Farm Road
Onsite
Representative
Thomas Lawrence
Type Of Visit
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ Operating below threshold
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
WSRO
County Randolph _ _ Phone: [phone]
Seagrove NC 27341
Integrator IN G Purvis Farms, Inc.
Pur ose,Of Visit
•Q Routine
O Response to DWQIDENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by prod ucerlintegrator
O Fallow -up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Capacity Population
[I Layer
Wean
❑ Non -Layer
to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish �
l000
ago
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes IN 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 Upper covered pit I lower covered pit
Level (Inches) 1 24 14
CROP TYPES heat , Oats = 1com, Grain = IFescue-hay �
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes IN 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 Upper covered pit I lower covered pit
Level (Inches) 1 24 14
CROP TYPES heat , Oats = 1com, Grain = IFescue-hay �
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

•
•
Facility Number 76 - 13-1 Date:
4/14/03
PARAMETER
O No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
[112. Waste structure integrity compromised
❑ 13. Waste Structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (fist in comment section)
❑
❑
29: Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
[115. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. 21-1.0200 re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
[120. Latelmissing soils analysis
[121. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation designlinstallation
❑
❑
El Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop oval uationlrecom mendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5.
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6
58. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
+10fI�7I�k3

Facility Number 7$ _ 13-1 Date; I 4/14/03
COMMENTS:
Waste samples are due back this week. Ran out 3-22-03
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST 1B. Barton Roberson
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 7/25/03
Entered By: lRocky Durham
03/10/03

e
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 76 I3-1 Datc ut' Visit: SC26J2002 't'inic: 0945
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
S Permitted 0 Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:.. ...................
Farm Name: Oink.00d.FArm ........................................................................................... County: Ran ' dolph......................................... ,SRO........
OwnerName: IbtpMo.................................. LU.W.rcxtre ................................................... Phone No: Q.3.W.579::Z2A4 ........................................................
Mailing Address: 667.9.LjaW :emee.fA rM.RP.od........................................................... S.eagroye.NC.................... .. 2.7.3.1..............
...................................
FacilityContact: ................. Title:................................................................ Phone No: ...................................................
Onsite Representative: Pbyllia.au[ud..Tbo.Mas.tasty'.rgAeg .......................................... Integrator: N_G.,1'tlx:xi5.k:8x'Mt %.tr►r.......................
Certified Operator:.yydlxau.T'ljaunaj ...............Umeaee.Jr................................... Operator Certification Number: 18a$.Q.............................
Location of Farm:
JS Hwy 220 south from Greensboro to NC Hwy 705. Turn left and travel east on NC Hwy 705. Turn right onto Lawrence +
+arm Rd.
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse . Latitude 35 • 30 46 , . 'Longitude 79 • ®' 42 'a
fry s2wid� t�i A —rsv s. i v
nt`�
-�fffre
Design� �.
acit ,Po ulation
Poultr. '
Y
Ca acit :�P,o ulation Cattlea
acit F�Po Mahon
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Layer
❑ Dairy
9
"
®Feeder to Finish
1QOf)
960 .
❑Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
a,q
❑ Farrow to Wean
A
'
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
mi
❑ Farrow to Finish
�:
Total Design Capacity
E-1,000
❑ Gilts
°
�:f:�
�`�
❑Boars
� �
�s� Total.:SSLW
135,000
®Subsurface Drains Present
}° Number of111.911,111TE.F..
Spray Meld Area
❑Lagoon Area I[]
VYa
. Holding Ponds
2
® No Liquid Waste Management System
Dis_ ha= _. 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 c c Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5.
Identifier: :.......Up pP t:.pi t........ ....... .Lo me r .pxt........
Freeboard (inches):' 24 16
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
05103101 Continued
'T D 1 6 z,-)/

Facility Number: 76-13.1 Date of Inspection $/2612002
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11, Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Wheat Fescue (Graze)
ti
❑ 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_&_Dncuments
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iel 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?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ 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.
❑ Field Copy IN Final Notes
). Covered, below ground pits. Operator is checking with measuring device.
13. T-9846 F-I and F-7 are in corn while CAWMP lists only fescue pasture. Need to revise these fields in the CAWMP.
17. Need to obtain copy of permit for records.
19. Need to keep weekly freeboard per permit.
ReviewerAnspector Name !Melissa Rosebrock
ReviewerlInspector Signature:
Date:
05103101 Continued

'Facility Number: 76_.13.1 l�f [nspectiotl 8/26/2002
dnr 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
Cl Yes ® No
05103101

Type of Visit N Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit yRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
E: Facility Number " "' mate of Visit: Time:
A
Not O erational Below Threshold
Permitted licertified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operate r Abov T eshold:
Farm Name: _6OLY-c "d Farm County: 0
Owner Name:
Mailing Address: _.LOW / 1 I CA4 Il'
Facility Contact: D m Qiorat
Onsite Representativ
iie
.:
Certified Operator: u� `4 � � i tiw
Location of Farm: Sr -
Phone No: ,. _ } 0 �q ra a
5' a rove. a 73
Phoneio: 6 • 7
TOM.ln
b&egrator: Pu r
i
Operator Certification Number:
-7 PS' 4-
. East an
!E swi'e El Cattle 0 Horse Latitude
wLiL7►iii�ajl!aeia»i'• � i�I[■[�=�F►!1r[�!Ihrl�ts!�1Ii•�� _ �
ine El Poultry Longitude
24 .
:5wtne
Wean to Feeder
eeder to Finish
'a;'
Farrow to Wean
�1A H 'r ❑ Farrow to Feeder
o: ❑ Farrow to Finish
Subsurface Drains Present .
Discharses & 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 CAllection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structur Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): C to
05103101
❑ Yes INO
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
El Yes El No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes XNo
Structure 6
Continued

r
Facility Number: — �_j Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?•(ic/ 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?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
El Yes
No
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
X No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
X No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
9/P( 4ia�o
Waste Annllcation
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes�No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
XNo
12. Crop type b
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those des ated 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?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ElYes
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, ee oa , waste analysis & of ample reports) 10 Yes
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
N .
❑ No
INNo
0
o
No
No
No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Cormments ( eea t'o''questiari #) ° Explsln'' ariy'tYES'answers:nndliii atiy'recnminendatioas or any€na< er'comments
Use drawings of,faeility to'iietterlexpia h' situations.'(use'additional pages as necessary) . Field Conv Final Notes ,
C�rV AA
13. Feld �.�'� ?-.qg�(� `_ 69t4J AAWP,
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: L Date:
05103101 1 Continued

Facility lumber: — hate of Inspection / J
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes )(NI
o
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 x 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? ElYes 4NO
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanentitemporary cover? ❑ Yes x No
Additional Comments,andlor:Drawings:
7- 3VY6
I�
05103101

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 76 13-1 D-tile of Visit: ll/19/20t11 1'imc: 0930
Not Operational Q Below Threshold
0 Permitted ■ Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:. ........................
Farm Name: t?akxtmad.Fatrx►ts.................................................................................. ......... County: RApdQIRb......................................... 1'1',SEQ........
Owner Name: Thollll,RS.................................. J[a1Y.I.cjkc ...............
Mailing Address: 5G7.9..QwrcntmFmrun..R9.ad........................
Facility Contact: P4UiS.o .Xol[1Aly.L&w.rtrAre.....................Title:.......
Onsite Representative:
Phone No: (3G>.1379r.?204..........
Sagt;ny..N.0 ......................................................... 2.7.3.1..............
Phone No: 33.&$79,4097,.T.9falW......
Integrator: N..�a. �1t1 Y.is k a]C7[t1�5.,.�mc......................................
Certified Operator:.W.AUalpl T'jjgMU............... [,awramIr.................... , Operator Certification Number: ...........................
Location of Farm:
JS Hwy 220 south from Greensboro to NC Hwy 705. Turn left and travel east on NC Hwy 705. Turn right onto Lawrence +
Farm Rd.
®Swine []Poultry []Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 30 ° 46 46 Longitude 79 • ®° 42fit
r, ,cyan, - �+ .s �" s+r t�sysra�:�tsr. ; Mat
rA CurrentszDesign ;Current �t
SaPa`ulationoultryCacit
❑ Wean to Feeder
•
� ,Ca scit IPo ulaton
•, LayerDairy
`
® Feeder to Finish 1U00
905
Non -Layer Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
'. � MINNOW':
ry ❑Other ', , •, r +�
� '�f � �S "*�' � '•p
• ry �x �� ��� k y = Total Des>Rgn Capacity, 1,000
r
��J,440
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Gilts
❑ Boars
Discharees am ImpactsI. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)] YeS ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ..Upper.swiae.p L, .i4wzr.sw.4ke.pit...............................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 4l 25
OS/03/01 / � Continued

Facility Number: 76-13-1 Date of Inspection 11/19/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the iTitegrity 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?
r •if
[:]Yes ® No
[)Yes ® No
[:]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Fescue (Hay)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement'?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records_&_Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Commen refer to question # : xplain any YES answers and/o any recommendations or any other cam n .
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. {use additional pag a e essary : ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
7. Keep an eye on small cracks that have started on hog house wall sas well as the woody vegetation growing against the walls.
9. Need to add small marker in the pump out access prior to being permitted.
14. Operation is all "pump and haul" of waste.
19. Waste from swine pits was applied to wheat stubble in May 2001. Soybeans were then planted in May. Will be corn in Spring 2002.
Double cropping scenerio for T-3490 F-2 is not in CAWMP, but should be added. PAN of 116 in operator's records doesn't match other
soybean fields in CAWMP (141? lbs. N/acre in CAWMP?).
19. Waste is added to wheat in T-3465 F-2 per operator, but wheat (small grain) is not in CAWMP. This should be applied if possible.
Reviewer/Inspector Name ;MelissaRosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: b r7
05103101 Continued

Faeiiity Number: 76-13-1 Dalsinspection 11/19/2001
dor isSue
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below [:]Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28, Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ❑ No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31, Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Iffidd it i6na i 6nfinentg@A .orb rawtngs:
19. Be careful of 60-day windows for waste analyses. Sample window was >77 days before application and about 20 days over the
A,
limit for the sample taken after the 8/2/01 application.
9
05103101

13
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: I I 01 Time:
13 Permitted N Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered
Farm Name: I},;......'.' Cam ............................ ...........................
Owner Name: tUwias.................................................................
Facility Contact:
Below Threshold
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
County: j
p.......... ....................
Phone No:. ?. .......8 .....i......;�... V-W..
Pi`40IJ
MailingAddress:.4019 .... L 7...... �!.�.... .... ....... �..w....... ..........................................
Onsite Representative:....�w re".t�
...... .............................. integrator:..YP.4VIS......... rQr- .. .
Certified Operator.... ,(,11 aM. ...,,,-r , „� .,....1: 44rc J .C. e . Operator Certification Number .b,11.1,1........
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®0 �° ®�� Longitude �•
Design Curretit
". Design
Current'
Design Cntrrent
-5 :. Capacity Pu ulation
Poultry Ca aci
Po ulation Cattle
Ca acl .`Po'ulation.
[]Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish 00 0
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
'. ❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑Farrow to Finish
Total Design CaQacity
% Q�
❑ Gilts
❑Boars
Total SSLW
NUM
ber of Lagoons
Mding Potnds'/ Solid Traps
❑ Subsurface Drains Present 10 Lagoon Area l❑ Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream lm acts
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. 11' discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/rain?
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
1.1tf4gptructu I Stru re Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S
'f- St�tnc' l�—
idcntificr: ...1.................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): a S
5/00
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes IkNo
❑ Yes UNo
Structure 6
Continued on back

Facilfty Number: -74 —j 3— Date of Inspection r a 0 ,
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
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 o
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes rNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
j Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?'
/
❑ Yes A No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ P Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes No
e 4
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ wit those Asignated in the CertifAAnimal Waste Management Plan ( AWMP)?
❑ es 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 XNo
Reauired Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
'B o
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 KNO
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes o
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes o
t4s.ot' 00flel ndo •W0re P0fp4.00j#g 4)hjs'vjsjt; • Yop e i e i)fl 4'th$r
corres• inidence' about this visit:
r Y 1 :: ! ! I - ,t E ... .�5. - E`, i -4'-tt°:.i9 I .,F(:'ikt
'Coa'iments'(refer *466tfon,#) iExplain a y YES answers andto'r`anylrecommettdatEons orxany other,cnr aunts.
'
IV G i ! r i It i:�§E ! i E!, A ¢ 'P
Use drawings of,facility to:better explain situations: (use additi6nal necessary} R ,:�,l'
pagess,as
i � 1
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu re -:Al 111,4Date: Q 5/O0

Facility Number: —' 16of Inspection
Odor Issues
25. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below }Yes -E2No
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 x
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? -©'Ye;51'410
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? -EFyrs--EJ-No
A�►O
♦♦� ��
r
I
5/00

f j Y� FjF tP V'• V t
E t 1 •�i i P , .'iP i _ i 7 4 .F �F yy i
ti: p a ., IVIS10 of WateC Quaitty 5d�kl�kai� 'y
e R a- , ,
-p" �•h i -r t ,flit r , tj 4 i'y erasion of Soii ai]d �Water.COILSe rvationa
g =tt ; ' Other A enc < G
'yl� !i g y
>, 9' ba E.
2, f 1 9
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection !X Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit K Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other
Datr of Visit: Z / p/ 'Tune: Z >
Facility Number 7 13 - /
Q Not Operational
❑ Denied Access
000
tb Permitted © Certified [j Conditional) Certified [] Registered Operated start �'. )....29- ......
� ] f y g Date Last O crated or Above Thr ,�h�t i1
Farm Name: ......... % iC.......U� :�1:.....!..r'.`..Sc.................................................. Counfy:.......Roy.n.4. �;i ? =t� -:..............
....
Owner Name: THor+�o, ...... w!e�,.ct- Phone No:...... 3Ic%......G.?...:.'
Facility Contact: ..(.......o�+, a ..........L a.w.i':�^' .'..."t . Title �uv►e ✓ Phone No: .... �, y
..... r............................................................. /f�. .............
Mailing Address: t..��......cG ..i'►'+'✓� ....... t°C i :u: ........ ....t.....�.............. ......� ... � �..
Onsite Representative: �+C�u„� ;,,,,,,,,.„! - �' C v� r Integrator: ............ �........ .............. ............................................................. ...
Certified Operators......... N,y!!,,. ... .........."'Ydd+^e -'f.... ., Operator ............ ...�6__.°+-`�`�
..... o e ��'��
Location of Farm: {
...... . taw s- J
7U 5 -
• -1(.�. I � � G it C✓�C. .
i ` 'l. �`
7t3 � h� f �' �G
/ 4� .
`t''
Swine ❑Poultry
❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Lalitutle
3S ' ��
©�� Longitude
®• ©� �«
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder I JE1 Layer ❑ Dairy
�$ Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons 1 -0- 1 1[:] Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps - 0- 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
I'V-4.nro,-c R. Ctr—im imnartc kl%
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 0 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. li' discharge is observed. what is the estimated now in gal/enin?
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 a No
3• Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes IAI Nr,
Waste Collection & Treat::t;:nt
4. Is storage cap;:r:ty (freeboard plus storm storage) !c-s; than adequate? ❑ Spillway -0 ❑ Yes No
SLI-11CILlrC I Su ucture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5,, Structure 6
Identificr:....•............................................................................
Frechoard (inches):
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: [)ate of Inspection 2 t / Printed on: 10/26/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to thlgrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ t 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 J No
(If any of questions 4-5 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 ,�j 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? t1,r r ❑ Yes &I'No
Waste Application_
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ;V No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes 00 No
12. Crop type DA urc� �"► t►�t , t(UL-) C Iro p
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 X No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? []Yes 1KNo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ANo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment'? ❑ Yes kNo
Reauired Records & Documents
17, Fail to have Certificate of.Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [N No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) sNo
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes o
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 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
1� Yipi �igrtis;o dt rjcienciesi+'ere �We(1• 0(whig (hjs'vasat; - Y;oo iviij•teeoive 06 Wth -
- • corres ande�ce: abait>� this visit: • • - • • - • • .- •
Comments!, 'refer to uesttgn #) Explain any YF.S an§wers and/or any recommendatbons or'any other comments ;�* .:.: a r.f
( q
t 6r I . n4y:.F�A �r
IUse drawEngs of facility to betteir'explain situations: (use addition' I pages as necessary} -:
A,
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
r
7.1v" w
Date:
5100

Facility Number, 76 Date of Inspection L p 'Printed on. 10/26/2000
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below
❑ Yes
NJ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
gN
27.
Are.there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
Jf No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application?. (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
XNo
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
4No
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
JeNo
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
X No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
1J No
'Additional.Comments andtor,,Rrqpgs:,
'+k
1 I
L: a �! f ei�r.al.v// Ii i..:i .4 Lu SSA fy
Vic
LJ
/4 Y [cep... i.c: � r ea
5/00

_ v � u-Alvlalm. v ruuow-uP or LPWV inspection p Follow-up of DSWC rev
Facility Number (7 Date of Inspection
Date
of Inspection
U Permitted Certifi�ed/� 0 Conditionally Certified ❑ RegisteredVA&Not O erational Date Last grated:
Farm Name:.l.r.lhr ✓'� Count rL d�"Yrr;'a)
........ ...✓ct?...................................................................................... Y ..........................,.... .... .,.......................
-
--� } e 1
Owner Name:.....(... �!? E'. 5........................ Lt-1 rc c _ 3
............................................................. Phone No:....................... .............. .
7 /......................... I..............
Facility Contact: ...:...l..X. a.S...... !r.--..ATnS..L.......... Title: ...............y �.G..kl. ................... Phone No. ....... 3-3.b.....8!S�L
................
Mailing Address:
,Swine
❑Wean to Feeder
eeder to Finish
bb /gob
'.. ❑ Farrow to Wean
'.. ❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
J❑ Other
Tofi&De
K c ❑ Subsurface Drains Present
-1 No Litmid Watt, Mananen
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If ycs, 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 Nv PC;, p/ UW-4„ , , y-�
4. Is storage capacity ( ) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Struclure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): ........./V�.......
5. Are there any immediate threats�tle-inuPgrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
3/23/99 seepage, etc.)
Field Area
❑ Yes &
❑ Yes ®!
❑ Yes [PAp
❑ Yes
❑ Yes to
M'fes ❑ No
Structure 6
❑ Yes W401,
Continued on back

Facility Number: 6 • 1 *f Inspection y c1
6. Are there structures on -site which are ;«;i properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes
(If anv r f 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 1:9rvD
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes �I o
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ❑- o
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
OK
11,
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
ERg"o'
12.
Crop type
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
13-W
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
3-Ka
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
(2-lqo`
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
ED-N6
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
lteO
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes iXo
Reauired Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
W�es
❑ 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
[Hdo
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
gpres
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
E1446-
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
09-lTa
24.
Does facility reciu!= a follow-up visit by same agency?
Ejl�s
[INo
25.
We any additional problems noted which cause noncomplianee ofthe Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
[c WO
�'Vo yiola(igris :o doficie cies rare ja0 ed, Mwing Ols:vasit; • yoo ;wi�i • 0001, 6 00 fu�tia+gr ' j
.
corresponc�ence.a�ouititiS .'.'.'.'.'.'. . . . . . .. . . . . .
AL
Name y`;" l + RMO% s �_P_ l _ ..
nspector Signature: ( ­ Date: G /i-lG ey
3/23/99

Facility.Numher:7(,, — 3 - f I) f l.aspection ' a
0
,,or l5sues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement huilding to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
[]Yes
d'
liquid [eve! of lagoon or storage pond with w.; agitation?
j
M<O
27.-
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
yam",
29.
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
Is land intake located liquid lagoon?
❑ Yes
M9V
the application spray system not near the surface of the
36.
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.)
ElYes
1, IKJO
31,
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
M- o
32,
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
7*0
(a46; C uA #v
1
Pao
bo
[ � Rcv; cuJ cr�.. �"� � it � n�.t�s �c �r c�`•/•
t k"j( ��� �c..z
AS (CAS
c.,Q�✓ U
J

JG(Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 9r 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Pertmitte Certified j] Conditionally Certified j] Registered Not O erational Date Last Operated:
[3 Pe i
FarmName: ........ I.............................................. County. . A ....................................
Lt
Owner Name: ......... { .� � ... Phone No . all' 7 — ZZC/
FacilityContact: ,... a 5 4L.L.4.H ......Title:........... �� Phone No. 33b d1r7`.............
zv
Mailing Address:...........C' 7 1'ice ,,, i"a .f��........ C'. Z 7.. .. .. .............. I...........
Onsite Representative: o!^^ d ra► ;ti�c 4 , Integrator• t� •...•...•.......I........
Certified Operator:,,�t,&!!n... T Operator Certification Number ...... (,1,k.,. .....................
Location of Farm:
7..L'.5.................!- .............. ...... ....TT " ............ .............:........... ............... ................. ............................ .
.. .
Latitude
Longitude ®�«
Design ;Corr"enf'
Design Currrent°' Design `!Current
Swine .. ... - .:. • Ca aci = Po ulation
Poult . `-` '' r
rY Ca ace Po ulabote: =, Cattle r Ca ace ",Po "ulation
,' ❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
,;; ❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer on -Dairy
(�
` `s ❑ Farrow to Wean
❑Other
A41 N.-y
❑ Farrow to Feeder
c , No�` B
:" ❑ Farrow to Finish
T �sikni� Ca aCiit F;r
it
❑ GiltsP...,..Y`
❑Boars
Total SSLW "
ask;,
'Number of La `oOnsyE `,
g
❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area
❑ Spray Field Area
K
+Holding Ponds / Sohd'Trapsu
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
�
Discharges & Stream Impacts jx,� b�
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. Dues discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (Il' 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 A6 P-b-j I
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: Freeboard (inches): ..................`1�r................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
❑ Yes NKO
❑ Yes
❑ Yes /1V
❑ Yes �o
❑ Yes to
. ❑ Yes 0,110
oo
Structure 6
❑ Yes_ Mleo
Continued on back

I:acdi6~ Number: 76 — (3'i of lnsp ration
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 situado.-i poses an
immediate public_ health or environmental threat, not;i"y DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require main tenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Anpties�tion
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑.PAN
G vd
❑ Yes No
12. Crop type ! t,� u-u�rs
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. Pail to have Certificate f Cove age & Geqer�l Permit readily a ailable? /CUC
twe-V•r':r- C'?91:�d` Gov — Nur �.. rU'r'UL-�
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CertifedTimal Waste Management Plan readily a ilable?
(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?
(ic/ 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 age cy) r
PfUn��cW � V' y.a� w, f4t - rcutGW
25. Wer y additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
or. OeiendNwire jnQted dtrrfng this n4ti Yo>�r ;wi�Ixeegiye 0oui�tt�r. .
�coriesporic�ei & ab6d this :visit.:.. .::..::........:....:.......::... .
❑ Yes B<o
❑ Yes ©-No
❑ Yes D-No
❑ Yes [elf
❑ Yes fo
❑ Yes Egl�o
❑ Yes Imo°
❑ Yes Leo
❑ Yes Ed'N o
❑ Yes UP9
❑ Yes ff No
©'Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [IQo
[W'r eS [:]No
❑ Yes l,ld11 o
❑ Yes 0,<
❑ Yes Lavo
❑ Yes 15 11 o
['Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes UK
r Name ; r!(fi;i�4'v' I�l7e rSv L
pector Signature:
Date: 6 /2 /043
3/23/99

Faci ity umber:7(o —j3�j 1) f Inspection as
Ddor ISSties
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. fire 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?
.GAJ
❑ Yes W141
❑ Yes �o
❑ Yes U401
❑ Yes d/Z
❑ Yes Q40
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
i, iona.' . n ..p lts all Or;' rawings:
rpm
A61
V op� - �aS 0 r-o
4-10
6„4-a`�` �` t

Facility Number 7ti 13-i Date of Visit: 10/25/2000 Time: 0920 Printed on: 10/27/2000
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified C] Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: f.1akwoo.d.f.arm ................................................................................ ........... County:Ran1?ldalph......................................... RO........
Owner Name: jht2arras.................................. La.:r.I;>aClr.................................................. Phone No:Q3,61.8.7.9:-220.4 ........................................................
Facility Contact: ThaxnuaS. myr.C►ACC....................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No: 33.&8.79AQ97..(R))...............
Mailing Address: .6z�.t,a�rreaClr.>.ax>t �tQa�d ........................................................... S.t:agr.QyC..NC......................................................... 2.73.41..............
Onsite Representative: �.hOlXlaS,.3 lPtell]4lX►. lAylli&. alb 1 CAC.Q............................... Integrator: XadgppjadClat......................
Certified Operator:.Wjj1,1a]tt1.T............................. Uwane......................................... Operator Certification NumberJ.H. U.............................
Location of Farm:
Farm Location: 3 miles southeast of Seagrove off NC 705 toward Robbins turn right on Lawrence Farm Rd.
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ' 30 4ti Longitude 1 79 • 44 42
Design Current
Swine Canneity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
1000
1000
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity. Population..
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
vkF"'1
Total SSLW
1,000
Number of Lagoons 0
® Subsurface Drains Present
❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
JCR No Liquid Waste Management System
Holding Ponds-1 Solid Traps 2
Discharaes & 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 gallmici?
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: ........Swine.P.it........ ........ Sw jae.P.it........
Freeboard (inches): 18 36
5100
Continued on back

Facility 1� nsr =�l r� ybo 1aanoeoa s • aai�bAt,6,�fal�t►S1i�ultlity Aa I b4>fi35 -a10 Printed on: 10/27
Bv19-Ei9-LLB-I, a31N3O aOlnaa Zia 3 UN o
5. Are 4019 lXln �tedli l�1 .ty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
LOILZ VNI'108V:) HIUON `16131VS-N018NIM'133MIS NMO1HUnVM SBS , seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures op -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?
WasteApplication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Fescue
Timothy, Orchard, & Rye
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 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?
N6.yiofatidhs:or- defeiencies•were;noted tluriiig•this;visit. ;You:will receive no fgrth:e� : ;
correspondence; about this' isit
Com.ments,(refer'to uestl om#)�Explain and/or any recommendations or ariy'other comme
Use Tonal pages as necessary);
drawings qi facility to better explain situattons (use;addit
�. Swine pits will need some sort of marker once facility is permitted. '
19: Some waste applications don't have a sample within 60 days. Also suggest keeping nitrogen balance by crop that
ex. wheat) rather than by the crop that is on the ground at the time of application (ex, corn stubble).
17, Burial pits >300' from creek--=ok.
32. "Tanks" have no cover but roof covers the area.
3013d0 1VN0103-U W31VS-NOISNIM
93ounOS3H -lvmn.L N QNV IN3WNOHIAN3
�Y es
six
0 P�1 i
Yes io6:fc E4!'
Reviewer/Inspector Name ,Melissa Rosebrock a, '
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

Facility Number: 76-13-1 D Inspection 10/25/2000 Printed on: 10/27/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
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 probtcros with the ventilation fan(s),noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31, Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ® Yes ❑ No
J
5100

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
WINSTON-SALEM REGIONAL OFFICE
585 WAUGHTOWN STREET, WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA 27107
E 336-771-4600 FAX [phone]
DE111 C ER SERVICE CENTER 1 •877-623-6748
EqU AL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE EMPLOYER S ECYCLEO/1096 POST -CONSUMER PAPER

ivision of Water Quality
Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
'Q Otheir`'Agency
� .
of Visit ACompliance 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 , a Date ut' Visit: W 'Time: Printed on. 7/21/2000
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
© Permitted Certified © Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .................
Farm Name: .... .. ..�1.,�...... f�!!r 1.5... County: .Q.R... ....................
Owner Name:
..........LPhone No:
�.�5.aw.r..� r�......................................... .....?a (� 6...g `�.. ........ ',�..
Facility Contact: ........�. t. .......1.ct�. .. �r( . Fitle:-.............................................................. l'hane No:.................................."..t.. J
?.
Mailing Address:../: 7q....... .,G.L?anci .... Fa- ...f..:4 .'.. .6�td....r ..V, l � ..........................
Onsite Representative: ....... .�. ....... Integrator: ...... ....................
Certified Operator:,�„(, �......�,t,�rQ:�:.� �.............. Operator Certification Number:..... ..
{do5xtle
Location of Farm:
�loi 311 Sou` „ -�o .s ra. aao 5, IFroir�5k' b6rO �Odq
Swine []Poultry -Cattle []Horse Latitude E319r* EfU' EW- Longitude �• 1 W�fl°°
Design Current.
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
10 Layer
I
❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
I
I
Non -Dairy
Q
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
%' 3
[3 Boars
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes VNo
Discharge originated at: [I Lagoon ❑ Spray Field El Other
a, If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in galhnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge'?
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 ucture 2 trUCtUre 3 nStructure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: �rL�.2IX1��..1. n.... �..lfL. .........................................................
Freeboard (inches):
5100
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes I No
❑ Yes 'YNo
❑ Yes VNo
Structure 6
Continued on back

Facility Number:iEB V*f Inspection 92PO0 Printed on: 7/21/2000
Odor Issues Tr
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to dischar a at/or hPltow EJ-Yes--E3-Nv
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? O-M IT a�
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 [�<0
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? x Yes ❑ No
Additional Comments an orDrawings:
No-�-e5,App)ir.44 o1, toI ndo,3 -For' 5MI r� fn chi r► - ,s
hed a S-Md b 6.UV14
to l hcl 005
,,, n ,
L1 o r Cor\ f t_ol *i T V\-6 C e-& (1 ; 5 . ► °Si ua) Ili
rie.� 13� I {�, 1 S� — a�'} 'From so q bean
91 But-` p i4-s -N,
f 10
01
5100

Facility Number: A Date of Inspection Printed on- 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'? (ie/ treevere erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6., Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement'?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type tl Ar'ln I I,w n/> at a rQ 1 Yl IA3 k4?a+. 4nu � DAV1 1� . fP..<.
13. Do the receiving crops differ with tFR)se 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 & DocumenLs
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? NIA
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'? (iel 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?
yioEatiitj[. . . . .cie;vis. Yo.... . . . . .Rio Further; . .
����corres• orit�ence:a�out.thisvisit.... .......�. .�.�.�.�....•.•...... .... ..... .. .
❑ Yes )(No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
NOWN-MAIM
u
I�r:1 •
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes tXNo
❑ Yes 1z No
❑ Yes >fNo
❑ Yes 19 No
YYes ❑ No
❑ Yes �XNo
❑ Yes jy No
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes X No
El Yes or,
❑ Yes )(No
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
9 S wl A� 14-5 � � 11 need same Sorb- o� m� �'er- o nee
n�
mi+a .
iaeAE o+n UD . ?�
r ii . A h t r 1* t- . .
IV
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signatutt,"ZIN / IA Y1 q - ///"/ /,{, At P j Date: ►DIA-57 n 5/00

tr 1 Division o and Water Conservation `tOperation Re
3 E ,P�ff ;3iFl Q.DIVision O and Water3�Conservahoii 3 Compliance Cttoni + r>,Jii}�r " r; Ei 43t9Pi � ,(EPag 'PF
Q l . ivision of Water �Q ali-�Complianc1e Inspection:
1/^'— •• - _ - •i -! E {T� !� 1. p 1 �i ! 1 I .3 i
' sir 141 Irk $ k 7I E .tither A enC - O ei at�Vilf�.eVi�rW J 'l, Yj i Ei��l�I
g - Y p, .
JU�Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up of DW ins ection Q Follow -tip of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number 3 Date of Inspection 2W
lime of Inspection /O•'34 24 hr. (hh:mm)
[] Permitted © Certified [3 Conditionally Certified ff Registered [3 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ....,....... .......................
.......Q�!eu�oo�....�.r►?�s...........:.......................... [.t��int �I/�a f� W
Owner Name: 7rAs ,,,,,,,Lr/1z✓ Phone No: `8% ...?Zo ¢
................................................................
Facility Contact: ..... , f,pM07"... 4-40 ?°H12 ......... Title Q. . Phone No. ....... :`.�rsi'.r.�...........................
// ...............1.
Mailing Address: ...................... .Grrl�P�ce ��r7n �df SeAq'j-17yG..................................... ..........................
................................................................... U!
Onsite Representative: ............ u- ........ I.... Integrator:...................................................
Certified Operator:,,rl( .ZJ „q,�........... .... Operator Certification Number: 2
Location of Farm:
....................................................................... ..................I........ ...
Latitude 3S • 3 ' SS' Longitude — 0 ®° ;zf
, ,Cmiren
t..Design Current 00i ' , ' Design Current
PltCat�eCapacityPopulation Capacity Populationt
"
I
❑ Wean to Feeder
C'Feeder to Finish
14900
%000
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts,
❑ Boars
❑ Layer ',, ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer 151 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design.ICapacity
Total -SSLW
2oa z23
� 204
r //
}1Ntimber of Lagoons-' Q ; ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area
aHolding�Pontlsl Snlid Traps ,j: ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes �UNo
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 ycs, 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 / /11
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): ......................................................................
Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
................................................................ ............................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
❑ Yes [%No
❑ Yes a No
❑ Yes g'fio
❑ Yes Q§No
❑ Yes eNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 6
❑ Yes ❑ No
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: -74, — 13
a of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
IfO'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
)KrNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
dNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
�rNo
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
NrNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
E'No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
P'No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
Nlo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
kNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
f lNo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
WNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
KNo
Required Records & Documents
17, Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
KNo
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
Yes
JSrNo
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
ONo
20, Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
[fNo
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
YNo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
Yes
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
El!fit Yes
KNo
No
24, Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
d^No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
N"No
�'Vo Yiolatitjris'or d��e envies rrA re nQteddpring th}s:v. ..... ... i.... a �iti u>G't gr-
cOrresp oTidenrce'. abU' U' f th' Visit: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comments (iefer t6 question #} -Expla it y YES answers and/or any t'ecommendations or:any other comments°
El a drawings of facile to, bitter ex lain situations use adtLtional pages as necessary}
tY A ,
�,'
FAUC4 I Aj
nta Ten
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
c1. Olt

Facility Number: — i3
.tc of Inspection
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
KNo
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
Ani
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.) 410f
[:]Yes
?1;�No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
[]Yes
J�rNo
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanentltemporary cover?w/+
❑ Yes
�9/No
rtRona ,. omatent.s an or rawtngs f' I
:.:.r .
aA
A
3I23/99

•
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Thomas Lawrence
6679 Lawrence Farm Road
Seagrove NC 27341
Dear Thomas Lawrence:
1�•
NCDENR
NORTH CAROUNA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RECEIVED
N.C. Crept. of EHNR
MAY 0 3 1999
Winston-Salem
Regional Office
Subject: Unpermitted animal waste
Management System
Farm No.: 76-13
Oakwood Farms
Randolph County
This is to inform you that the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has referred the subject facility to the
North Carolina Attorney General's Office for review and action. This action has been taken because of your
failure to obtain and implement a Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP) as required by 15A
NCAC 2H .0217(c) and your failure to enter into a special agreement as proposed by the Environmental
Management Commission. The Attorney General's Office has been asked to review this matter and initiate
actions as appropriate, including but not limited to Injunctive Relief.
Please be advised that nothing in this letter or any action taken by the Attorney General's Office should
be taken as removing from you the responsibility or liability for failure to comply with the State of North
Carolina's Environmental Laws and Regulations. Thank you for your immediate attention to this issue. If
you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Shannon Langley of our
staff at [phone] ext. 581. _
Sincerely,
Kerr T. Stevens
cc: Regional Water Quality Supervisor - WSRO
Shannon Langley/Special Agreement Files
Central Files
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

n
O:Dtvtsion of Soilia ater Conservation Operation Review
°rSt7 ��+� :F 9;g - •` „'.3i- . i; a s
f, p Dwts�on of Sod a atee, Conservation: •Compliance=lnspectjo '
Division of Water Quality = Compliance inspection
" > p Other Agency - Operation Review
1..__s,... •.•E.,6s t'. .. � -.��? r94:.T...0,< ,.:i: �.. ,-0 !'! , ., €E !. .. _. ��'' .f• r _ef <sa,;. _
I* ttoutine 0 Complaint 0 hotio�y-tip of 11wt2 Inspection 0 ra
Facility Number
fly Registered p Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted
Farm Name: Oakwaod.Farms...................
-up of WiNVC. re%riew 0 10ther
Date of Insime(iml
'I"ime of Inspection © 24 hr. (hh:mm)
in Not Operational I Date mast Operated:
........ County: Randolph WSRO
Owner Name:.T.hamas.................................. Lawr me.................................................. Phone No; 33j6-.879-1204 ..........................................................
Facility Contact: Iumtmy. LAwrence........................................Title: Qwjaer ................................................ Phone No: 33fi-.871-220.4 .......................
Mailing Address: fi6.7.9..L&w renac.Fax m.Road............................................................ ScaujuxaAC .......................................................... 27.4.1...............
Onsite Representative: 7:am my-Lawremrx.............................
Certified Operator: W..illiam..T............................ Uwcenm
Location of Farm:
........... 1 u tegrator:.......................................................................................
Operator Certification Number:2-16.1.1.............................
Latitude ©8 ®4 ®11 Longitude ®� ®� ®41
uesign current
Swine Capacity Population
[3 Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
p Farrow to Wean
[3 Farrow to Feeder
[3 Farrow to Finis
p Gilts
p Boars
esign Current Design current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
[3 Layer
p Non -Layer
p Other
Total Design Capacity 1,200
Total SSLW 2 9
Number of Lagoons / Holding Ponds: JE3 SubsurTace Drains Present 1113 Lagoon AreF JE3 Spray re rea
® o Liquid Wasie Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? p Yes ® No
2, is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? 13 Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is obscrved, was the conveyance man-made? 13 Yes 0 No
b. Ifdischarge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? flf ycs, notify DWQ) p Yes M No
c. Ifdischarge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (I1'yes, notify DWQ) la Yes ®No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p Yes ® No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? p Yes ® No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require p Yes ® No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? p Yes ® No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? p Yes ® No
7/25/97

act I y um er: 76-13 Dal 111spectiorr
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds onewhich need to be properly closed? • Yes No
t g g P P I7
. Structures (Lagoons,Hcrlding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Cl Yes ® No
SIRIClllt•e l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
IdentiIicr:
Freeboard(ft):...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? p Yes N No
1 l . Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? p Yes N 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 maximum liquid level markers?
p Yes
M No
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
p Yes
M No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type ....... C.am.4Silage.&.G.rain.)....... Sm".Graia.(.W.}aeai..Bar.ley.......................... F.:eseuz....................... ...............................................
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in rhe' Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
p Yes
M No
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
M No
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
p Yes
®No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
p Yes
®No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
p Yes
®No
21,
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
p Yes
®No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
p Yes
®No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Onlv
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
p Yes
p No
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
p Yes
p No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
p Yes
p No
Q .. n.v�a ions.or deflacienzies•were.noted during this visit., - You will .receive no further.
tzorrespond nef pWui t1iis,*W>t:: :.......... ::::::..: :
Comm1entYsi(rt er tttoEquestiion,#) �!Explainianyi1YES arnswersiand/or, any?recammen ations or any other comments 'j; Ir° j
H
Uts11e`drawm s:olffacllit to(E:Iaetterex lain}situat►onsl°?(uselad, itlonals ages,asnecessary),,�€,,.3.
p
9F -eP i 3 9Ek °i1a� dfi� :�.� 3 IIl,3 7� l.r<.BS6k .}tP..n 3.721. 3 1 i3' 3 3 -. 1 ! i I ,7 I 1 $ �e}CE_?»Is E ? ¢i _i.:f �.i ,i §3, aii> 1..1s� ,kE f� a i..€.. .5. -. i I E �.,� i:.1 r, i .> . E i� 3 E Y �...e.8¢.,i3,
PLANS TO ROOF ENTIRE LOT. BIDS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AND SWCD HAS SUBMITTED PLANS FOR COST
SHARE. SHOULD HEAR FROM COST SHARE SOON. MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT BUILDING BY
DEADLINE. MAY REQUEST EXTENSION; WILL DO SO BY LETTER.
OWNER WILL TALK WITH SWCD ABOUT STORAGE REQUIREMENTS IN HOG HOUSES.
RECORDS KEPT.
FACILITY IN GOOD SHAPE,
�. _. _
Reviewer/Inspector Name IW Corey'Basinger
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:

,t ..h_oz.,.,,,;.ency
K Division of S nd Water Conservation Other
division of Wa er Quality ��
a uaf ;�..sr. x.d§°.£`;s��.,..,""Fy:"�`,m?�h'%'... Aa --:>'. "5r ",;;:`vz>,'rzF°" „ �,�
Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number
Date of Inspection lQ 23 Y
13
Time of Inspection 3 24 hr. (hh:mm)
E3 Registered 0 Certified © Applied for Permit © Permitted 10 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: � t�3�caD d�19 County: ICAAJadL--Pt+ wsk
...................................................... ..........................................................
Owner Name:....,.. ih?ft .... ............ .. Phone No:...53 —c� ........z.7•�....4-'
Facility Contact: e� 1t-...•...•....•...••...••. Title: 2'.. Y --.. Phone No:........................................
............ ........
Malting Address:...............'�htJ!� ........ � 1 �'%:...'e�............ ..... "`orl �I�............................. ......
Onsite Representative:..... �n."ti`'1.......... L Q ................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator ;.......L?:0... L.,. .....T........ ....................... Operator Certification Number-_...3.rt?.F)C' ................
Location of Farm: 2 I l l
...2/s?!.e.....a......................................V��'.......................................... .............1.!S.%..... �f4fi�Ft... �j .......,G?...............t.✓.!`f. ........... #
... .. ........
Latitude 35 • 30 ®46 Longitude ®• ®° ®46
ra Des►gn. Current Design Current U
Capacity` Population ti Poultry: >: Capacity -Population , Cattle : ' C:
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
i oec7
Sl, o
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer ❑ Dair
❑ Non -Layer I JLJ Non
❑ Other
Total Designs Capa"
A
Total SS1
Y'l / 00 6 .
Subsurface Drains Present 1JU Lagoon Area
No Liquid Waste
General
1.• Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes E�"No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes P No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes M'No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes Rio
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 EM
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes RINo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes Q'No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes RNo
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes CVNo
7/25/97

` Facility Number: 16 — �� •
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds 0 site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes o
1F
Structures (Lagoons,NoldingPonds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No
Structure i Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
................................................................................................................................................................................ ......
Freeboard(ft):.........................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes RNo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes PiNo
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes B""'ONo
(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 JRNo
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes *0
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
t R--s
15. Crop type .�...:�:.`.:�`........................................................... t�G 'R-SLGa_,
......................................................................... .....�:!'`.�......................-----......-----...........................................
16, Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes C?"No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes tUNo
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
F' No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
d No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
ff No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑-Yes
t]'No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
bNo
For
Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
No.violations 'or deficiencies.werenoted•du'ring this:visit.' You,wvill receive-iro-ftirtlier•:
:•corresp#ndeRce•alivut�this�visit;•; ,•.•.�.�.•� .••..�. �.: .�; ; : ,�.•.: . :•.�:•.:�:�. :•
r Pb_415 1[a&4"P . a _JQ S�•LLD �
-
w�Alli
Iu" S 1
7/25/97 T
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:

i'
Routine p Complaint p Follow-up of inspection p Follow-up of DSWC review p Utner
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
oat une: m? roc �onfo : oursa _
Farm Status: ■ Registered p Applied for Permit (ex:1 25if66b'�hrat5 min)),(Spent;on�Reviewt ,
p Certified p Permitted or'Inspection'{iiicludesitravehand#incessmg}
in Not Operational I Date Last Operated: I
Farm Name: Oakwood Farms County: Ramdol<ph.......................................... ..W51i.Q........
Owner Name: Thiamas.................................. Lawr=e..........
Facility Contact: Tommy-Lawreace.....................................
Mailing Address: A6.7.9..Lawrrnrz.Fat:m.Road..................
Onsite Representative: Tammy-Lawremm.............
....................................... Phone No. 9.1.Qr.879-.2204 ...............................................
Title: ............................................................... Phone No:..................... ... .... .............
....................................... Seagr.avAAC .......................................................... 27. 91....
Certified Operator:JN.xIIAam..T............................. Lawrcn c...........
Location of Farm:
Latitude ©• ®� ®��
Type of OperationCu
s Swine, ,EL @�'�'' b�e'`f. 'Caps�crtyt P,opulatio�n
p Wean to Feeder
®P ceder to 1, mis
to
............. Integrator: .......................................................................................
Operator Certification Number:1.$8$0 .............................
Longitude ®• ®� ®��
0� € De51gn� 1 3Cur
Tent , .' E,D.esign ,,� Current
�; Poultrys3?�a li �]�a'�pacity ,Popiilat�ons"'Cattle ' ' Capacity ,=Population'
p Layer
p Dairy
p Non -Layer
® on -Dairy
Total Design Capacity 1,20
Total SSLW 295,000
General .
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? p Yes ®No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes ®No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes ®No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface 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? ([f yes, notify DWQ) E3 Yes ®No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p Yes ®No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? p Yes ®No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require p Yes ®No
maintenance/improvement?
4130/97

J acl l y Number: 76_13
6. Is facility not in compliance with any gaicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? p Yes R No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? p Yes ® No
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? p Yes ® No
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Yes p No
Freeboard (ft): Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? p Yes p No
1. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? p Yes p 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 maximum liquid level markers? p Yes p 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 .......Corn.(S.ila,ge.&.Grain)............................ SoybdarLs.................... ...................... F.escue..................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? p Yes p No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? p Yes M No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? p Yes N No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
p Yes
® No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
p Yes
® No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
p Yes
® No
For Certified Facilities Only
22.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
p Yes
p No
23.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
p Yes
p No
24. Does record keeping need improvement? p Yes p No
Reviewer/Inspector Name Coireyasiitger
..
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

tl
❑ DSWC mal Feedlot Operatlon Revit
"
'bWQ Animal Feedlot 0 eratlorl Site Inspection
1. kr�av�
,x
`.r4k"w'¢i;E
n... k�u :, PY :.Sf.Z� F F i
:5
52. ..Y'Mi .
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection 8 9i
Facility Number �-$o Time of inspection 8 : Zo 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: ❑ Registered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for I hr 15 rain)) Spent on Review
❑ Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection includes travel andprocessing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated: ........................................ ...................................................__.................................................
FarmName: ............EA!g s.................................................... County ........2A rS Dot. 14.....................W.5:k..
Land Owner Name:...T11 M!4�g............ .% W iLEi.?�C tr.........................., Phone Na:....91 n..6a-9.....2Zo4.......................
FacilityConctact:.............................._.................................................. Tiitle:................................................ Phone No:..........................................................
Mailing Address:.......��..� 1Lxc E....*{�M..'P.......................`°�Ro`.....+....!`s ....................... :.............. 9'.�..
OnsiteRepresentative: ...,!•.'' "f.!il....... ............................ I.............. Integrator:...............,.......................................................................
Certified Operator:...,..,,,,T:,, ....L!4..:! a-ef,C- f........... Operator Certification Number:,,.,., ........................
Location of Farm:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ 4
a1..! ►u S .... 4! !A'r [ ... a .. A >? !tit....P..l'F .. '.........,�....... P.4 ...... 4-4 riZ.... O".!...L*4?!f <0Ab �}
Latitude �' 30 ` 513 Longitude ®' ®� F za T,
General
1, Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water`? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in galhnin?
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 ZNo
❑ Yes C9No
❑ Yes Pa No
❑ Yes JRNo
❑ Yes ,S�No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes AEfNo
Continued on back

r
Facility Number:.. P,,. �..1.3.... .
6. Is facility not in compliance with an licable setback criteria in effect at the time Sign? ❑ Yes ONO
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes RNo
S. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes )9 No
Structures (1,,112oQua and/or Holding „cowls)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes WNo
Freeboard (ft): Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
10.
............. ......... _.. ............................ ............................ .............. _............ ............................
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
............................
❑ Yes
;ffNo
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
Rio
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
Q No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Waste
Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
9No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type 2 ..................... s....................... ... �..��................................................................
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
17.
Does the facility have a lack.of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
J�rNo
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
ETNo
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ErNo
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
®'No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
0lo
For-Certitid
22.
Eadlities 0111V
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
.Co' ments,(refer to question ^Explain any YES.answers`and/or;ahJ recommendations'or any other comments:
se:drawingszof fadlity to better�explain situations.�(use additional pages as necessary}
t3, 14^ k*�cOkS 190,At.V ..ha054 p,kS 4
►k,.t LA-_VN7W -
�-Pl.�+�s ��w�• a..�! �ow►pte..k. t.�`�..-�� � F�'a' u'etl[,.
rDr•. l�ak+� r h qoo� ShA-p,G
Reviewer/Inspector Name f,,;._ -' `'
2 d, . S - � vi.:. !X f- >P js, i,,. v r. Yet F//):-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: t>v � � [Lwr
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality 4clion, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

An
i
ti
MBWR Biosecurity Procedurds 2-6 Visitors
(Downtime Chart)
MBWM
Destination Farm
DN'
DN
DN
Mult:
Mult
Mult
MBWR
Personnel Movement and Downtime
Requirements Chart
Sow
Nur
Fin
Sow
Nur
Fin
Sanitation
DN Sow
3
3
3
1
1
1
0
DN Nursery
3
3
3
1
1
1
0
DN Finisher
3
3
3
1
1
1
0
Mult. Sow
3
3
3
1
1
1
0
Mult. Nursery
3
3
3
1
1
1
0
ti
H
Mult. Finisher
3
3
3
1
1
1
0
MBWM Sanitation and LBG Garage
3
3
1 3
1
1
1
0
Outside MBWM or Stud system Pig or
Pig Material contact,
3
3
3
3
3.
3
3
Transfer Station, Positive Truck Wash or
Not List farm
Personnel and Equipment Farm Entry Downtime Chart
1. Inside the ring road visits are restricted to ONE FLOW a day
a. Movement down the same flow (saw -nursery -finish) 0 nights down if equal
health status.
b. Lateral movements same flow 0 nights down if equal health status.
c. Movements back up the flow (finish -nursery -sow) one night down from clean and
3 nights down from farm on the hot list.
2. Equipment (power washers, crate sides, flooring etc...) sent out for repair or delivered
from vendors fall into the outside MB Multiplication requirements (3 nights down).
3. Minimum four (4) nights down required from visiting a foreign country (must be cleared
by the DivisionalVeterinarian).
4. All visits to Multiplication properties by non -Multiplication personnel will start on
Mondays only.
5. Feed mill to inside a farm will be 1 night down.

14
MBWR Visitors Only: (any person not assigned to the site)
1. MBWR visitors will enter the Daughter Nucleus and Multiplication Farms and
properties on Mondays only.
a. Exceptions will be federal recognized holidays (New Years, Easter Monday,
Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day, Christmas) that occur on Mondays.
2. MBWR visitors will enter Commercial farms with appropriate downtime in accordance
with table 2.6.
3. MBWR visitors will be required to follow the below guidelines for entering a farm clean
area.
b. All visitors must sign in at the property entrance gate.
c. A West Region Entry Form (WREF) must be approved prior to the visit.
d. A Biosecurity certification card must be in the possession of the crew leader or
the individual (in cases of a one-man crew) for entry to be granted at the farm
entrance gate.
e. All non-MBWR visitors will be met at the main entrance gate unless escorted by
a MBWR employee:
i. All vehicles must be washed inside and out prior to arrival.
ii. All vehicles will be inspected by farm management inside and out for
cleanliness upon initial entry.
iii. If vehicles do not pass inspection entry will be rejected and rescheduled..
f.- All visitor vehicles will remain on or outside the ring road.
g. All visitors will be screened using the approved Farm Visitor Questionnaire
(MBWR 2-4) prior to being allowed to shower into the farm.
i. If information on the entry form does not match information given during
the review of the questionnaire, entry will be'rejected and rescheduled.
4. In addition to the above requirements anyone not employed on the farm on a daily basis
will be required to have an approved entry form prior to arrival at the farm.
S. Pig contact is defined as:
h. Farm, pig and pig material contact includes:
i. Entering the property of any swine farm, facility, truck wash or garage.
ii. Contact with live hogs or hog mortality.
iii. Contact with hog waste or lagoon water.
iv. Contact with rendering and packing plants.
v. Contact with equipment or materials that have had farm, pig or pig
material contact.
vi. Contact with property of a facility where swine related equipment is
repaired or stored (i.e.... Hog Slat stores).
vii. A person has attended a fair or livestock show or auction.
viii. A diagnostic/swine lab.
ix. Travel outside the United States of America.

i5o&AC - J`+ V r r' O
Uivigion of Water Resource
Facility Number - O DWision oilf Soand Waterreservation /0 M
� 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 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 2 '] Arrival Time: IDb � Departure Time: County: j�11�0� h Region: L05k6
Farm Name: 6a 1e.1►3ood Fair- m s Owner Email:
Owner Name: 'Tb p w as L mine e- n ! Phone: e-f- l C 3�j2- — f (} ZZ
Mailing Address: In 1619 I,Qwir"2-Ylee. r [�.rm 1�-c� 5-0 ro ve NL a 7 31t1
i'
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Py_i1 t5 ow ao_n e 42- Title: Phone: H 4?-79 - a a O`i
Onsite Representative: P�rf Its Integrator: m l-kv, Vie. IQ
Certified Operator: uoill qm"T- L&Wro-nce_ Certification Number:
Sack -up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Certification Number:
�O i �t
Latitude: ,3S 3 Q tlto Longitude:
7164 q ' L1 Z"
2 20 93) Nd, 765,C)UP, t"0LLU r8,V1ee F a_.V-n,l (Zd o
Design Current
Design
Current
current
Swine
Capacity' Pap.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
0:Design
Cattle
capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dai Calf
Feeder to FinishInc)
Dair Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
I]r, Poultr,
Ca aci
P,o
Non- Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
.jF
Non -Layers
eef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
w+
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 4 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes L�rNo
❑ Yes PFNo
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - • jDate of Inspection: '7 2-
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes J�rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Skucctture I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: �4SfAr u1 f" PI f" Louw h-�
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 30
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes L5all�o ❑ NA 0 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 <o ❑ 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 E�fN o ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No JNrNA ❑ 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 <0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Apnlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes I It No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? `�"
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes % No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Windf Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): Ms4-u re , ft_hra(1 5 11t _n P,/ n f GL' v7 Qkodl r-re-i n Cie) V &8
13. Soil Type(s): `�
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes 4� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable [] Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑Yes bj� o 0NA ONE
❑ Yes 0No ❑ NA ❑ NE
ReQuired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? [:]Yes JKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21 Does record y
eeping need improvement? If yes, check
Waste ApgStocking5(C'rop"Yield�12OMinut(
ation
{Rainfall IJ22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge,
the appropriate box below.Yes �No
aste Analysis Sol] Analysis ers
Inspections Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Yes ONO
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 2 of 3
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ NA ❑ NE
XNA ❑ NE
21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection: Z
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste appl�ion 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
❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
JXNA
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
2$. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
JZNo
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
k3 INo
❑ 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
J? No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative'?
❑ Yes
0No
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
gNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.:
Us wings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
I. es+ a� Sol i tes+5 Ca+lu+ le-t��l l n aot see aat& '1n5Pe�bn�7
C OL l 'I b raL_ +1 d h5 u I �1 g . 60 kR I� , r�8
U; reA
0, rleltJ r% .20
U Su es-k n q TO a,n h ZA.* P .
ue,+ oL-remtr\A4.r `6� -- Lord si I*-Ie y l��d e-54 >xa-Ye_5o
°� _!_ �' 4�r1 1-�Y-OQ S 0.d de� -�0 4, inn atn u r� W_ 1 Q IeAS e_
r �a?-ord I b.,5. n l *o �wn / a ,CQ, e,* ra, n l A-ro erN
�corc�5a-. arm too jooJ, 4o , le-5
Reviewer/Inspector r
Reviewer/Inspector S
Page 3 of 3
Phone: JA . 7 . q 6 q
Date: ,' 2-N' x01 7
21412015

Type of Visit: gk Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: VRoutine Q Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral Q Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: �`� Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: h Region: QS R
Farm Name: tla F&CM5
Owner Name: ""�� q-1 _ UN'Q.(1C t
Mailing AddressT(,
Owner Email:
Phone: 6&11 3 C — -1 6-5 a-' -
C
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: p 1h:5 La IAir wce— itle: Phone: 14 $? 9 - 'o? --Lot/
Onsite Representative: Phi (G -5 Integrator:
Certified Operator: 111 Td 1, k w r C e_ Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Certification Number:
Latitude:. QI 6t J Longitude: —1Log _` r i
w � Ra 6 f iV
D i E -ni 0Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Eattle
Design Current
C*apacity Pap.
Wean to Finish
R'Non-Layer
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
DairyCalf
Av..Layer
Feeder to Finish p00
Farrow to Wean Design C*urrent
Farrow to Feeder D , Poultr, Ca aci P.o .
Farrow to Finish Layers
Gilts 9 Non -Layers
DairyHeifer
D Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Q
Boars Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other TurkeyPoults
Other Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes []No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [] No [DNA [-]NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes DNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes i No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: 1,2 - Date of Inspection: low
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
l Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
Structure 1
Dr
Structure 2
UQW�
Structure 3 Structure 4
Lou.xer
P;j-
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes ' No ❑ NA ❑ NE
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
jNrNo
❑ 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
gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA
❑ 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
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
jkrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes * No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): � � j�,�-C�1A
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes 0 No X NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
12'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
rV 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:
I. Does record keeping need im rovement? Ifyes, shoe ❑ No No RNA ❑ NE
Waste Appli tion Waste Analysis Soil Analysis Weather Code
Rainfall [Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections �] Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No r& NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: - 13 Lie 1W
Date of Inspection: ja
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [] No �NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No ZNA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
IX
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
0 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
CR<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
f No ❑ NA ❑ NE
�mments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
&Arawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
of -To C.&-u -e Rog.,
R o 12' .
520* loo, l0 3, �- fo 7.�.JAA.P? �, � � Z►1 N„'" ,,��r . Q�Iac,B-�,
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: �Q 9� 9 1 •�
Date: $ G
214,12014

!rr i aid Foo$ Cxvi4Qtr
(Type of Visit: P Compliance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: �6 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 110114 Arrival Time: Departure Time: � [ County: d h Region: 5 P_
AK
Farm Name: 6AJ LOwner Email
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address: & q NC ;?.-73Y1
Physical Address:
3Q 1
Facility Contact: IL4 AjU Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator:Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
R-,;Lo S j
Certification Number:
Latitude: '315�
m-I_J NC,, 7 0 51
Longitude: "r 9 "f i 4 --xJ
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Design C►urrent Design C*urrent
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle Capacity Pap.
Layer Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
ow to Wean
DairyHeifer
Design Current D Cow
D_r, P,oult , Ca aci Fo Non -Dairy
ow to Feeder
to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
s
Non -La ersBeef
Feeder Q
!Farrow
rs
Pullets
Beef Broad Cow
er
Turke s
Turke Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify 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?
[:]Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes IX No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412014 Continued

he1b L I
Facility Number: 7 (Q : _ . Q Date of Inspection: AW 1 5—
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
e,,r Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
1 Identifier: T I' L u,L p
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
Structure 5
0No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑No ❑NA ❑NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes CR`�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes I r No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ 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
' ro
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
TT``
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
Nlfio
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved
Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s): S^
14. Do the receiving cro s differ from thosgesignated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
16NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
P 'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA
[] NE
acres determination?
17. Docs the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? []Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Reauired 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP []Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21.oes record keeping need improvement? �sF�3�e�pp ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ NE
Waste Applicat' n Waste Analysis Soil Analysis Weather Code
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield 20 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections nsupp-ey-
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes tRNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No 5;rNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: - i Date of Inspection
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes J�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes ❑ No
,<NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [] Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
,,,[
❑ Yes �J No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
l�'
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
3 1. 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?
ElYes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Usejdr.4yingsfacility to explain situations (use additional ages as necessary).
�of fbe�tter
a2 ycr`-C Li u�+'"-.'�' .' V'ti(1"'� � WL &t owl+u-
a �[ - d.t-0 .2-01 & ,
aols .
�o/o/aolq
It I/ao1S
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
55 P - ! . 8 4-5 - /Jl- oN. 1. S 5
L5S .9S 14-s .doallovad15-= 6
I, 7, S Q TC11 SA .1i1 6La 5 S V �A7 �I rPhane: -7-7 — Q A
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date: db'_615-
I21412014

' .
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: $ Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1571 MI Arrival Time: Departure Time: [J. County: R&P d 4 r h Region: 0SIQ0
Farm Name: ©cLY_t a d FQr m 5 Owner Email:
Owner Name: 1-hom A 5 LaLo r" Phone:
Mailing Address: 6 6 7 4 Lai W r-" ce_ Far -In R. (A . , Se_a.q_ ra v c ,, N C-)
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: h G i 15 L atuu r,en C--e­ Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: W I I t I QM LTorvL Law r n ce-
Back-up Operator:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 3 S 3o yla
Longitude: —7Q q� Q ;'
;-0 5 , G aS t a1 N C 7 OS
Ue.l j
Im MI 1
101 Design
C►urrent
Design Current
Swine Capacity
Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -Layer
Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dr. P.oultro
C.a aci
P,o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
s
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes P14
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
0 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No [:]NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XZ/[]
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes3� NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection: S Z
low
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: Df 5
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes b1i 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 �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No j1 "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 ❑ Yes X
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application 10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ��(<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? i77iii""������
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Pending ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground [3 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):
1.*­t4-
/t_L�
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
Yes o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes b�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes DQ o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
[] Yes tK'NNoo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes *No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If w.
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ W to Application ❑ Waste Analysis oil Analysis
❑ Weather Code
ainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield [3120 Minute Inspections onthly and V Rainfall
Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes oNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
[:]Yes ❑ No
T4/NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412011 Continued

Facility Number: {p - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [] Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [:]No
❑ NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
4NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes J)a/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
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
ANO 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
N<o ❑ 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 additiono pages. as necessary).
al� aoi� soils?
all 5 L
a%11 1� , . 7 J h-S /Vl 7'0ti .
ICZ
Reviewer/Inspector Name: r (�� Phone: —7
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 3 of 3 21412011

M
'7(.- H 15--2--
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: Arrival Time: a.a Departure Time: County: 41-101 Region: Ws'pa
Farm Name: oil(vloc�'] Owner Email:
Owner Name: I `'tomej tq"A,1 ce_ Phone: ff 7 7 Z Z�
Mail!ng Address: � � !��"`� � ti rtiv_ G
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: _ h c, �Ilr La `^� Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: i { Integrator:
Certified Operator: "` ��'`Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
LffoiJcation of Farm: Latitude: � 3a Longitude: o ®L
Design Current
Design urrent
C
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
I
I JEI Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
El
El❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ La ers
Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑Non-ts ers
El
Beef Feeder 30
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Turkey FouIts
❑ Other
❑Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
ElNA
ElNE
ElYes
JNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — 3 • Date of Inspection d b 1 •
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 1Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: br4 2Lek
Structure 5
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes �No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ YesNo
❑ 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 V No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes ❑ No
XNA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
4. 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 ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes PNo
❑ 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 ElApplicationOutside of Area
12. Crop type(s) e::errt S I % , 4, " 24, �— �M � �! L
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes No
❑NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
lb
ElYes ❑ NoNA
X
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
/
❑ Yes ,�'No❑
NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
„R #�-�`�•�.rl.a`,;,.,;��i'! >a<° .<r. 4 #d'. .d;��l;•�;�o�'"�z :��e�
Comments ( Refer to;quest�on„#} Explam,agy YESfanswers andionanny re^commendations�oran y other comments.
sx.
ppUse draw�ngsof�facility to better ezplam situations.=(use additional pages as necessary)
x�
L
2.
Reviewer/Inspector Name `�` `� q; �i �,� Phone: r% —SZS
.. �_I
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: L) 7—D
Page 2 of 3 I2128104 Continued

Facility Number: 174 — 13 1 Aelof Inspection o3 0
Renuired Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes IdCI No
❑ NA
El NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
El Yes �No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box. 0 WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes kNo
ElNA
❑ NE
aste Application 21prweekly Freeboard aste Analy ' So=Analysi�s-_ aste Transfers on
01 anfall Stocking Crop Yield 20 Minute Inspections 4 onthly and I"
Rain Inspections E3Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes ❑ No
gNA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes o
❑ NA
El NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
El No
�NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes ;No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
ElYesNo
X
ElNA
[INE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
ElYesANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes X'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
,,��...,,//
❑ Yes P/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 XNo
ElNA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
ElYes PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
AdditionafCommenA and/or Drawings:
2� 1,141
2W 4 gt� 4/-k '4 d- � CltaC AI(%—
�T6
�-
�,,� iM p r,,�r
ULI�
Page 3 of 3 I2128104

Division of Water QualityW
Facility Number 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O 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: Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: ?,6-1 County: Region: w—s- (.1
Farm Name: 00Lwaa6 ar'iA6 Owner Email: II
Owner Name: `ti=A a.5 I .QAw a$ce __ _ Phone: 17 9
Mailing Address: r awrt*nce 1— Li'rd If °,
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: __ 1 _M �� LL1Wre.Y1_U'itle: Phone No:
Onsite Representative:
n Integrator:
v Certified Operator: � U ` a�- 0 n c Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [e ® 6 FMIS Longitude:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Pouets
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b, Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heitei
❑
Dry_ Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocket
Beef Feeder
;i Ulm
Beef Brood Cow
-
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
EA No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
y "No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104
Continued

Facility Numher: i3 Date of Inspection H;111 I Jy*
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA El 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: � 1Y�
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
(iel large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
N� No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
X No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
RA ❑ 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 Aimlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?�No
1. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ NA ElNE
[IExcessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ElFrozen Ground [IHeavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[:]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
X No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
❑ No
VNA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
ALI
Reviewer/Inspector Name ro hone: 3 1
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Ily I %ate:
12128104 Continuer!

Facility Number: 7 -- I Aate of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes VLNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping nee7ecklyFreeboard
vement? o: ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
rite Applica ion [Waste Analysis oil Analysis L_fwaste Transfers
Rainfall IR Stocking 0 Crop Yield 1Z120 Minute Inspections Monthly and V Rain Inspections AWcather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes X
No ❑ NA ElNE
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ElYes ❑ No X NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ YesNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? El Yes [,R�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes YNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ko
ElNA
ElNE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
[a Yes
No
ElNA
ElNE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
AfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
YNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
0No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
a adb SDI 1 +`es- " re5 L) [f s
ht,4� 0,V
, l a-L,10
a•1 145.N/ToN —5sg
Page 3 of 3 12/28/04

Type of Visit T Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit eRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Qq� Arrival Time: Departure Time: 0= County: LIO/ Region: L051W
Farm Name: �Q 1L W P ms Owner Email:
Owner Dame: 1 V l d mas L a_w on e e Phone:
Mailing Address: �[ L awrWCe Fa-rrn Pd• ea faV� luc a 3V f
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representa
Certified Operator
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No: ` _ a�26
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ®s Longitude: I PA
Design C►urrent
Design C►urrent Design C**urrent
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattie Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
10 Layer I I ❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
10 Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean Dry Poultry
ODry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish El Layers
Beef Stocker
El Gilts ❑ Non-Layers
Beef Feeder
❑ Boars ❑Pullets
El Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turke s
Other P—Turkey Puults
❑ Other 100ther I
umber of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 6 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
StructureStructure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
t`U Identifier: D
��
``I
STaCIL--
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �q
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
[ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
❑ No XNA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
No [INA ElNE
maintenance/improvement?
rrri__
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
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
(No ❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ YestNo
No El
El NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
El Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
' '- �?k 00�. tip''.
Comments {refer to question #): x Explain any YES -answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments YL' �7 ^'
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary}�, Y:r)
Reviewer/InsectorName �g`- - TT_ Phone:
ilk �* g I
p
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: J� ] Date:
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: -110— I31ife of Inspection 0
•
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Doe record keeping need impr vement? / ❑ Yes L�({ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application gee y Freeboard [�, Waste Analysis [ Soil Analysis rs / tiff �
E,Lnfall tocking ]rop Yield aonthly and 1" Rain Inspections Bather 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 VNA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No` 9NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes7T No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues I
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 ElNE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately 0
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
A'dditionalCamments;andloT�Draw,ngs„E
alI +e54- res
pre-odex tali b ra+mod ,
12/28/04

r-G%f V
Facility Number
Division of Water Quali-4
Division of Soil and Water,
0 Other Agency
nservation
(Type of VisitCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit yRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Farm Name:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representati
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
Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: /P4Region: W—f 6
Q rm - Owner Email:
F_
Phone: 03 7 q+
Phone No:
Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude:
Design Current Design Current Design Curre
Capacity Population Wet Poultry ' Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Popuial
❑ Layer El Dairy
❑ Non -La er ❑ Dai Calf
Other
❑ Other
i
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
ElTurkeys
[I Turkey Poults
ElOther
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?
Cow
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Da Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder 1+30
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
e. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes �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
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?
Cow
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Da Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder 1+30
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
e. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes �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
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
e. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes �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

C4 LDate
Facility Number:
of Inspection
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier: ^5&4'r
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 1
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
,, f
L� No
❑ NA
El NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
i
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
*No
ElNA
[INE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental t reat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
NA
❑V
❑ 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
[IN E
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
A
ElNA
ElNE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
XNo
[INA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ElFrozen Ground [IHeavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s) 6F �: a P�)
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
No ❑ NA
X
❑ NE
�No ElNA
❑ NE
❑ No X NA
❑ NE
ANo ❑ NA
❑ NE
06o ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): .
A,
Reviewer/Inspector Name r Phone: Sz
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 r - `' V ' 12128104 Continued

9 Facility Number. — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have 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 �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21, Do s record keeping nee=ce
ement? PF4 -q Mhc-1 ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
ste A lic ion Freeboard aste Anal sis Soil Ana sis w9+ ❑ppY Y nt
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield ne onthly and 1"Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes XN'o ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No DNA ❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
X No
❑ NA
ElNE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
ElYes
No
El NA
El NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
El
No
El 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
Adfw+nal Comments and/or Drawings:
� I
r ,
e
ZA,
�4
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number — 9Division of Soil and Water-onservation Q,^
0 Other Agency ` 30"
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 ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Farm Name:
Owner Name: fthc
Mailing Address: A
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: _.,;
Back-up Operator: _
Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region: Q- 0
yyi�Owner Email: % 1
� � Phone: ;z
"1�4 Ire riaary.e M t c�.q f'o U� , L a
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ®� I HfA Longitude: ° ®° FU
v S D-DO S • a nn -1a S e&8 rave . i5a5 -7 d S
RA b b �Y, S . �- 6n4-6 Law Q'1Ce- ` C. r11A_ Qd .
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feede.
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
_ ❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer...
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow,
❑
Daia Calf
❑
Dairy Heifei
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
%Beef
Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: T_
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & 'rreatment
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:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which arc not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes TRNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes )<No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No �RKA ❑ 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 *No ❑ NA [I NE
maintenance/improvement? Xyes
//!!//����\\11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
AN ❑ PAN> 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ElNA
ElNE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'?
ElYes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
❑ No
�NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
�(No
[]NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): [Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
4&
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

FacilityNumber: ' — • �,�-----}� •
Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No El NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to haiW11UP
compon is of the CA P readily vailable? I yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. Checklists Design Maps Other
21. Do s record keeping need improvement?4ee3-eke riate�ioxhelQw. Yes ❑ No El NA ❑ NE
Waste Applic ion Waste Analysisil alysis Waste Transfers ien---
XRainfall Stocking Crop Yield l_y 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
❑��` No >] NA
El NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ;R b
El Yes
gNo /❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No 'NA
2No
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
ElYes
❑NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No %NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[>To ❑ 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
WIo ❑ 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
ElNE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewerlinspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
X No ❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
tNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
�0-I bL�
19��_
a%/, )7 130167,
. of
/ 1IF
r

r�
Type of Visit (.)Compliance Inspection (W Operation Review O 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: Arrival Time: C� Depa� tore Time: County:!)Q�___ Region:. -5 -
Farm Name: �___----_. -._.._.-.__. Owner Email: --_---
Owner Name: L1�CY�L���1,���4.J------ ---.—.--._..r..._---- Phone: _0� 1 ':�U-r- --- ----- _-
Mailing Address: _
Physical Address: �O'►_.-�__.__ _ _�� �sLi✓..i--_7'7'a `�I.__...___ __.-._ _ - _
Facility Contact: hQ�� M �(.Cfi.�_ _ .._...- Title: -_ _.__...-._ _.w.,... . _.._.... Phone No:..��1_'
Onsite Representative: .�fa.��it1_._�;hCs.�..._Y._.... - - Integrator:
Certified Operator: �� -t'CVI.( _.__...... Operator Certification Number: ...... .�_.�Q..�..4._----_
Back-up Operator:
_...._...._._,_.... -._.__ .- Back-up Certification Number: „
Location of Farm: Latitude: M o ® ® Longitude. i + -r i o 0 '
F ibm C. - r, 1�hbbi r;--J-c
Design Current Design . Cui rent Design Current
Sivme ; "r Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population , }Cattle Capacity; Population
El Wean
❑ Layer
1. ❑ Non -La er
r
Dry Poultry , =r
La ers^
FEI
Non -La ersPullets
t'
❑ Turkeys
r{Other
,.x
❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other
❑ Other
IVutnber of Structures
Z.{
e�,
to Finish
rr
El Wean to Feeder
z
y; El Feeder to Finish
El Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder
❑Farrow to Finish
-Gilts
Boars
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dai Calf
❑ Dai Heifer
❑ D Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
�
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at; ❑Structure ❑Application Field ❑Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑Yes
❑ No
� NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑Yes
❑ No
� NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑yes
❑ No
[,�NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
El Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
--.---3. -Were there any adverse impacts or,potential adverse impacts to the -Waters of the State - • --• ---- --
--❑•Yes--'-
No -
❑ NA -
[]-NE-
other than from a discharge?
12/18/04 Continued

I •li acili#y Number:
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall} less than adequate? ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® NA ❑ NE
Structure 1. Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes '® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes (] No � NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes EINo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[:]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 101bs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
f� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination i ❑ Yes
❑ No
ESNA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
y. ®► Sy rnW 0.►yzw.:�, c� rn k "+^- dAA,5ttcL �ukLLd afCA A- WOL ►Jrc.Q Q -
It- w u S,V'aA&tCji vokk
-Reviewer/inspector-Name -Phone:__-G
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: _ . _ .. Date: L2Lll lc
12129104 Continued

r
Facility Number: - elite of Inspection •
Required Records & Documents
I9. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 50 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA Cl NE
the approprrate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT)'certification?
Other Issues
28., Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than no
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
JZ[ No
❑ NA .
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
®)NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
(XNA ,
❑ NE
❑ Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
O NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
WNo
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
(NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
®No
El NA
El NE
❑ Yes 0 No' ❑ NA ❑ NE
12129104

Facility Number: eDate of Inspection
Technical Assistance Needed
Provided
34, Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
35. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
36. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
37. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
38. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
39. 2H.0200 re -certification
❑
❑
40. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
41. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
.42. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
43. SIudge Evaluation
❑
❑
44. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
45. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
46. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
47. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
48.Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
49. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
50. Site evaluation
❑
❑
51. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
52, Imgation system design/installation
❑
❑
53. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
54.Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
55. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
56, Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
57. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
58. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
59. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
❑
❑
60. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
61. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
62. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
63. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
64. Waste operator education
65.Operation & maintenance education
66. Record keeping education
67. Crop/forage management education
68. Soil and/or waste sampling education
69. PLAT
70.Other
List Improvements Made by Operation:
1
2.
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑

0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Sol I and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 760013 Facility Status: Permit: 6WC760013 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Randolph Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 05/31/2006 Entry Tlme:09:20 AM Exit Time:12145 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Oakwood Farms Owner Email:
Owner: Thomas _Lj=nce Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 6679 Lawrence Farm Rd Seagrove NC 273418220
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
Latitude: 35°30'46" Longitude: 79"44'4 "
Farm Location: east from Seagrove onto NC 705 toward Robbins and turn right on Lawrence Farm Rd.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
a Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
ji Other issues
Certified Operator: William Thomas Lawrence Operator Certification Number: 21611
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Phyillis Lawrence Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Phyillis Lawrence Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: sa Rosebro Phone:
re Inspector Signatu:efs Date: 3Lj
Secondary tnspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
11. One field was overapplied. May have misapplied due to there being two types of manure (swine slurry and cattle solid) to account
for.
21. Fall crop yield for corn in 2005 was not recorded last Fall. Small grain to be harvested this Summer should be checked for crop
yields during fall 2006 visit. Pasture fields do not need crop yields.
24. Calibration was completed Dec. 2005. Not required again until Oct, 2008:
3130/06 waste analysis=4.9 lbs. Nlton.
Page: 1

- . r
Permit: AWC760013 Owner- Facility: Thomas Lawrence
Inspection Date: 05/31/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
•
Facility Number: 760013
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
O Cattle - Beef Feeder 430 120
O Cattle - Dairy Calf 90
Total Design Capacity: 430
Total SSLW: 344,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
ID ry Stack DRY STACK I I
54.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWC760013 Owner - Facility: Thomas Lawrence Facility Number: 760013
Inspection Date: 05/31/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yea No NA NE
I. 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) 001111
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
❑
MOO
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Ap licp ation 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: AWC760013 Owner - Facility: Thomas Lawrence
Facility Number: 760013
Inspection Date: 05/31/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Aphcp ation
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
i
Soybeans
Crop Type 3
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 4
Fescue (Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
U. 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?
❑
■
❑
Cl
16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
❑
■
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
1& Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yea
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: AWC760013 Owner - Facility: Thomas Lawrence
Facility Number: 760013
Inspection Date: 05/31/2006 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yee No NA NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields? ■
Stocking? ❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)? ❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
25, Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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: AWC760013 Owner- Facility: Thomas Lawrence Facility Number: 760013
Inspection Date: 05/31/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ M ❑ ❑
32. Did Reviewerlinspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ M ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 6

gNivision of Water.Quality
�Facflit�yumber ', (a _ a Division of Soil and Water Conservation
-- - O Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluatlon 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 5 Arrival Time: fJ Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: e y-'Vi dad E QwrtRS Owner Em j1�:
Owner Name: I g man LGi wre✓ )ce< Phone: TL D l 1 r ;1-2' Oq
Mailing Address: •_--�.� �0 1 L'a.L ]re-nce , &Acm fkL rove- t t3L a-7:3
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative}}: `` 45 4.1,ur4.Y1G-e_ Integrator:
Certified Operator: [�� 11a11/1ThetYia,S L4Lc�'r� L� Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: � ®�� Longitude: ®° ��—
Design Current .
Swine Capacity Population
10 Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other
Discharees & Stream Imuacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
El Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes o ElNA [INE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: (d — V3� Date of Inspection I J � Qzoo
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?
).�4 Structure I Structure 2
Identifier:�--
" Spillway?: _ N o
Design Fr eboard (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
El NA El NE
El NA El NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes KNo ❑ 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 N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) ,
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. JNryes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN 9 PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
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?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ No [�(NA
❑ NE
�No ❑ NA
❑ NE
�No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question#): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations ar any'other'comm6ts "1'
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional.pages as necessary)::._,
1 -
OWA --AAAW
1
Reviewer/Inspector Name (6
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu
f O T Phone:
Date: d
Page 2 of-3 12128104 Continued

0
Facility Number: — ate of Inspection rp
Reouired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ElNA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ElWUP ❑ Checklists ElDesign El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? , Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Appl'ir
ee Waste Analysis Soil Analysis r
lS� Rainfall Stocki Cro Yield m 2<.nthl and 1 " Rain Inspections Bather Code
P P Y P
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes �No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
XNA ❑ NE
El NA ❑NE
*A ❑ NE
El NA El NE
�(NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
ETNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
'Additional i Drawings:
dr
XMV
•
Page 3 of 3
12128104

Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection (Kpperation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit W,Routine Q Complaint 0 Follow up Q Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Datc of Visit: ,JArrival Time: Departure Time: County 1� Region:
Farm Name:_ll�l �G1lYYlf Owner Email: I
Owner Name: t_ �A I tej
j Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: //��,,
Facility Contact: Title: CiAVU1L.
Onsite Representative:Integrator:
Certified Operator:Operator Certification Number: �L l
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Fiaw• SQa5k.w -
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone No: r
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: © e ®� ®� Longitude: 00
©� l�
Tv.) 705 WaAtL -Robbins . -TJF t W.6uticA F%Lkh .--)Rj -
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
i TJ 10 Non-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
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Da Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
® Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
EZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
1� NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[R'NA
❑ NE
NNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes 1No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes IgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

c_ +
Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
CrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 72
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
5dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(iel large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
E�ZNo ❑ 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
YNo ❑ 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)
'W
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
`W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
��,,,,
CJ(,,o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
14No
❑ 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
fgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Ejallo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/inspector Name �. s "a �u r �`1 Phone:
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 Continued

- • t
Facility Number: 0of Inspection .
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes §�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists El Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and l" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[I(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
C<NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
-TA
❑ 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
CS:&A
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[5rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ 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
YNo
❑ 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
RNo
❑ 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
93'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by -same agency'?
❑ Yes
(XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
[Additional C'omntents and/or Drawings:
12128104

Facility Number: Rate of Inspection 0
Technical Assistance
34. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
35. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
36. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
37. Forms Need (list in comment section)
38. Missing Components (list in comments)
Needed
Provided
❑
❑
39.2H,0200 re -certification
❑
❑
40. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
41. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
42.Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
43. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
44. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
45. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
46. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
47. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
48. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
49. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
50. Site evaluation
❑
❑
51. irrigation Calibration
❑ .
❑
52. Irrigation system design/installation
❑
❑
53. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
54.Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
55. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
56. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
57. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
58. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
59. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
❑
❑
60. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
61. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
62. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
63. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
64. Waste operator education
❑
❑
65.Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
66. Record keeping education
❑
❑
67. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
68. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
69. PLAT
❑
70.Other
❑
❑
List Improvements Made by Operation:
3.
4.
5.
6. 12128104

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: Z60913 Facillty Status: Active Permit: AWC760013 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Insoection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine T _ County: Randolph Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 06/28/2005 Entry Time: 09:30 AM Exit Time: 11:30 AM
Farm Name: Oakwood Farms
Owner: Thomas Lawrgpce
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone: ,&879-2204
Mailing Address: 6679 Lawrence Farm Rd — Uilarove NC 273418220 ,
Physical Address.
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 35°30'46" Longitude: "
Farm Location: east from Seagrove onto NC 705 toward Robbins and turn right on Lawrence Farm Rd.
Question Areas:
0 Discharges & Stream Impacts 0 Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents 0 Other Issues
Certified Operator: William Thomas Lawrence Operator Certification Number: 21611
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Phyillis Lawrence Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Phyillis Lawrence Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Me i sa M Rosebrock Phone: [phone]
Ext.383
Inspector Signature:bLmA�Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
218/05 Waste analysls=4.0 lbs. N/ton
11. Overapplication may have occurred on one field that received both cattle and swine waste this year. Mrs. Lawrence's paper
records show an additional application of cattle waste that her computer records don't. We discussed record keeping options to avoid
this problem in the future.
Otherwise, farm and records are excellent.
Page: 1

0
3
Permit: AWC760013 Owner - Facility: Thomas Lawrence
Inspection Date: 06/28/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 760013
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
0 Cattle -Beef Feeder 430 110
Total Design Capacity: 430
Total SSLW: 344,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Dry Stack DRY STACK 72.00
Page: 2

x
Permit: AWC760013 Owner • Facility: Thomas Lawrence Facility Number: 760013
Inspection Date: 06/28/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Yac
❑
No NA NE
M ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
M ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (it yes, notify DWQ)
❑
goo
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0 ❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potentlal adverse Impacts to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑
Yac
0 ❑ ❑
No NA NE
Waste Collection_ Stnrage & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
M ❑ ❑
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,
❑
0 ❑ ❑
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑
. ❑ ❑
closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
❑ ❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑
❑ ❑
and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
0 ❑ ❑
improvement?
Yen
No NA NE
Wasie Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or Improvement?
❑
0 ❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
M
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN a 10%110 lbs.?
�
Total P2057
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge Into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Fescue
(Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

i
Penult: AWC760013 Owner - Facility: Thomas Lawrence
Facility Number: 760013
Inspection pate: 06/28/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Aonlicatinn
Crop Type 6
Yes
Nn NA
NE
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan(CAWMP)? ❑
■ ❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the Irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■ ❑
❑
17. Does the facility tack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■ ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of property operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
■ ❑
No NA
❑
NE
Records and Qocumenls
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■ ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fall to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 Inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to Install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑ ❑
26. Did the facility fall to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Page: 4

2
i •
Permit: AWC760013 Owner -Facility: Thomas Lawrence Facility Number: 760013
Inspection Date: 06/28/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? 00011
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those mortality ❑ M ❑ ❑
rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concem? if yes, contact a regional Air Quality 0000
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional ❑WQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ M ❑ ❑
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative? ❑ N ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ 0 Cl ❑
Page: 5

Type of Visit P 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
I Fa
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: (��j I County: Region: \OGM
Farm Name: L- A Farm l Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address: t-F' t� �'eJ�%il rf�,
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �� 1
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: E
Back-up Operator: _
Location of Farm:
N c., kiuxq -7os �e4S-} chF- r i�
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone: 9.0
x rOye. G a -7 3 d-1
�11e: Phone No:
1jjq.q6
Tots
Integrator:
(W—eOperator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: L [MLongitude:Eg
°
+6 LC&u] nevi -ce— 'Fo4wr
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
I
❑ Layer
❑ Non-Layet.
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges es & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Daia Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
El Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
�f
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
mp
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: ___�IOL• Date of Inspection OIX
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
INo
❑ 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: i0` ,
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats he integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
kNo
El
❑ NE
(ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
[IYes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate puhlic 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��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 Drill ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) ut� /pQ5y Az—, c; lry Go I to r o 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination'
❑ Yes
❑ No
)fNA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
X,No
El NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
El yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur • Date:
1212814 Continued

Facility Number:- j p2 60f Inspection Q i
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Doe ecord keeping neeVwle
rovement? If yes, chec a appropriateWsoil
below. ❑ Yes �(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
aste Application y Freeboard Waste Analysis A al sis a rs�WeatherCodc'
Y
ainfall ❑Stocking Crop Yield L� Monthly and I" Rain Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?QJ ❑ Yes ONo
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
27, Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Pen -nit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
�NA
El NA
LRNA
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XN o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
[IYes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional-Gominents;and/or Drawings:
a j46[ 05- 41
b, . r�1
4
12a8104

technical Assistance Site Visit
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
DWon of Soil and Water Conservatioi l
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number 76 - 13-2 Date: 12/15/04 Time: 1 915 Time On Farm: 45 WSRO
Farm Name Oakwood Farms
Mailing Address 6679 Lawrence Farm Road
Onsite
Representative Thomas & Phillis Lawrence
Type Of Visit
Operation Review
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
County Randolph Phone: [phone]
Seagrove NC 27341
Integrator
Purpose Of Visit
pO Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
® Non -Dairy
DWon of Soil and Water Conservatioi l
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number 76 - 13-2 Date: 12/15/04 Time: 1 915 Time On Farm: 45 WSRO
Farm Name Oakwood Farms
Mailing Address 6679 Lawrence Farm Road
Onsite
Representative Thomas & Phillis Lawrence
Type Of Visit
Operation Review
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
County Randolph Phone: [phone]
Seagrove NC 27341
Integrator
Purpose Of Visit
pO Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
® Non -Dairy
434
325
❑ 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 NA
Level (Inches)
CROP TYPES orn Soybeans wheat joats I ISmall grain cover Fescue- raze lCorn, Silage
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES Ge132 BaB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 76 - 13-2 Date:
12/16/04
PARAMETER
© No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30.21-1.0200 re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
[117. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33.Organizelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39.Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Reaulatory Referrals
1E]
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
❑ Other...
43. Irrigation system designlinstallation
El
❑
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
IMPROVEMENTS
45.Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
1LIST
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1.
47. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
2,
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
El
❑
El3
52. Buffer Improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4'
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5'
56.Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6
58. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
2 I 03/10/03

C]
I Facility Number 76 - 13-2 Date: 12115ro4 I
COMMENTS:
"Updated WU P 1219104 - added small grain cover to allow for winter applic of waste
analysis - 1216104 N = 4.6 Ibslton (wet)
8/2/04 N = 14.5 Ibslton (wet)
Is analysis - 3/22/04 - no problems
applic - applic to wheat & fescue - no problems
received new permit - discussed changes
y stack - looks good, no runoff
-----> gravel drain for roof runoff looking good
ilage - no runoff, good veg around facility
- look good
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST 113etsy K. Gerwig
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 12/17/04 Entered By: 113etsy K. Gerwi
3 03/10/03

�€gt,.l'I?, !' € ..,� �:,e�r ! 3
_ vision.of Water^/hall !'i�.`s 1, €' ! `,i eti
�.x.'E�l�„[rk, rest,..., 'L.. ie� viainne�CCnil.£9nilkWoFaNG'n��ienivo4.nn r�.f€ ! �. c :-U°�.�� l��:. .!� l.I£..,..
Type of Visit S Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit S Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 13-2 Date of Visit: 8/24/2004 Time: 9:20
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold :.........................
Farm Name: 0.8kmodfax7R1S.........................................................
Owner Name:T.hQjM.U5.................................. Lars r�at�tr................
Mailing Address: 6.67.Q.Lavert~mc�.F�x�t.toad................................
Facility Contact: PllylliS.Lawromf..........................................Title:
Onsite Representative: Eby11Aa.Lawxt acr...................
....................... County: RAmdolph ......................................... WNW........
Phone No: Q3Q.&7..9rUQ4........................................................
Seagran.NC......................................................... 2.7.3.1..............
.......... Phone No: $79A097..1nmlmy...
......................... Integrator:............... ............
Certified Operator:uyAl]jajn..T.jjQmA$ ...............)(,amnaccIr.................................. Operator Certification Numberj&A&jQ .............................
Location of Farm:
Farm Location: east from Seagrove onto NC 705 toward Robbins and turn right on Lawrence Farm Rd.
T
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ' 30 & 46 Longitude 79 • 44 ° 42 «
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑ IDairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer
® Non -Dairy
430
64
❑ Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
430
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
344,000
❑ Boars
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ 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: .......DLy.S1,ack.......................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 72
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 7G-13-2 . Date of Inspection 8/24/2004 •
r �
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
12. Crop type Small Grain Overseed Fescue (Graze)
t3. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ®No
t4. a) Does the facility tack 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 toquestion #) a'YESanswers n recomm m ments.xpinany and/or aa , m
Use.'drawings of facility to better. explain situations (use additional pages as necessary) ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes i
9. Not applicable to this structure.
3. 8/2/04. waste analysis=14.5 Ibs N./ton
Reviewer/Ins ector Name Meli a Rosebr&k' ! €
P E
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date: cZ

Facility Number: 76-13-x D;of Inspection 8/24/2004
Reauired Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
N No
22.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Anima] Waste Management Plan readily available?
Oel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
N No
23.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
N No
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
N No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
N No
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
N No
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
N No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
N No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33.
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yie]d Form []Rainfall [:]Inspection After V Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
-ida dISmt.t�&t�anlnht[a&�_l�C.➢.Pon m�n mI„eEa n€!'t..sE.< a a` n1_edd.E/t or, DSzra,a wF,_ r� 1
12112103
12112103

Type of Visit $1 C mpliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit( Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other, ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time;
C Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified © Conditionally Certified [3Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: ..... .......................................... County:..._...._.
v�/� q
Owner Name: �tu J� .._ ...�,.J C ...... __.. Phone No:
Mailing Address: -7,I,....���r_. �F�n ._._ S_ .ra. N a? 3 q 1
Facility Contact: .. !�?.. �ez�._Title:..........»....... » ._. _. _»...........__ . Phone No: 0?�_ _..d. . ors
Q ^��
Irk
Onsrte Representative:..{.���, _. �r1.' _.., ._................._ .._._.. Integrator:.___....._._...._......._... _...._. _.........._._W......_..
Certified Operator: Wa In7jf M. 32S. &WIC-jeh�.L�r.Operator Certification Number:.,,,..21_ .(P-.)I
Location of Farm:
[3Swine [3Pouttry cattle ❑ Norse Latitude Longitude �•��
rDesign . Current " F1 r '' `i "''Destga' Y C1lrreni, i
SWine Caeacity Poidnlaiin PQnItrY-.....,Capacity aPnenifa5nn:-
Wean to Feeder
ron
ayer
FEJ
Feeder to Finish
Layer
❑ Farrow to Wean,
❑ Farrow to Feeder
7
Other
Farrow to Finish
y
!:A - Total Desi�
Gilts
Boars
� �DPStgn '� YCui'['ent
tittleCa0=11 .'PoAiiiation'
'otal',SSLW
Number oit LagcwtEs
�W
Antri�na��nnile`/.lCnhd,'Frnnc
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?
❑ Yes ®No
❑ 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 fNo
o
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? [3Yes
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ANo
Structur I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 11-7
Freeboard (inches): r
12112103 Continued

Facility Nuzgber: — .- Date of Inspection
S. Are there any immediate threats to the rity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trei !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 YNO
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 kFe
elevation marldngs?
Waste Anolication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes too
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hyd ulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type AAWAU Q:L� "_Adx� &AQ�
13. Do the receiving crops differ those designated in the Certii Waste M ment Plan (CAWMP)? ❑Yesf
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? [IYescre
c) This facility is pended for a wettable adetermination? ❑ Yes
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes o
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No
Odor %sues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below--8-YM8-
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes o
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes o
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes XNo
Air Quality representative immediately.

Facility Number: D e of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WIT, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. Doe record keeping need improvement? IV es, check the appro 'ate box below.
Waste Application Waste Analysis Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewltnspection with on -site representative?
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
NP`DES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
3I. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After I " Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
❑ Yes )(No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes I
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes 00
❑ Yes ❑No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
FRIAMICIA

(Type of Visit © Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation j
IReason for Visit © Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
FFacility Number 76 y3_2 Date of Visit: l2lf t12t)03 Time: t300
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted ■ Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: _.. _. _.......
Farm Name: QEkwand.l'Rxms.......................................................... ......... County: >l%1�A,f1<4jqbt............................... }? jJKQ......
Owner Name: ThRQtSS1ra}Y[EAC€--------------------._._. Phone No: {33 1�72:2294--------------------------..
Mailing Address: bbL9..Learixens�.lFarna.�� d........................................................... sea,P qy .H............... 2 41..............
Facility Contact: FbiJ'AliS.L81t't:awt............. . ...Title: Phone No: 33.647..9,409710xom....
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: W!ikliM.l;XltlM45............... LAlY.remt;g.j r.................................. Operator Certification Number: XA$RQ.
............................
Location of Farm:
Farm Location: east from Seagrove onto NC 705 toward Robbins and turn right on Lawrence Farm Rd. K
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ' 30 6 46 64 Longitude 79 ' 44 & 42 it
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 to 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: ...... Dz)!rS=k...... ........................... --------•--•--•--•-------- ----------•-----•-----.---
Freeboard (inches): 48
05103101 ,{ g po /Continued

Facility Number: 76-13-2 Date of Inspection 111 12/2QU3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the 09'rity 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 Ammlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
I I . Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload [ ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Fescue (Graze)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
1s 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? I
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
®No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
051UJIUI Lontmuea

Facility Number: 76-13-2 Dff Inspection 12/11/2003 .
Oddr 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?
2$. 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?
34. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
♦I
J
O5103101

0 r PM
�Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Gonservatfo
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
E:
Facility Number _� Date of Visit: Time:
Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified 13Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold-.
Farm Name: li` County: �y„i„ b
Owner Name: Q Phone No: 33& ,,F 9. Z
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
U5 u 2
Phone No: 3 S 71 - !&q 716-m
Integrator: —a
Jr Operator Certification Number:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Of Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®' ®° 46 Longitude - I ' ° 11
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
C8DaCitV Population Cattle
capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑ Dai
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer I
I
RSINon-Dairyl
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
�]
❑ Gilt's
Total SSLW
34 0j 600 I
❑ Boars
Niimber of. Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present f❑ Lagoon Area I❑ Spray Field Area f et'
Holding Ponds TSolid Traps No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes XNo
Discharge originated at: El Lagoon El Spray Field El Other
a, if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes fNo
o
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yeso
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes No
Structur I , , Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structur
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 Continued

I I % 9 0
Facility Number: - j —2 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes JNo
(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?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
11. Is there evidence of over application? 4 Excessive Pondi ❑ PAN Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
XNo
12. Crop type � L F L.91M:L&K 1
13. Do the receiving crops differ with tho designated in the Cer0led Animal Waste Ma gemen ]a AWMP)?
❑ Yes
o
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
o
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
Elo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
JNNo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yeso
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
XV0
e utred Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
ElYes
X<0
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) I/ /
❑ YesIN
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigationefreebeerd waste analysis & soil sample reports)
El Yes
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑YesNo
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems. over application)
23. Did Reviewer'Inspector fail to discuss review-iinspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No 06
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
rNo
25�Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
El Yes
No violations or deficiencies were noted daring this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
e
E�aFY{QswLmt1—onw7'.a�`_.,�I��..YC.'�. p
tginsmyYQr bnommentrr eed.
Use drawsnl s of facility to better ezplaut situations (use additional pages as necessary) 'i,, � , Field Copv ❑Final Notes
�sce� � -ram—•"^+ : .Awl'�'ti"'+Y4.'hws'��ir...pan-.+.�}fiFt.Y:i,'upc�'..zr_
Reviewer/Inspector Name.L ,€s ?.'ir••t d1�. . i�f`ua.,,e;4«r t "S Mkt i—''�`,s.��,a t- �'
�.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
051031O1 - -j �— - - - • - I / �, •-- -- -- - cam. ��
Continued

Facility Number: Z Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
-B YES o
El Yes I�CNNNoo
❑Yes — Y
❑ Yes r`'t' "'o
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
—E-3
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
/T-otJ
05103101

nical Assistance Site Visit Re
O DiMron of Soil and Water Conservation!_
• Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 76 - 13-2 Date: 114103 Time: 11:00 1 Time On Farm: WSRO
Farm Name Oakwood Farms
Mailing Address 6679 Lawrence Farm Road
County Randolph Phone: [phone]
Seagrove NC 27341
Onsite
Representative Thomas'and Phylis Lawrence Integrator
Tune Of Visit
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ 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
Purpose Of Visit
pp Routine
O Response to DWQIDENR referral
O Response to DSWCISWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacitv Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
® Non -Dairy
Purpose Of Visit
pp Routine
O Response to DWQIDENR referral
O Response to DSWCISWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacitv Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
® Non -Dairy
❑ Dairy
® Non -Dairy
aso
ss
❑ 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 r pry -stack
Level (Inches) 72 1 .
CROP TYPES JlRye grass escue-graze Kheat om, Silage lCorn, Grain
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 76 - 13-2 Date:
4/14/03
PARAMETER
O No assistance provided/requested
❑ B. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
Elio. Level in structural freeboard
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
[111. Level in storm storage
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
[112. Waste structure integrity compromised
28 Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
[114. Over application �= 10°/a &10 lbs.
El
[115. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. 2H,0200 re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Latelmissing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration I❑
❑
Reaulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation designlinstallation
❑
❑
❑ Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
WUP was updated.
2
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4'
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5.
56.Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
s
58. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 76 _ 13-2 Date: 4114103
COMMENTS:
Waste samples are due back this week. Expired 3-22-03.
Updated WUP addresses crop and field changes.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST B. Barton Roberson
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 7/18/03
Entered By: lRocky Durham
03/10/03

e
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 O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 13-2 . hate of Visit: t3/26/2002 Time: 0945
Not O crational 0 Below Threshold
S Permitted 0 Certified 13 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:..................
Farm Name: Wkwwd.l.ttaw....................................................................................... ... County: Raad.Qlph ......................................... WSRO........
OwnerName: 1110=5.................................. La.w.rebcp .................................................. Phone No:(33.61.819.-2204 .......................................................
Mailing Address: 6479..t,a >s�l>« . Arita.�tQad......................... StKagrAr.R.NC......................................................... 2.7.341..............
Facility Contact: �Aiplllay..Rt. �atJ 1�1S. 1YC£10.�tr.................. Title:................................................................ Phone No: 3M,.879 4(127..loltm11l}:......
Onsite Representative: �bapaaS..al�i�.�b llis.,A?y.1cclipt.......................................... Integrator:........... ..........
Certified Operator: Wjj0aj T. owaa............... L awr..mcc.J.r ................................. Operator Certification Number: J.$6. �0,
............. ............................
Location of Farm:
?arm Location: east from Seagrove onto NC 705 toward Robbins and turn right on Lawrence Farm Rd. A
❑ Swine [3 Poultry ®Cattle [3 Horse Latitude 35 • 30 46 �� Longitude 79 • 44 42
y.yrrent
t r 4f f :;'011clall
• . -
:�GtTMrei,]t,
Design Cu"
act l?o ulation,` Poultrion
Cattle
Ca act , P,O ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
.;
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer
® Non -Dairy
430
116
❑ Farrow to Wean°xU.
R
❑ Farrow to Feeder
r,i
❑Other.
❑Farrow to Finish
t
Total Design Capacity 430
❑ Gilts
k
''
❑Boars
r 3 `-N,;
,. T;ofaISSLW
344,000
N�umbe`orr Lagoons �0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagocin Arca ❑Spray Ficld Arca
ds
HoldiPoi / Salid Traps 0 ®No
Liquid Waste Management System
4
DischaMjes K Streim lmpacLs
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. li'discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection& Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: ........Drystack............................................ .................................... ........................
............ ................................... .......
Freeboard (inches): 'f 72
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 76-13-2 [)ale of Inspection 8/26/2002
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, 0 Yes 0 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 S'
10, Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes IN No
12. Crop type Rye cover Corn (Silage & Grain) Wheat Fescue (Graze)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ® Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records &-Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22, Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question # : Explain any YE answers an or an mm ndations or ftor6ther om
Use drawings of facility to better ex lain situation1019esla2necessUQUEO Field Copy ® Final Notes
9. N/A -dry stack is beneath roof in the cattle barn.
13. Need to add rye cover to list of crops (T-3490 F-10) since the waste applied to this field in Dec. 2001 was too early for corn.
17. Facility needs to obtain copy of COC and permit for their records. Call: 919.733.5083 "Non -discharge animal permits, " Sue
Homewood.
19. All fields receiving animal waste need to have a soil analysis performed in the same year that waste was applied.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Meli sa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: �--
05103101 Continued

c
Facility Number: 76-13-2 1)* Inspection 8/26/2002 .
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31, Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. - Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[.' �t izna 1►ommen Ian _0�1 _rAwtrigs:
05103101
05103101

Jrphl) Q r4nica)e+
Dlvi§lowa 'Q.
0f
�'�Water Quality ii WIItC3' k t
, I D1v�S10I3 0.�'t�l 8ttC01iSerY8i©1!
b�,ai: Y, _..
�, Q Other n
c3'
. i
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit toutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number L9
Date of Visit: 'ime:
�j Permitted &Certified O Conditionally Certified © Registered
Farm Name:������,
Owner Name: 1_Y]Q[ o 4.,
Mailing Address: ��j� '1 { l��rl1'1 LtP¢ �3 • �__ �7CL�
Facility Contact: 1 Ot dd.3
Onsite Representative: y�
Certified Operator: U St 11` 1ahi fi
Location of Farm:
usowq ZT0 O b +�
C.eQ, -Tr.
an
Date Last Operated or AboveFThresholdt
County: 1310 )
Phone No: 3310 ;'& 79 ao
NCB a
Phone No: —
41617
lntegrator. OIYI-1i1
•
Operator Certification Number:
`t u rn r4l" On
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry 9 Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude�j ' ® Longitude'
Design . Current Design Current Design ='. !Current
Swtne ilt opacity
Ca 'scity ,Po ilatton PonC: Po "oigtion'E-
❑ Wean to Feeder I ❑ Layer I 1 10 DairyI'
❑ Feeder to Finish i', ❑ Non -La er Non -Dairy
r
�.
El Farrow to Wean '
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other E�
{° u,, `>�
=a x
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity ;
-- ❑ Gilts ,:,._F E 1 i F , F • 9.iE' E �,�i r f s -
❑ Boars SLW
QQ
Total ,S
t E,
Niumber of Lagoons i ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Laoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
s #a si a ioldt'i.ng;P,. So# d T'.ra{t psliNo 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 o
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ElYes No
Waste Callieetion & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes � No
Structur I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b
Identifier: r
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 Continued

C13
it
• •
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes 'XNo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? El Yes X No
(if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes XNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes XNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenanceAmprovement? ❑ Yes ,rNo
11. Is there evidence er lication? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes J)INo
12. Crop type H V C
13, Do the receiving crops differ with those designatJ in the Certified Animal Waste M agement Plan (C MP)?
es
❑ 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
Reauired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
Yes
❑ No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
it
El Yes
o
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation,�r*ard, wa�.ste analysis &Oample reports)
A Yes
❑ No,
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
o
VNo
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
22, Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel 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
1A No
13 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
1 i 1 Y: P
Comments (refer to question#) 'Explainany YES-aas�ers andlor any, recommendatioas;or anvotiercomunenks.
Use'rli awings`of facility to'bctter explain sitiiatiatss. (ase additional3pages as necessary) Field Copv : j Final Notes t,
� a
7-7
• �o Cm�
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date:
05103101
L jv
Continued

Facility Number: -- Date of Inspection
dar 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?
-Addit"ional;Cotninents addlor°Drawings- '
got
IUo/J b 15 �l
919.733.5-0 93�-
& Sue t+ e-u--aoM
a� v
05103101
f5-T7r-t5'%'O
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No

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 76 13-2 Dale of Visit: ll/19/2001 l;,»e; 0930
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
13 Permitted ■ Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ..............
Farm Name: t.Awand.f.arms............................................................. County: RtndQlpht......................................... WSRA........
Owner Name: r1homas.................................. LalY.rt~>Ul+tr................................................... Phone No: 03C1.8.7.9-220.4.......................................................
Mailing Address: 6.67..L.AxelafiC. rim.lZQasd ............................ S.�agr.Qx�AC................................ .. 2.7.3.4 ..............
............................. .......................
Facility Contact: 19imy-or.RhAW.1otYunce..................Title:................................................................ Phone No: 33.6..$79.40�11ofmM......
Onsite Representative::jIWMa$,,IA,lnMy,.Umd.PhYlli5.L,awr.cuKe....................... Integrator:....
Certified Operator:.W.AUUk.T.kQMAa............... L,awrvace.,]r.......................... Operator Certification Number:,j,$$.$a,,,,
Location of Farm:
Farm Location: east from Seagrove onto NC 705 toward Robbins and turn right on Lawrence Farm Rd.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude F 79 ' 44 42
. as 1 � r �r�irs.-: 7 v, :.:. : n; 0 :R,ea x'n r p ' aq::v'ea«1 ar,� a� w
�r _ Designs Current. Design Current ` Des�gn�Current
r: �2":e`:�t��,.«T�`"s�'' ��?�6,!. :lam -
:Swore Ca acts .":1'o u[atian Poultry Ca actt P,o ulatton t''Ca- the `' C Po ulation' `
f ]Wean to Feeder ❑Layer , ❑ Dairy
[] Feeder to Finish Non -Doi ❑Nan -La er 430 260
Y = ® Non -Dairy
❑ � j
Farrow to Wean ❑Other v �Mas
❑ Farrow to Feeder .:3 ;
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capa ity 430
z, ❑ Gilts its �•
s. Boars
c k Total SS LW 344,000
..r
Number of Lagoons 10 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid,Trttps ® ® No Liquid Waste Management System
r
Discharges 4 Stream
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
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 R: 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:.......Dry.&ack.................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): NIA _
05103101
.S7 5:e `
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: 76-13-2 Date of Inspection 11/19/2001
5. Are there an immediate threats to the irate rit of an of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
Y g Y Y
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
WasteApplical n
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Hay) 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?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Required RecQrds & Documentg
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? 1
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?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ 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,
u�C uraww u� ucuny iu ucaicr capiuui �uuauuu�. u� uuuuauiupa a ucsCasury ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
9. Dry stack marker not required. •
14. No wettable acre determination needed. Application of waste is by spreader only.
19. T-3465 F-2 has had waste applied to the oats. CAWMP only lists corn grain for this field. Should revise CAWMP to reflect this
-rop if possible.
19. Waste sample nitrogen for January 2001 application doesn't match operator's records. No over application of waste was noted.
Reviewer/Inspector Name [Melt a Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date: MIMIB
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 76-13-2 D&' Inspection 11/19/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
M t 6da !`-drnmen Ian orbDrawmgs:
A.
05103101

Type of Visit iQi Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 16Routine O Complaint. Q Follow up Q Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit: O Time: d 3
} —
C Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
© Permitted Certified © Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: .:D�s..K 5.....�..[..Y.l*.�t............. County:..ILK).!.a.l........
Owner Name: ........ ,.I,.} r..........Y�` 4„Ce.0................................... Phone No: ..:... ... 0. .................... .
'4 077
Facility Contact: !.K.,NL11. ..................................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No: .:.$79... ( )
Mailing Address:...............(.. LCi wreX� u__ Fo rWL... ..1........... r a tie.. r.............a:.7.`'�............. ..........................
....... ...... ........
Onsite Representative:.......%......................................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:... t .1r0 tJ Operator Certification Number:..........................................
!.t.... `!'!'�...7. LR...... ram— C.�.e .6
Location of Farm:
A
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude
4t,� r Design ` .Current�'.r �,j Design". Current
Swine; Desigri',
Po ulao. Cattle a acPo ulahonPoty °ultry n pPCo�uurlraetn[ot
tn ,
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
! ❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
'if ❑ Gilts
i ❑ Soars
H1,05
oidii
roof Lagoons�''
kds I Solid Traps
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design: Capacity..
Total SSLW
Discharues & Stream ImIRacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
j❑ Subsurface Drains Present j❑ Lagoon
No Liquid Waste Management System
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)
� t� E 1 r S`
'fV e)
� QOO
M.
❑ Spray Field Area 3
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3- Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:Sd.4!tt........... I.. ...... ...................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches):
5100
❑ Yes tk No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[]Yes Xj No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes KNO
Structure 6
Continued on back

ber: — Z Date of Inspection I
ny immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ YesXNo
seepage, etc.)
rAre
tructures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
n?
❑ 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
X.No
X.
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
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
ANo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
`�] No
12. Crop ty
13. Do the receivin crops differ with thos esignated in the Certi Animal Wa a Minagement Plan (CA P)?
❑ Yes
o
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
;4No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
VNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
fTyLs-
El 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
A No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
,26Yes
❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
WNo
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?
(ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
a
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
KNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
[�No
/ `
i� Yi iijl�s;oar d$fcie eie$ Ore p$ted• O(Wi ft fjijs'vjsjt; • Y;60-�eceiye 46 it�#t�$r,
6 re'snorideike: abi6f this visit: •................................... .
Ice'drasbiinma of tacilitvatri hetter.`eYnlain aitsitinnn_9d�nnal nisres;Aa,n�cFaaurvl.'.:f!;4r,_
1
Reviewer/Inspector Name Q VK
5`'r T dy N
,� ,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: g/�Jp

.F+ae'dity Number: 71— Def Inspection f p
Odor Issues /
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below -E3 Yes-43 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 -113(No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ANO
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? EJ yes
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 kNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? deg--EFNo
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? El Yes EFNa
Additional'Comments an orDrawings: ' : .. ,,
J
5100

1
1
s!� - PPS 1 �_,� ictkt,l ifJE+% i �' �t'' .� i- 'i ,, s ; _. -a. s •. E F etc :E; i I s> �I i� r �}es k f'.€
IJ w�"it�.���'��t,I�i,, 3�'��t�i`r��.E�6'`tl '�.:�::' ;,Ik„1 iv�stan�of�WaterQ�ahty> 3;I.if� � o,a.ic4,,, tt�°,"E': ,,°C, �C�'��:,''a� r` '':'�.�i�'Ea�l �•`+t��l{,.,,
1 E r�-�eE• �t i p, f z �rtHl ��h'. b- _ j. 1,;. �r i,`, tr�s�on of Soil and -Waled Co"nservat�on - -' x; ;,�L = + '` '. i 1�„ #L.I ;
17,• , ?P t 4� a� ' il} # � 'Nf E 6 k C i i'' r..40 q
Qther-Agencyc E > ti r t'�}}' n p' ,SHs t,ia ii,C>
I I i� s i E �} f} I rj ! Y I •j ii�r+ �r E r r L_t �1 E—t Aq H� �E 1 y'i l I Ir r (�
,,s�[ iOIE,,. E �� 14{il_,: ur ! ,rlL as k�
Type of Visit O Compliance inspection Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation • .�
Reason for Visit k' Routine O Complaint O Fallow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
D e of Visit: to L D j r1'ime: Z.- �� h, Printed on: 10/26/2000
"] ! ,� ' 2
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
81 Permitted O Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ....................
Farm Name: ...... h k ....... '� i�,m County:.....il.A+t41t........................................................
5.1............. Wut......................,.............. ........ !l
i� 1-
Owner Name: ,i r?.� d '`1iu V to C' G.i Phone No: , n ] — L Y
?xt................................................................................................ 3...................Z: v......0..........0.........
.�� • ............ h Jn c�C............................... L
Facility Contact: 1 �,a,c: .......LG�„lc., r �.............. Title. �. Phone No: „f . z3�
Mailing Address:.. W.! ... R� ........... .... �G (,.........:......... ................................... .... .... ET
3 AX--
Onsite Representative:, ,�o.++)°�F?....... Wlrs �.v1.C. ............ Integrator:.... S,^ c� � •r-+^c rh. � ...............................
..........�'..........
Certified (lperator:..,... L X+.,±....:•...... .......... .... �.W... �:r ` O erator Certification Number•
J P
E
Location of Farm: ] r
70s
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry M cattle
❑ Horse Latitude
Longitude
®• ®�L
J��
Design Current
awmc: Ua acu ii•o ulanon
[] Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non-Layer1 191 Non -Dairy 2 11
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons F _ b ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 107ILagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ` d— No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 0 No
Discharge originated at: El 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, II•discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in galhnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon systent? (1f yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'? ❑ Yes 0 No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes 4'No
':' rite Collection &. Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (fre board plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑Yes jV No
S1.1-11Gture I 511'1JCtttro 2 Structure 3 S ruct tire 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .............. D.t.!)..... WnY.V..... 1............... ... ................. .:.......... .... ... ................................. ....................................
Frechoard (inches):
5/00 Continued on back

Facility Number: 76 -j3-'2 Date of lnspection zr v;AM Printed on: 10/26/2000
^�5. Are there any immediate threats,to thegrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ t s, severe erosion,
❑ Yes Jo 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 10 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 )l No
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes � No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? !'t �t'1 ❑ 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 [ JEs.4;—A' � «� -16 rvu e-,c 4 0 Das ,c, y ka!j j
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 19 No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes V No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes k No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
It No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available'?
❑ Yes
0 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
JO No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
Do No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
9C No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
O No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
IX No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
DC No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
IM No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
iD No
�1o•1+iQla�igt�s:o� d�ficpen�ics •w•trt'e �tQte�• during �hjs:visit� • Y:o� wi�i-�ee�iyts �o fu>i•t�gr. • . - •
comes' oridence: about: this visit. . • . • • • • •
Comments r`
` ,{ efer to queshan #) E Explarn any YES answers and/or any'recommendations iorany;other comments
Use drawings of fa+ iltty to letter explain situstions,'(use addrllonal pages as;necessary)
biy lIkj6L.i'il 4_+0 rP_Jckee ,4­�
�lh+v;Y� rC���.
����rj�s
ytpT 6LAv
��[�r�`y'7�
ReviewerfInspector Name (%b�C ova
Reviewer/]nspector Signature: Date: S/00

Facility Number: l6 fe of Inspection 4. L� � � � Printed on: 10/26/2000
OdorT Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Ye�1 No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? fR
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 kNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yesi, No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
01
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes , NoO
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 JP No N11
itiona ommen �an or rowin
f l 0 YI F-,
5100

Facility Number 76 13-2 Date of Visit: 1012S/2440 Tiine: 0920 Printed on: 10/27/2000
0 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
0 Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farnt Namc: 0.Aw.00A.Earm ............................ ............... County: RAnd.Q10 ......................................... WSRQ ........
OwnerName: jhRlC a .................................. Lawmau .................................................. Phone No: (3 61.5.7.9:220.4........................................................
Facility Contact: U19=51AYu.91lu....................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No: 33.fi.,87.9,..4Q97..(H)...............
Mailing Address: 46T�.1.�xrr.�m�!axan�tQ.a�i...................... ..... Seal;:rG...................... ...7..4.1..............
................................................................
Onsite Representative: ��9tX1aS..9.T191D,.hy3�I1.�r�YlJC.I'nCg...................... Integrator:
..............................................................................................
Certified Opera tor:.W..IAIAam.T............................. LwArvt c......................................... Operator Certification Number:21611 .............................
Location of Farm: .
Farm Location: 3 miles southeast of Seagrove off NC 705 toward Robbins turn right on Lawrence Farm Rd. +
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ' 30 ° 46 « Longitude 79 • 44 4Z ��
Design . Current
Swine Capacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
[:]Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle . Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ® Non -Dairy 430 248
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 430
Total SSLW 344,000
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray F'leld Area
Holding Ponds,bSolid Traps, 1 v,ti ® No Liquid Waste Management System
DischarEes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. 1 f discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway 1 ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier D Stark
ry......................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 72
5/00 Continued on back ry,

Facility Number: 76-13-2 Date of Inspection 101251200b . Printed on: 10/27/2000 .
t rJ .
5. Are there any immediate threats to the i0rity of any of the structures observed? (iel 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 IN 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, Soybeans, Wheat Fescue (Graze) 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?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iel 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?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. -Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection 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 violatioris;o;r deflciencies•vr'ere:noted:duting this; visit. ;You;rvi❑ receive•po•furthet•;
correspondence.A'ouf this .visit.
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Comments(refer to question ft Explain ariypl'ES answers!andlor;an'y recominendations�or''any,,othci comments:,��:`
Use drawings of facility to better ezplain sittiations. (use additional pages as necessary).'
19. Some waste applications don't have samples that were taken within 60 days. Suggest keeping nitrogen by crop that utilizes +
• �w
Reviewer/Inspector Name $Meli sa Ro' ebrock 1
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur IMJA, Q r k — / Date: M5100

Facility Number: 76-13-2 D• Inspection 14/25/2000 Printed on: 10/27/2000 l
JOdor Issues f
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27, Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ®No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ®No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ®No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
J'Additional:Comments an OC CaWlpgS
i
5100