760023_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Divisi-0-n n—aWater R i urce
Facility Number ®- m Division of Soil and Water tervation t.
� Other Agency I
Type of Visit: 30 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine O Complaint Q Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: f Arrival Time: r'�Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: M V1 i Y `�"=�3 Owner Email: T`
Owner Name: v I Efoyi L001n, Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region: )NSP o
Facility Contact: U1,4 Ord Title: Phone: -1 — 669 -
Onsite Representative: \ ,
Certified Operator:y
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Integrator: I
Certification Number:
Certification Number: i?
Latitude: �
f � 1
1
� 5� Longitude:
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 �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes jVNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
[DNA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412019 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
7❑�
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
dip Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: 1NS P
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �J
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
jK 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
YNo
[] NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
S. 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) JJ��
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
A
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land 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 lbs, ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application
Outside of Approved Area
a
12. Crop Type(s): /h-'��
CQ►Z-a-��
,
,
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
jZ'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
�/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
No
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
X
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
)j(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
es record keeping need improvement? Ifa}e
VWaste
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Application ❑Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis
[] Weather
Code
[j�<ainfall 62rStocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
❑,Sludge-&�
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412015 Continued

FaciIi Number: - . Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No )] NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes eNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
31, o 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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
Tko
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments:
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations, (use additional pages as necessary).
�s Ap?u ca+,-m -herds vy,4Q+td,
B
6 Cuilb►'a-f �o-n S (I�cuidl��l>d) lom�¢� ? bbeA �`'1uCovcr Ct-of Add-ed ? Nc - Te- Sew f e r—k ­5 P e, C la- ( i.S + Co20)Srn
S u rmyne - rta 55pS Small atr%
P3AFes c u v added T oo 9 F 5A q S-5 146+ fi e #- • Cr
w
rat- a 0 7 1 1 al a? now ?
cam- to T - a 0-7 q F - 5 s �►� �� .�
fQ.G�IV L&_�-4.St T`h4 5 5�rIA a
J-O 4 ,ZI& l l Ga U Vl
°`PA S �3o hl� r0. n In tad (,-asf�
515 > 60 Aa,X 5 ,
1
'Pine,'' bland �.i�c�r✓S.I r
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur
Page 3 of 3 ,
Phone: 1 1 6— 9 6 9 1
Date:
21412015
SPe-O,�Vx A i�+ -f-6 lower 64*4�• S �u� less 1 o.�n� .

S`
iv'ision of Water Resources
Facility Nurnr r� p - Division of Soil and Water CUWrvation
0 Other Agency 1 P
Type of Visit: Arcompliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation p Technical Assistance l
Reason for Visit: �outine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral Q Emergency O Other O Denied Access li
Date of Visit: 157 F I q Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: t) I VIRegion: W5 9Z
Farm Name: Lo�rl yi j�A.4 tl` Owner Email:
Owner Name: b It-�r0rd Lai' I i h Phone: LOT— rag -f
Mailing Address: A LI ,0 LO�GII n D d' � "• 1 .50ph I a . NL a 7 35�0
Physical Address:
W
Facility Contact: c i 4 T 1`U Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Phone: e. bi_ 7 -, t0 `i 1
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number: a
Location of Farm: Latitude: 3 5 JFQ r L13 t 1 Longitude:
U5 R W 3tl S -� a. I� Sg, e.�_i*--turn a t� wY 3!l US
LO.1� lI VL � 4i r Q a
D Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Design Current Design
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle C►apacity
Layer DairyCow
Non -La er DairyCalf
Current
Pop.
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
Design C►urrent D Cow
Dr, P,oultr, Ca acit Pao , Non -Dairy
La ers Beef Stocker
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
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 ofthe operation'?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
ONE
❑Yes
14No
DNA
❑NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - 0 jDate 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
Structur 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
v0 5
IV
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): a
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes (j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there Structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes 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 )j(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes CRrNo ❑ 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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes jNNo ❑ 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? Ug Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes 1XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No .5eA ❑ 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
�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA [] NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design [—]Maps [—]Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21 oes record keeping need i provement? I�}w , ❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
VMWW steApplica ' n Q Weekly Freeboard WasteAnalysis Soil Analysis s VWeather Cade
nfall Stocking Crop Yield X120 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Raii e-swwelr---
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 �lA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - X jDate of Inspection: gLa 41
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applic ion equipment as required by the permit? 4VO Yes XNo 0 NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ,<A ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. /�
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes Dino ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes NNo ❑ 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 , S 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-app i i cation)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No NA NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ( Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with anon -site representative? ❑ Yes CR-<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes A
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use ings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
N&IIPP 11 e,a o r) 4ie-IJ 5 ve eW eA 7 (aoi s) v s �P�as� c on+i n W,
d s d uta ' P4 9- �I T . er-t-'a r+:5
a Cal i b+ra on5 [ 1 i ui 50I id� dui 'I n aOI to. CV*cV--net- Nrl5
re-5c u e, a4ta ed 0 -T -,10Z R F- 5A ,� TB NOt Y Q-+-
3 .Io`� h Um j s uda�.r\ &Med to to P r- Ao 9 F- 9- _ - 1 - i ,
Co ,,r &r-o �.dd.ed �a w u P ? N o+ e +m
P y
e, e,o r 45 e �6v- I eo-r bas ► s LCOA e_vAex, Tot 3
ssD
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
3.4 )�s . N11roN . 55,, L5b ' Sq jb6.
3 e0 a 1 6s. tj/te,fj 41,gt/1(p ' Lsb = l b-s.N,
w
Phone: ,
Date: g-lgqj (0
21412015

ssion of Water Resour,
Facility Number ©- �-3 Division of Soil and Water Conservation '
Other Agency
Type of Visit: Co%pliance inspection Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: dRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: I $ S Arrival Time: Departure Time: .OQ County: Region: \&)5 �LQ
Farm Name: L,0� I i y, -bcQ i r U Owner Email:
Owner Name: C I t ��pr-d ,p I V) Phone: 14
Mailing Address: '� 4[Q 11)�I[ to Ib0.1 N L a 7 3.5d _
Physical Address: V!
Facility Contact: G�� �^1'OYZ� Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone' 49�- ,3(h
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35 b SQL i'&l Longitude. 7 9
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 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 t No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes kNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes *No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: jDate of Inspection: I I l
MW
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: Q5� Pp
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �{ L
5. Are there any immediate threats to theintegrityof 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
9(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 tNo
o ❑ 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)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes �*No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 101bs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
0 Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): 0-4,p ) , _4,OAA /L-� EL I
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?
I7. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
tqYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Yes
❑ No
IXNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
g No
❑ NA
0 NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
CRIC
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
'�Ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping nejprovement? I ❑Yes No
❑ aste Applic lioneekly Freeboard ❑ Waste AnalysisERainfali Stockingop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes D�No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑NA ONE
❑ Weather Code
❑ NA ❑ NE
2J'NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 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?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes qq No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA FINE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes jRrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer,to question #): Explain lany NESxanswecrs�and/or,any addihongal recommendations or angy othcr{comments 4 a�
�-.' G-°. S`'. - �.ii.�._ q.y�*�^ lx il'.Si � � '7 � _
swings of facility.'to better expliin4-'situations.(use,ad"ditional,pgges as�necessary} ,. ; + ;�� ,;� ,���t Vi
S eil r°,s{�5 C�I�� le I n a o! o u e. a3_<a.1 n i n
Solid ue in aoIt,
a1. Na records or p "4 C vjark- av&il a-b l6. Need h r\0�r'�ew i h neK.+. rvee
or San P l:
�S Seme' t-- f i��-1,0M �eA.S need-fe tr ICA _ r-.e -'seeded.
T
see >`.�,� �t S �.[ �. .
1 01 AA-4 -fie,
AA4Ak -o
3a � l �o l� Crrv.�,w w� d�) , � ✓1�, ,, ,, �
i
. w v 4W ACT- ao7 F - ti�
uwS Lk.)InRA/\ afpl��
d 33-75 3
Reviewer/Inspector Name: Gt 1 S5aP-alwbrOL Phone: i
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Dater/
Page 3 of 3 I , Lk- 2/4/2014

Type of Visit: Q Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: O Routine O Complaint 0 Follow-up Q Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Le Departure Time: !County: Region:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Maiiing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
0
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Sack -up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
I Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
I
El
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
ltr.
Ca aci
P.o ,
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
rNon-Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Beef Feeder
Boars
Beef Brood Cow
Turke s
Other
Turke Poults
Other I
10thrr
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 N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
[:]Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ONE
❑NA ONE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: W 5 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 Structure 6
❑ Yes [� No ❑ NA D NE
❑ Yes a'><io ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes D .Mo ❑ 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 1% No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? 77
Waste_Auplication
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. rNy
LAU Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑' Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes CR"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 9 NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes bj�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes 1Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes Od 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. 7�T
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. es record keeping need mprovement?4€ sr_ ❑ Yes JK No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Applic lion [Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis �a€ers Weather Code
Qiaini Stocking [Crop Yield M120 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 EN'*IA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste ap ation equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �d No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [] Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑NA ❑NE
CIA ❑ NE
❑ Non -compliant sludge Ievels 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? [] YesPQ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, frceboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes [NrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes NI"No
❑ Yes It No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes C@ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes �To ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
0
ILI / a- 0 1 —71 �D Lq
Ar tJ
(�C 0
04 c_ J a
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
w W �- I--
Phone: �"'� ,L S
Date: 2 4
21412014

ivi-slop of Water Quallty
Facility Number �- - Divisiof SOII and Water Go ervation PM
a 0 -EA gency
Type of Visit: ompliance Inspection Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: �outine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral 0 Emergency O Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Lj Arrival Time:'-�F --J Departure Time: County: R&h& h Region:
Farm Name: Lo 1 h 1 as r 1' Owner Email:
,I
Owner Name:y�Iou.l ntr Lo j n _ Phone: - � 3 8 T
Mailing Address: d Lod l h . !' qN �7 3 S
Physical Address: W
Facility Contact: C_j k_f �e) Ed Ljo f 1 l (y Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: S 0 43 Longitude: ? 9 S 3
Design Current
Design
CurrentUM
Design
Current
Swine
Capacity. Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle
Capacity
Pop.
can to Finish
La er
bairy Cow
Q
a
Wean to Feeder
Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
O
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D , P.oultr
C+a acit
P,o ..
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
I 113cef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Othe
ITurke Poults
Other
10ther
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes �eo [3 NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other: TT
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes gNo
[DNA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: 'i - 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
LI 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 V 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 _�Ko ❑ 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?
T❑' Yes J:R-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures
require ❑ Yes Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes �§ 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 > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure
to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift
❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
tg'&A
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
[] NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ Yes -�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements []Other:
�21. D es record keeping need improvement? Icer,.cho, pre M Yes [Vr No ❑ NA ❑ NE
ste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis oil Analysis Q,WaatP Tran fats CgAeather Code
[g'�ainfall Erstocking Fdcrop Yield ns D'Manthly and V Rainfall inspections 9"UPAGY
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 WA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2V2011 Continuer!

Facility Number: - � Date of Inspection: alb 3
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? Al�es ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No M�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?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field Q' Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
DR;No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]Yes ZNo [DNA ❑ NE
Yes 2150 ❑ NA ❑ NE
P-9--
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes [,-ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes Fui Lill No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations.orany other. comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary):
• a.o ► �- So ti I �e S t 7 02- 7 56-� 0 f a.
. z �� `yvt a o � I
W u P e N o 1 61 S,b,ca
MID
Q 94'ase mo W js prey
031A3 a �-d � a,a �t C& tou P 'I e .
-moo veoJj
65. cz,eJ j,-, CzA, -r -Xa'7 �- S
� a
T/1)E3
4I1 2013
3j2ofj�
s1 s1 t a-
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
a. to 3
;2.33
�• 4 3
a. a 1
0
t
/ jar e l- P-b l 3
a-ol2)
c.,
Phone: ?
Date: oq 9L
21412011
L

Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Q eparture Time: County: PanC10 Ph Region: LL3S&a
Lai i h +
Farm Name: _ �41 r'Lj�+_- _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: V% W! Phone: !'T 13 p
Mailing Address: A Ll 16 L,Qj� ITV) DO r u � 1 SO p h l Q l J V G a 7 3S-Q
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: _ [-W pr'( L[j-� G n Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
(64 - 3 6 L(
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 3 S' ,SQL 3 �t Longitude: 1 r ,) oZI 3 #I
#.q.311 S• I.o-F1 i b06f-
Swine
Wean to Finish
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle Capacity Pop.
I Layer Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
I -IDairy Calf
Q
Feeder to Finish
jDairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
RQjfCsign Current Dry Cow
Dry R; U_I r. Ca aci P,o Non -Daily
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Beef Feeder
Boars
Other
Other
Beef Brood Cow
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
[] Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
CA
❑ NA
0 NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: jDate of Inspection:621
IRW
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 9 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: .1k)
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(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 OfNo ❑ 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 0No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes q(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 1�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA
❑ Excessive Ponding D 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?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ Yes No 0 NA
Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
❑ Yes ❑ No X NA
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
�No [DNA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? I ❑ Yes 0
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis JD-Wvste-+rnr ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1 " Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No ( NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: .2 hdL jDate of Ins ection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes NoNA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. 9
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately,
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes rVNo
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Vo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes X
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as. necessary).
a�• I�c�Y-h ao t k }a� sc�f i s �� a a 1 a re� a c��� ? ao � � �
u-e -tom . 3 h .
f
Q �
/
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 1 -a2
Date: l /,a,
21412011

Type of Visit (Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
y Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referrali 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: t73 Z Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: JECLASW F ell Region: 145&Z
Farm Name: �- A Da M Owner Email:
Owner Name: t Phone: &)
Mailing Address: ' � 1 -oi �4�1 ��f M �Q r0� , i" G 1:7 -3,5--o
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 6 Title: Phone No: c
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
ID 1
311 Is,
> 1 �,
A.Y
' Design =
k' Swme `* �Capac�ty P,
.`_ ❑ Wean toFinish
❑ Wean to Feeder
�' ❑ Feeder to Finish
,'❑ Farrow to Wean
,y ❑ Farrow to Feeder
,_ ❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
Latitude: © o® I 0 1
1 Longitude: ®° 0 i a �l
Design'n Current ,
a .'� � Wet�PoUltrV��"�� t^Anacitv'pnni�Ifltinn,�,A�:�'
II__I Non -Layer I I
Dry Poultry= Kilt,y3 J
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
x T,-I�_-,T711
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)
ffDairy Cow
1 3 0 0
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
2.0
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
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
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes k
No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facr ity Number: 74 — 7_3 1 • Date of Inspection -F' •
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA [INE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ElYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Struct e 1 I Structure 2 1 Structure 3 j Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: A �d6d k+w � IC .
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): q.3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ElYes hY 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 ElNE
(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 kfNo ❑ 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?
I t . is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
�No ❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
El Yes
ANo ❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
❑ Noy NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to'question #) ' Explain any YES answers andlor any;recomme:ndagons or a,`ny othepcomment-s ,
Use draivrngs.of facility to better i zplain situat�orts,.(use addrtrorial pages; as necessary).:' �
,c r I #
/ 1
2—
Phone: 7rjG '7/
Reviewerllnspector Name
Reviewerllnspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

` Facility Number: — Z3 *of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps [I Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement.
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Waste Application Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soi! Analysis
Rainfall Crop Yield 20 Minute Inspections onthly and V
Rain Inspections Weather Code
Socking
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
YNA
❑ 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
kNA
❑ 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
AfNo
❑ NA
El NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
A
ElNA
❑ 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
k
❑ 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
P
❑ 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
Vro
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
ho
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional'Comments'andlor3Drawings:
! 7, -Perm IV VL C24 t-z.Ae o¢ �v� na � av�c�f.� � , D ,�
114 � 3ee Co ++nM I - on Pa� 2
zn, WMP b c 5-0A.,
�, r�
21. �Dr�l Gina i+S CaN�P[B-tG� I"��-", 261 �� le-
(keykl A_1 iD� Gam , a, �iknG f-a �Rr P
+ � " ' 201 / o/ za i v r rlrt.�.� % /
tl
d3l%1l : �fs�twdj s Z se.11-nc0 3 0
211of o -: Z - 70
Page 3 of 3 12128104

9 Facility Number Division of Soil and Water Conservation Division of Water Quality 1 a n m
O Other Agency l I
Type of Visit
Compliance Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
19 Routine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
d0 Departure Time: ' `"` r\ck a (`p Region: Date of Visit: 3 {�j Arrival Time:
P ®County: g
Farm Name:�L `t n �Q} Y'y Owner Email:
Owner Name: G�\ 1` �O s- U 1tJ' a' �T Ll Yl Phone: `i Q_ r 3 R
Mailing Address: q T l 'f1 Cl 1r 1- a 7 �1
Physical Address: tarn 6 6-= F3.��
Facility Contact: l� t T'u d L� trI f f� Title: Phone No: �-
Onsite Representative: l�iliDiGI �,.0 i't+ll Integrator:
Certified Operator: `(kOd�At� Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 5_ _SJ o i `_[3 Longitude:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
.300
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:ZI
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 0 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: -1 . Date of Inspection r o
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes Ij No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
'.rStructuree 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: W Q5T2 Int'1[i
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
9 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
0
❑ NA
ElNE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste AUplieation
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. El 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 ❑ 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
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ 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
PNo
❑ No
No
No
El NA El NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
XNA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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):
00
t> �e4
-111.0-4 AkeeAr
T _ ,fill F- 5 W
=
-
Reviewer/Inspector l4aze Phone: — $
Reviewer/Inspector Signature.J Date: 3
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection l� 1�18 1,1 bl
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? 9yes ❑ 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 El Other
21. Do s record keeping nee�Wle
rovement? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Vaste Appliic tion ly Freeboard Waste Analysis SoilZasis rrt4ers -A4w
Rainfiall LI Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections IlKeather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
�(NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?'
❑ Yes
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
;kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
;dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
4No
❑ NA
ElNE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ 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
WNo
❑ 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
Commentsi 1
F))CO1 5�1 �,26+ re5uW5j ? 6�00� wc�r
1 • •ro •,
�r►
LUAIJ
6J . ti 1
f
�
rr , ,C Aj,
pm &AFf
e
1 11 o t. a J" _e 1 r
/Qa
Page 3 of 3 w
— - --- I — .
,,- f 3 00
12'/28/0, `'�
m

TZ-)
e�a� fig,
U
a

L
f Visit 9)Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
n for Visit ARoutine 0 Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: ounty: 1 Region: u ����
Farm Name: caner Email: I �1
Owner Name: Phone: !a5—
Mailing Address: 4_a Ln T)Q'(.1'L.1
Physical Address:
r r —1
Facility Contact: > � 1 t+6 111) Title: Phone No: C
Onsite Representative: I L`Y i0 l-A Integrator:
Certified Operator: ��� Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
a
Lo
Design Current Design C*urrent t esign Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
DairyCow
3�
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La er
DairyCalf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ DairyKeifer
❑ Farrow to Wean Dry Poultry
❑ D Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
Gilts ❑ Non -La ers❑
Feeder
POBoars PulletsBeef
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turke s
{Other ❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other ❑ Other
t�lumber 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)
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?
❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
[--]Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued
r

Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection U
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
\DIdentifier: -e, Gbn
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
Structure 4
❑ Yes No
ElYes I No
Structure 5
El NA El NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
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 t reat, 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 X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes qNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop_Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s) = &
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
,KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop andlor land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
)f No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre detennination ?
❑ Yes
❑ No
K NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
1%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
IgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
sPo7vmS"' YC'£«'*°Y."iTA-
Comments (refer to questidn #).' Explain any YES, answers andlor`>anyarecornmendations or anyiother comments�rXfi ? z Y
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use addtttonal pages'a's necessary) �'se r•
Reviewer/Ins Name — -- - — — -
L �`: Phone:
ector
P
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date:al I
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — a Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes jNo ❑ 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 [I Other
21. Doe record keeping need improvement? If yes, F
the appropriate Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application L1a'Wee ly Freeboardaste Analysis Soil Analysis �2ertifie0i"#i
�ainfall Stocking ,Crop Yield Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections L�J Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 0No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
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?
Y
uy'P
"D M"o F- B J-M ,r.J
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes I No
❑ Yes 15(No
4NA ❑ NE
El NA ❑NE
ANA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
( No
❑ NA
El
❑ Yes
l No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�tNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
NfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

Division ofWaterQuaii
Facility Number Division of Soil and 'Wa#er onservation
- - — - - 0 Other Agency
F
pe of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
eason for Visit V Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up „0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: b ounty:, Region: V
Farm Name:_V; r Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone: 13
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:bu e— it -6 3�
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No
Onsite Representative: �Qrd ��� Lri Integrator:
Certified Operator: �- �� it Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
u_�) 4W1 3 11
Save
Latitude:
(III, TO j
Back-up Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population 4 Cattle
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder i
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean I
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Cilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry .
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
r
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ElStructure ElApplication Field ElOther
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
ar•�■ar■�•�
Design Current
Capacity 1population
w Q
f
Dairy Co
Dairy Cal
❑ Dairy Heifer
El Dry Cow
ElNon-Dairy
ElBeef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: �-
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12/2 /w Continued

Facility Number: — 3 Date of Inspection iV
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure
6
Identifier: y��!✓ O."A
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes No
0
[INA
[INE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not property addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes �No
I
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
--]NA
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 ❑ 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)
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 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 lO 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
KNo
❑ NA
Cl NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
X No
ElNA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any.other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
3. boftk wash tbnbu'ned?
Reviewer/Inspector Name �_ Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: C•C�/ Date:
Pane 2 of i r".,fl'. r—d

Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes Lh N ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does r ord keeping nee7wc
ovement? 3 es�eh❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
to A ]icat' n ek/ Freeboard Waste Anal sis7Soil6Analysis Waste TransfersppY Y— /
ainfall tocking � rop Yield 220 Minute Inspections [ Monthly and 1" R ,i' nspections KWeather 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 UNA ❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
9No
ElNA
ElNE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
ElYes
�NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
NrNo o
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Cl Yes
YNo
❑ NA
[INE
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
>K�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
El
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
Cl 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
YNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
'
aoo� 4 �t � �eSf Y'2.5 u �-}S � . fib$ ��Q`o51
chl'�O� 0-" —
C, ArA-4, of 4U.4� Lx-.,) 0 P'o
IQ
�136)OV = s i
© =121A,
i
Page 3 of 3
12/28/04

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: ZQ0023 _ Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC760023 1 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Randolph Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 05/09/2007 Entry Time: 11:00 AM Exit Time: 12130 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Loflin Dairy Owner Email:
Owner: Wayne LoFlip._
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 2410 Loflin Dairy Rd Sophia NC 273509164
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°50'43" Longitude: 79°52'39"
From WSRO: US HWY 311 south to Sophia. Turn left onto Loflin Dairy Rd..
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Clifford W Loflin Operator Certification Number: 21323
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Clifford Loflin Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Clifford Loflin Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Mel' Ro ebrock Phone:
Inspector Signature: iA^ fill VA Date: 5-1116-7
Secondary Inspector(sj:
Inspection Summary:
3. Bottle wash water must be directed into WSP no later than next SWCD inspection. No calves being bottle fed in last two months.
9. Need to put curbing up under the pushoff ramp to contain waste.
21. Don't forget to complete 2007 soil test sampling.
21. 4/10107 waste analysis=4.8 lbs. N11000 gal.
24. Calibration completed March 2006.
28. Check PAN on small grain silage rotation. The acreage in fields 1,5, & 9 has changed. Need to,update WUP.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC760023 Owner -Facility:-Wayne Lotiin Facility Number: 760023
inspection Date: 05/09/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Q Cattle - Dry Cow 1 54
O Cattle - Milk Caw 300 1 104
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 420,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
kaste Pond CONCRETE WSP 90.00
Page: 2

• •
Permit: AWC760023 Owner- Facility: Wayne Laffin Facility
Number: 760023
Inspection Date: 05/09/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■ ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■ ❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■ ❑
❑
Z Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■ ❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
■
❑ ❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection Storage & Treatment
Yes
No NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
❑
■ ❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
■ ❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■ ❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any partof the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
■
❑ ❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■ ❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWC760023 Owner -Facility: Wayne Loflin Facility Number'. 760023
Inspection Date: 05/09/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN? ❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lb&? ❑
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 Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 2 Corn (Grain)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
1 B. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P? ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC760023 Owner - Facility: Wayne Loflin Facility Number: 760023
Inspection date: 05/09/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after> 1 inch rainfall & monthly? 1
❑
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
Yea
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: AWC760023 Owner -Facility: Wayne Loflin Facility Number: 760023
Inspection Date: 05/09/2007 • Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
a
Page: 6

vision of Water Qualit)W
Facility Number �3 Division of Soil and Water Conservation 1 l
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit T 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: 12 .:� D County: o Region:
I.
Farm Name: __ _ l L 1�1 �l Y�l n��_ - __ _ Owner Email: /� `
Owner Name: Phone: 47 �J — r 387
Mailing Address: 1►( Q h-{Q I tgC, a73 S _
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Wy
`U 1 L Title:
Onsite Representative: [A.Il l �brL1'
Certified Operator: ��� ��y I_I 'T '
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
US �,y. 3D
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phon No — 3 3
Integrator: s V
Operator Certification Number: 02 } 3�3
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: EIT �
Sou4h . Le_onfa
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ urkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Longitude:
A N]
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifej
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
I
Number of Structures: FT
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 �g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
J!§,Ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
9Yes
❑ 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 k�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: Ard
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes�WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ONo ❑ 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 i® NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require Yes gtlo NA ElNE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 1KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes U 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 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
L�Q No
El NA
El NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
El Yes
1111<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
ONo
❑ 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):
)N,e.ca �% pv. e, urla i r,r. u.
*le uaa n�
No L n=e_.. FJ�
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
u4e,r Us
to be, of i rece d to Lo
Phone: j I I — 5 of 63
Date: d
12128104 Continued

•
Facility Number: — gate of Inspection 0 -%
Required 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 t*o ❑ NA ❑ NE
_ the.appropi-rate box. KWUP Checklists 0-Design i0.�Iaps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes ULNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
z Waste Application N9 Weekly Freeboard AsWaste Analysis 9 Soil Analysis 9 Waste T___ ❑ sertirmatio
Mhttainfall Stockingrop Yield Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections P<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 fait 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 property 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
Z.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
O�NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[--]No
XNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
NQ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
1XNA
❑ NE
9,Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Eg:No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes IXNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes kg'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
a • Ali (prQ.on �oh��le�-ed 3 ja0o4Pb
LSD � 41,S q-rb-07-
Asa r►�z2-off- t� 0.S'�e� e�.,�cz,j � S lS
-.1
ctcre.�.
ma I
S 4 ICJ r
12128104

0
ENR
Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance 200'
Reason for Visit (4Routine Q Complaint O Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Accessston- Wcm
p;mninnal Qfflce
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: G b 5 Departure Time: LAO-3L County: .W..._ Region: W `5_._.,_
TM_.
Farm Name:.��L''\ —1�Vlk Owner Email:.__.............--_-----------.—._._._._.
Owner Name: Phone:
MailingAddress:
yl�?
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:.__ . �._ Phone No:.,.'�..�.�.
Onsite Representative: fhb.._._..__.._._------_w. _. Integrator: -.--- .__:.-_......_.._...-_-.__..--.--..._..-_---.—•
Certified Operator: :, _..,•.._..__,.. T_ Operator Certification Number:.....I-..tea
Back-up Operator: _ _ Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ®o Ej' ©" Longitude: 00 ® "
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Capacity PopiilahonT' Wet Poultry Capacity. Population `Cackle Capacity Population,,
�Y El Wean
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La er
v
z
Dry Poultry::l
�
i r t r
_
x -
rr;.0#her
�� ❑ Other
;Number of §tructu�es f `
5 l
to Finish
El Wean to Feeder
❑Feeder to Finish
El Farrow to Wean
❑Farrow to Feeder
El Farrow to Finish
� ❑Gilts
rff ❑ Boars
❑ La era
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
'> 4
[►'Dai Cow
❑ Dai Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ D Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Go
Discharees & cream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: El Structure ❑Application Field ❑Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑Yes
,.._,%
L�d'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? {If yes, notify DWQ}
El Yes
❑ No
Q'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
LgNA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
El Yes
,❑,
L]d'No
[#NA
❑ NE
._3. Were there any. adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State. - ,•.-----
.-❑_Yes--[�To--
-[:].Yes--
❑ NA
- ❑-NE
other than from a discharge?
IZ/28104 Continued

Facility Number:� 3 • Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. 1s storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes Uf To ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1- Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: t�
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3U
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
Boo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
E 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? [I Yes
L� No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
3<o
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require [] Yes
�o
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
S No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu., Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10%.or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s) J
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
En No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
3fio
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination'
❑ Yes
L+7 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
E'1<lo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
21�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
.-Reviewer/Inspector Name. Phone: .�'J)i
-Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: 1P— 'jI &te of Inspection J
Required Records & Documents
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
[I Yes
©No
❑ NA El NE
20, Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ yes
[I-Ko
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
ElKo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute'lnspections ❑ Monthly and P
Rain Inspections ❑
Weather Code
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
[l Yes
2<o.
❑ NA . ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 3790 ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
[:]Yes
R<o
❑ NA
ElNE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
ElYes
[!, No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[ �' o
❑ NA
[INE
27, Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
En No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[�lo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ yes
FrNo
❑ 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
�o
❑ 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
Bl�o
❑ 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
Elgo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
Pio
❑ NA
❑ NE
1212 /04

s
Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Technical Assistance
Needed
Provided
34. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
NCO-&
❑
❑�"��``'�` l ►v�>,x��S
35. Waste Alan 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 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 .... .... ... . ._.. 4 ........_ _ _._ . .
2.
5.
3. 6. 1212"4

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Sol I and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency r�
Facility Number: 760023 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC760023 Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: F ndoiph Region: -
Date of Visit: 07/27/2006 Entry Tlme:01:45 PM Exit Time: 03115 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Loftin Dairy Owner Email:
Owner: Wayne Loftin
Phone: 000=495-1384
Mailing Address: 2410 Loflin Qa'U Rd _ Sophia NC 273509164
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:35°50'43" .. Longitude:79°52'39"
From WSRO: US HWY 311 south to Sophia. Turn left onto Loftin Dairy Rd..
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Clifford W Loflin Operator Certification Number: 21323
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Re prosentative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Clifford Loflin Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Clifford Loflin Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: M li sa rlorbrocl
Phone:
Inspector Signature` Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
21. 2006 soil test results ok.
21. Records look real good!
21. Some fields of small grain germinated but didn't grow due to drought, nutirnts, poor soil conditions. PAN was deducted from next
crop (corn in 2006).
24. Honey wagon was calibrated in March 2006, Not required again until 2008.
414106 waste analysis=7.1 lbs. N11000 gal.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC760023 Owner- Facility: Wayne Loflin
Inspection Date: 07/27/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 760023
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
O Cattle - Dairy Heifer 40
Cattle -Milk Cow 1 300 94
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 420,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
�Iste Pond CONCRETE WSP 56.00
Page: 2

0 •
Permit: AWC760023 Owner - Facility: Wayne Loftin Facility Number : 760023
Inspection Date: 07/27/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ Cl ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c, Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
Cl
■
❑ ❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yea
No
NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑ ❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑
■
❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑ ❑
improvement?
Waste Applicatipn 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: AWC760023 Owner - Facility: Wayne LDflin
Inspection Date: 07/27/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Waste Application
PAN?
Is PAN > 10%/10 Ibs•?
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
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil 'Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
Facility Number: 760023
Reason for Visit: Routine
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
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?
Yes No NA NE
Q
13
Q
Q
Corn (Grain)
Corn (Silage)
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Millet
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ Cl
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ Cl ❑
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Q ■ Cl ❑
U
Page: 4

Permit: AWC760023 Owner - Facility: Wayne Loflin Facility Number: 760023
Inspection Date: 07/2712006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
conduct slud
❑
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?
❑ MOO
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑ ■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fall to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ 0
❑
❑
25 r%A th f '1't f 'I to a a surve as re uired b the ermit?
❑ ■
❑
❑
i e act l y al g y q y p
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
27, Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ ■ ❑ Cl
Other Issues Yea 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: AWC760023 Owner -Facility: Wayne Loflin
Facility Number:
760023
Inspection Date: 07/27/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues
Yea
No
NA
NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
■
❑
❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■
❑
❑
Page: 6

Division. of Water Quality
Facility Number. f Division of Soil and Water Conservation
- 0 Other Agency
Type of Visit C mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: �►rrival Time: ,,� � Departure Time: County: Region: �D
Farm Name: _L' iC]Vl _ -_- Owner Email:
j,
Owner Name: Ll n Phone: 3Z
Mailing Address: 1- FU
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: S Integrator:
Certified Operator: AA Operator Certification Number: OX
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: �° [;�:n �« Longitude: ®° �'
ra—A Id
Design , Current : ; Design : ` Current Design C
Swine Capacity Po ul P
P Y P ation, . Wet Poultry : Capacity Populatton Cattle Capacity Poi
U Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other I
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer Ij
Dry Poultry',.
No n-
Pulle
Other
Poults
91
Dairy Caw
El
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
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?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: • 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 r❑`No
❑ NA
❑ NE
1 Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
40 Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in);
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes 9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(iel large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes VNo
❑ 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? �(No ❑ NA El NE 0
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) ❑ Yes
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes �(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �No
ElNA ❑ NE
ElExcessive Ponding ElHydraulic Overload ElFrozen Ground ElHeavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
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
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No KNA ❑ NE
No ftNA ❑ 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):
rr
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date: —7
Page 2 of 3 F 'V 112128104 Continued

Facility Number: — We of Inspection Q � •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need im ovement? les�.el}eel ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[ "astc Application Weekly Freeboard aste Analysis oil Analysis aste Transfers
p/ Rainfall $ Stoc in Crop Yield Vlonthly and 1" Rain Inspections Weather Code
DfT
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 )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 !!r❑�-- No O(NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes *o ❑ 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 XNo ❑ 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?it
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (ia/ 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 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
(0
'Roo U e ,
tkya4 'o),o
*14 /06 = ?.1 l bs. N*"I"
low
1
age 3 of 3 12128104
❑NA ❑NE
Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE

0 Division of Water Quality
[J Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 760023 Facility Status. Active Permit: AWC760023 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:. Ropline County: Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: a6t2OQ§ Entry Time-11:35 AM Exit Time: 01:20 PM Incident M
Farm Name: Loflin Diljfy Owner Emall:
Owner: Wgvng Loflin Phone: [phone]
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°50'43" Longitude: 79052'39"
From WSRO: US HWY 311 south to Sophia. Turn left onto Loflin Dairy Rd..
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts 0 Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
0 Records and Documents Q Other Issues
Certified Operator: Clifford W Loflin Operator Certification Number: 21323
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Clifford Loflin Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Clifford Loflin Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: M lissa M Rosebr Phone: [phone]
ab ��
Inspector Signature:Ig- Ext.383 Date: b �1
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
3. and 9. Operator is currently building heavy use area and cattle lots. Need to revise WUP when completed. Opetrator wants to
move fencing closer to creek in cattle lots. Operator was instructed by DWQ to NOT move fencing any closer due to probability for
sediment and manure run-off.
21. 2001 soil test results look ok.
21. Went over new permit requirements with operator.
6/16/05 waste analysis= 7.0 lbs. NI1000 gal.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC760023 Owner -Facility: Wayne loflin
Inspection Date: 04/26/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 760023
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
© Cattle -Milk Cow 300 145
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 420,000
Waste Structures
Tvpe Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Waste Pond CONCRETE WSP 13
Page: 2

Permit: AWC760023 Owner - Facility: Wayne Loftin Facility Number: 760023
Inspection Date: 04/25/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
YAs
❑
No NA NE
0 ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
0 1113
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0013
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
moo
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
N ❑ ❑
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 Qnllertinn_ Stnra9e & 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?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
8, Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑
❑ ❑
and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
❑ ❑
Improvement?
Yes
No NA NE
Waste Aopiicatinn
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or improvement?
❑
N ❑ ❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%M0Ibs,?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare so117
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5.
Page: 3

0
•
Permit: AWC760023 Owner -Facility: Wayne Loflin
Facility Number: 760023
Inspection Date: 04/26/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Crop Type 6
Yes
No NA
NE
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan(CAWMP)? ❑
■ ❑
❑
15. Does the receiving 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?
❑
■ ❑
Cl
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
■ ❑
No NA
❑
NE
Records and Doruments
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
■ ❑ ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
■
❑ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
■
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after a 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
■
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■ ❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
26, Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Page: 4

i •
Permit: AWC760023 Owner -Facility: Wayne Loftin Facility Number: 760023
Inspection Date: 04/26/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA_ NE
26. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ M ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those mortality
rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the Inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality ❑ ❑ ❑
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
32. Did Revlewerllnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ M ❑ ❑
Page: 5

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
Dale of Visit: pep Q Arrival Time: 1� Departure Time: _ �} a� County: lZaMbl ph Region:
Farm Name: C�c� �1 in haL % f xj Owner Email:
Owner Name: .n e--, __ L`A t � r Phone: QS 1 3 Tyt _f F0 rd
Mailing Address: q1b +LCT l I in.
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: C 1 Title: Phone No:`1 71317J
Onsite Representative: rd Integrator:
Certified Operator: Cll E Cocd XNJ ' ) n ,Tr • Operator Certification Number: � � 3 13
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
I i ,b1 I So
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: r;Kaa Longitude:
L4 ( i h 'bal r Lj
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layet I I —:::]
�I ❑Non -La er
Other
❑ Other
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?
+' e
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
3b 0
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cowl
I
Number of Structures: IT,
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 4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [[[Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: '1 — Date of Inspection I�
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: Di95t Pan A_ -
,� Spillway?: NO
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? Cl Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes 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 tNo
eat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? El Yes ❑ NA ❑ N
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ N
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) �No
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ElYes ❑ NA ❑Nmaintenance or improvement'?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes KNo ElNA [11,
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ N
❑ 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 Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
E
E
E
E
E
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
El 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,
E] Yes
No
El NA
El NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
El Yes
o
El NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
El Yes
///;o
❑ NA
❑ NE
j,jrUCU-.,C-S0-mtV(U_raWi'h',
0.any YES apsweisAnd/ar,)anyryrecommendations.any other.commenisgs�of facility: to better explain sltustions s(usedsadditionalpagcs as'neee sary)' f..
' � •..wl�..r ,ti., "t <.; 1p+1� tstit.3"? la.'K. i
1�9as�e_ p�t�.n revised �cr b�l�. ash, GropSr die. S I-emo� .
a aa�s Sol ts ? ��
tA
ReviewerlInspector Name %.a
11_51 �� Phone: �� . �� _— 3�
ReviewerlInspector SignatuDate: 1 9-10 I C6-
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: —7 — Do Inspection is
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
[Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 4�No
El❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Otherthe appropriate box. ❑ WUP Checklists
21. Doe ecord keeping need i rovement? If yes, chec he appropriate box b low. Kyes ❑ No ❑NA ❑ NE
aste Application Wee y Freeboard LET WasteAnalysis Soil Analysis as 1'!
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield ❑Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections �W=eatherCode
"t4:�Ml
22. Di aci i y 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
��,,"" nn� 1
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?0(!A , NEI Yes o ❑ 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 A No NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
O�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
b No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
No
El 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
VN.
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
la &44-4 C_q
N, (boo
V(P oco
1
uo0-aej AUU)
Cr
i
U 12a&04

hnical Assistance Site Visit
D7♦Ion of Soil and Water Conservatiori
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number 7fi - 23 Date: 12/17104 Time: 1 14:30 Time On Farm: 90 WSRO
Farm Name Loftin Dairy County Randolph Phone:
495-1384
Mailing Address 2410 Loflin Dairy Road Sophia NC 27350
Onsite
Representative Clifford Loflin Integrator
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
Cl No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
OO Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
Q Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -
El
Wean to Feeder
[I Feeder to Finish
Layer
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
OR Dairy
[3Non-Dairy
OR Dairy
[3Non-Dairy
3oa
I"I
❑ Other
GENERAL. QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
6• Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
❑ yes ®no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
❑ yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Identifier Concrete Structure
Level (Inches) 1 42
CROP TYPES 1corn, Silage I Isman_grain cover
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

C�
a
Facility Number 76 - 23 Date:
12/17/04
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in Storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
El
El
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
21-1.0200
❑
❑
[115, Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32, Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18, Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organ izelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
[120. Latelmissing 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
[124. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker checklcalibration
❑
❑
ReaullatoLy Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
1❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
[:] Referred to NCDA Date:
❑ Other... �
43. Irrigation system designlinatal let! on
❑
❑
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45.Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1 • The waste plan was revised on 9/03/04 for crop
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
and field changes.
2.
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
Si. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
El
5'
56.Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
6
68. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

•
Facility Number 76 - 23 Date: 12/17/04 I
MMENTS:
Waste analysis: 10/22/04 LSD 2.5 Ibs.N/1000 gals. B
Mr. Loflin has not received his new C.O.C. and general permit that he is aware of.
# 57. 1 reviewed some of the new record keeping requirements of the permit with Mr. Loflin.
Mr. Loflin is currently working on collecting the calf bottle wash water.
Mr. Loflin stated that the waste plan would have to be revised again due to land being lost to the Hwy.
73 project cutting across his farm.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST IRocky Durham
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 12/20/04
Entered By: lftcky Durham
3 03/10/03

1r�G „�: �•'`.�i' t . �.,x� Y � „x x .�,1.+w
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 76 23 Date of Visit: 8/11/2004 Time: l000
O Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .................
FarmName: L.flirt.Dmit.y............................................................................................ ........ County: RA[id.Rlftbx......................................... WSRQ........
Owner Name: W..ayae.................................... LRflilil........................................................... Phone No: 05-138.4.4 lit'fQxd)..............................................
Mailing Address: ;4XQL.oflim.Daaxx.liead................................................................... S.aphaa..N.C.............................. ...... 2.7.35.0..............
..........................
Facility Contact: CliffQW.Lo in...............................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: 425,.1.N6AHa .a).................
Onsite Representative: Gtxfltl�d..Lslffipt........................................................
Certified Operator:0iffpxd..1 ................... ... Latli►l.,Ir.........................
Location of Farm:
Integrator:.............................................................................
Operator Certification Number:113.23.............................
?rom WSRO: US HWY 311 south to Sophia. Turn left onto Loftin Dairy Rd.. f
[]Swine []Poultry ®Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ' 50 ° 43 « Longitude F 7970 S2 & 39 �
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry Capacity
Population, Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
JE1 Layer
I
I
Dairy
1 300
1 95
1.
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
300
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
420,000
❑ 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 1 Stnucture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ......Wwle.Faad.........................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 48
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 76-23 • hate of Inspection 8/11/2004 �7
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 Ammlication
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 Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
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.
Coenefe 'is" (rr to question #) Explain any Y
mmES answers anilor any recammendattons oranyother comments.-M s
Use: drawings of fsetlity to better explain situat�ans (Use additional'pages as necessary) ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
FV7
.`w.7
.y..
8. Suggest removing vegetation from area around collection pipe.
8. Waste management construction looks great.
3. 2003 and 2004 Soils ok. 7/17/04 waste analysis=6.1 lbs. N/1000 gal.
9. T-2079 F-7 is now used partly to feed heifers. About an acre F-5 (near the silo) is being used for a lot and is not available for waste
application. Need to deduct these acreages from the WUP since ithey're no longer available for waste application.
9. Crops have not yet been revised in the WUP.
9, An extra 200 gal./day from the bottle wash area will now be going into the waste pond. Need to add the revised volume to the
CAWMP.
Reviewer/inspector Name Melis ,Rosebrock
Reviewer/inspector Signature: I M A 1W AA_ Date: 1 d
I Z/I.7/U3 Continued

Facilfty Number: 76-23 1)�of Inspection 8/I1/2004 •
Reguired 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?
(ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
31, if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
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 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
12112103

(Type of Visit !Q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation j
Reason for Visit (A Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: 'Fiore:
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted 13 Certified O Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .....»._._..._.__..
FarmName: ...� _ ..__ .. _...._...... _............. County: ,�,..�. ........_ ....._ .... _._ tl �!
• �4 ; 138' �C� } 1
Owner Name:....,,] .!'L.�,..... .. �.C..l.i.n.._.»»......... __wW...»..... 'Phone No:»�`�'.�.........._..�»_..........._».......��.1.!}_.
Mailin Address:
»czht..�? ....................
� t�
Facility Contact: ... .�� .. �� n.» _._Title:._ .. _...__.. _ . »__. __. Phone No: , ..T ` .I..33
....
Onsite Representative: ,alm..-J .....5 ?T l t !1 ........» » , ».. Integrator: ........ ...
jj
Certified Operator%....11.f_f�Ei_..W. . ._.,» .{ r},..... r :»»... Operator Certification Nuinber:._...,_.., - j..3
Location of Farm:
u5 31I Sot
is • Lei+ onib boo -'[i n D!�6 ry
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry x
Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®• ®' �" Longitude --- — — �I�IIIII IIIIIUIII�IIUII ■IIIIIII��II�IIIIIII
Design Current wt "4ry CIIFI'ent DesignCUrlent
F F
Swine Capacity Po]DlllBtion t .'Poultry: r. "
Capacity MPooilattan :'e_�'. .. Cabacity. rPaunlaiion
Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
Feeder to Finish
[] Non -Layer
Farrow to WeanOther
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish`
z
1 f T0t_81 Desi13
fr,
iIT. YtI I � 1 n
Gilts
Boars
g
g1�fi:mberaf I.aooas�'
•.-HAtfjllFpl`pA11�I�C��:.RA�71'�"irSTMC�";
Disebarges & 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/rain?
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
�� ure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 r
Identifier: _. » ..._ »» .............» ._....... »._..............».... ____._.»..._... ._._ _ _....
Freeboard (inches):
12112103 Continued

Facility.Number: - 07,31 Date of Inspection •
5. Are there any immediate threats to the iity 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
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? X Yes A
❑No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes KNo
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
l l . 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
13. Do the receiving crops differ wi those designated in the Certified Animal WasW Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes A
No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes A" 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 -f3 Yes B 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 o
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during Iand 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 1)(No
Air Quality representative immediately.
j'- ao19 r l id lritrcJ u4-e.J1
Reviewer/Inspector Name`
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
Date:
12112103 Continued

. Facility Number: — D e of Inspection •
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
�No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
` 0
❑ 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
o
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
zo
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
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 AV4r-NH'9
)<Yes
❑ No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
P<NO
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
v
12112103

(Typo of Visit O Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine Q Complaint O Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 23 Dale of Visit: 12/to/2ofl3 Time: 1200
Q Not Operational O Below Threshold
0 Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: _ .... _..._ _.
Farm Name: LQfIIQ.Aair .............. County: fUj0AQu?all ............................... WSR.Q......
Owner Name: Waxne.---------------._ htlfLiA----------------------------- Phone No: 3 k:425:J $4.�k�------------------- ---
Mailing Address: 414.I�Qflan.?si�3-at��lta.................................... . SORMAM............................................................... 273.5.9 ..............
Facility Contact: Glifaox�l.)<,oali[t...........................:.......Title:............................................... Phone No: 33h.495,03.6.................
Onsite Representative: CJiffQ[dlaQflill_.------------------------------------ integrator:.----------------------------------------_..
Certified Operator: ClI fu¢d..W........................... Loffin., r.......................................... Operator Certification Number: 21.32,3 .............................
Location of Farm:
From WSRO: US HWY 311 south to Sophia. Turn left onto Loflin Dairy Rd..
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • Sf) & 43 LL Longitude 79 • 52 ' 3966
r h0rfi Current Design Current 'E� Designs Currentaci P.e ulation Poultry Ca aci 13o ulation Cattle @a aci Po 'ulation �';
❑Wean to eeder F Mr. ❑Layer � j:_:�[ 300 125
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑Non -La er
.. y ❑Non -Dairy
R ❑ Farrow to Wean w -
. ❑ Farrow to Feeder r ❑Other .
r. ❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design C►apacity 300
Gilts
❑.
. ❑ Boars lutni SSL,W 420,000
Number of Lagoons I _ .J ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solld Traps Fi IrlNo Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes IN 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: ..._W uta.P_ojd.--.......................... ........................... ........................... -•--•--•-----•--------•----
Freeboard (inches): 127
05103101 / a Continued

Facility Number: 76-23 1 Date of Inspection 12/10/2003 10
5. Are there any immediate threats to tJ 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
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Anolication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes OR No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload [ ❑ Yes ®No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
® Yes
❑ No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
a men l e e a a y o n. c
i a f aC a st a i n ❑ Field Copy IN Final Notes
N
8. Operator has been approved for Cost -Share money to install stocktrails, heavy use area, buffers and fencing by March 1, 2003. He
_
Tans to start as soon as possible. Bottle wash waste is to be sent to septic type system per NRCS/SWCD.
11. Small overapplication since operator was using a different, but appropriate, WUP at the time of application.
17. DWQ to send another copy of the COC and permit.
19. Don't forget to obtain soil analyses for 2003.
19. Records look great!
5. Need to add field #10 to WUP T-2079. Operator wants to change WUP to include sorghum and small grain hay and silage. See
echnical specialist.
wer/Inspector Name
E
wer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

FaciliyNumber: 76-23 1 D V f Inspection 5-2/1-0/20-03-1 0
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e, residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
O5103101

• • 130o k1r5.
Type of Visit ompiiance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time:
Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted [3 Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: 1-00-JN I)iAft*7/- _ _ County: E R ✓.A
Owner Name: w &2E W FLIIV Phone No: 33 k - L13 l
Mailing Address: nL� i _C� T i,t-j pat F4 RoA-D
Facility Contact: LOFL Title:
Onsite Representative: CLAFF09Z U
Certified Operator: [�Ll FFCE"-LDEL►rJ 'rf-
Location of Farm:
Phone No: 3_�&- Ls,�- IIND
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: Z 13
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry $ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • ®4 " Longitude ®' 6 ® LL
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity�'�'Po u'lation .
❑ Wean to Feeder
I
I
❑ Layer I
I
JE1 Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer I
IE] Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
-�
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
3CD
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
L4 p
7
is
❑ Boars
Number.of Lagoons a' ® ❑ Subsurface Drains Present JJEJ Lagoon Area I0 Spray Field Area
Iliolding- Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid W�aste Management S stem .
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lacoon ❑ 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
strucutD Structure 2 Structure 3 Stricture 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches);
05103101
❑ Yes %NO
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Stricture 6
Continued
u

17�5
Facility Number: — Date of inspection D
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?
(if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
❑ Yes
o
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
)kN0
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
Yes
[[[
❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
No
((((
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
o
11. Is there evidence of over application; ElExcessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydra lic Overload
❑ YesRkN
No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those d grated in the Certified A al Waste Managemen fan (CAR, )?
❑ Yes
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yeso
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
El Yeso
IN
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
ElYeso
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yeso
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
';RNo
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 Ceptified Animal Was Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, etc.)
❑ Yes
No
maps. V/ �/%
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
o
to
20.
is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
El Yes
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
XNo
22.
Fail to notify regionai DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
`�~
o —
(ie' discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
%❑
� _
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative,)
f•` ❑Yes
ANo
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 AV,,W?
Yes
No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Gomirients;(refer to gn'�stioii .:Expiahi suy YFS answers and/or any recnmme�i�ntinns flr s v: er.cnmments � � ? �f" � �` R,
Use drawings of facility to better ezplata
'i
situations (use additlonal pages as necessary) i ; Field Copv ❑Final Notes
�r ? .� .., , Sy ,:> s tba r: °* 4' ° •«_ kF ` ��` r n., :� <... ;; r ,E� ,;
'�3.x:.w,i'."�su.4W ..�..r�. �...::L,.s..�t�.r�J,...atd�c.�:x�+.iF. �^�Z'la.:. i:r.t. ...F.r� t:&+a�.'�3 ntu+a.; `4.t��%w •€«._d�.R�'; �..,.,--.�s�� w....- ��x&.,>�ri�1.
4
IR .
R003
$144t�
r i"-/I
r
4 F�' y¢c ���.
Reviewerllnspector Name P x. ED
" is ` ��. �� _ ��`�rw sa �"�i7�
a .
•try ... rs
Reviewer/lnspector ftnatur :
' Date:
05103101,
r .t , J

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? ❑ Yes KNo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes I/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? -- B -ee. $
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.) B YesE3-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? 4=—] *es E�*o
1OP-qJ03 LO&*c ( ,ago j_ gs& l 6s, N/�Coo �P,
(n/19/63 9 Ibs .N/l000 �,oQ
402". lb -L,�r w u -P
+o ins
UraAkia. � ��--l.a�p w u -P
Wk,+, 141 40
O
05103101

hnical Assistance Site Visit
O lion of Soil and Water ConservaticM
Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 76 - 23 Date: 511103 Time: 1 9:09 1 Time On Farm: WSRO
Farm Name Loftin Dairy County Randolph Prone
495-1384
Mailing Address 2410 Loflin Dairy Road Sophia NC 27350
Onsite
Representative Clifford W. Loflin Jr. Integrator
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Q Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
Q Response to complaint/local referral
Q Requested by producer/integrator
Q Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy 300 125
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging, from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands?
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
requiring DWQ notification?
6• Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes Ono
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Round Tank
Level (Inches) 48
CROP TYPES lCorn, Silage ISmall grain silage
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
Q Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
Q Response to complaint/local referral
Q Requested by producer/integrator
Q Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy 300 125
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging, from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands?
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
requiring DWQ notification?
6• Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes Ono
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Round Tank
Level (Inches) 48
CROP TYPES lCorn, Silage ISmall grain silage
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
® Dairy 300 125
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging, from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands?
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
requiring DWQ notification?
6• Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes Ono
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Round Tank
Level (Inches) 48
CROP TYPES lCorn, Silage ISmall grain silage
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

r
a
Facility Number 76 - 23 Date:
5/1/03
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
El
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plans wlproducer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
El 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, 2H.0200 re -certification
[116. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (POA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Latelmissing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
[120. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation design/installation
❑
El
El Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure Irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsolling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
®
❑
❑
3.
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
El
5'
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 76 _ 23 Date: F 511103
(COMMENTS:
-03 Soils-4121103
Steve Lewis-DWO Called Melissa Rosebrock-4/30/03
markers.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST 113.13arton Roberson
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 7/17/03 - 1
Entered By: lRocky Durham
3 03/10/03

Facility Number 7ti 23 Date of Visit: 9/30/2t)02 Time: 1145
Q Not O erational Q Below Threshold
Permitted a Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:. ..............
Farm Name: 1asTft.D.airy.......................................................................
Owner Name: Wayne.................................... uffin ........
Mailing Address: IU.I.of�p[1.?�y..�stPd.....................
Facility Contact: Cli££otrd.Loffin.............................................Title:
County:&t►dolph......................................... W,SRA........
Phone No:-.49.5-134..(HI..................................................
................. S.QP.WaN.0 .............................................................. 2.7.35A.------......
Phone No: 336.495,1336..Marn)........
Onsite Representative: Cljfofd Loffipt....... ::............ ...... Integrator: ................................................................
Certified O erator:. Operator Certification Number:213
P .ljfpjr.d.W........................... LQtart.ar.......................................... P
Location of Farm:
From WSRO: US HWY 311 south to Sophia. Turn left onto Lot]in Dairy Rd.. A,
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ' 50 , 43 64 Longitude F 39 46
��it'`
De_si
Current
CurrentePoult
INRi8
Poulation
regn
P.o ulation r Cattle Ca acit 'Po ulationl'
acit
a
❑ Wean to Feeder
Layer
® Dairy 300
136
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
}
❑ Farraw to Wean"
r
❑Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
Total Desi Ca atilt 300 k,
❑ Farrow to Finish
` '
❑ Gilts;
2
❑ Boars
`^ T+otal SSLVV. 420, 000
=;
,
Number of Lagoons. © ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area
` Holding Ponds /Solid Traps 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges Stream Imp ,
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 R Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ......... oncretA.............................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 78
05103101 Continued
36

Facility Number: 76-23 Date of Inspection 9/30/2002 .
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity ' of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, 0 Yes CM No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes ®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures -lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
It. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain Overseed 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?
Refired Records & Docum nets
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?
Oe/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments refer to qu tion UI Explain any swe and/or an en tion or any other
—_an—
se draw of faciiit to bet er explain situatio use a itional pa a ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
8. Need to contain waste solids to lot near dry cow area (repair curbing).
8. May need to re-route bottle washing waste. Check next year.
19. Need to sample and record solid manure that is applied with a spreader.
19. Don't forget to deduct nitrogen applied to cover crop in the Fall from the allowable Spring corn PAN.
3/28/02 waste analysis: 6.0 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Reviewer/Inspector Name iMelissa Rosebrocic
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 IV Continued

Facility Number: 76-23 Dof Inspection 9/30/2002 0
Odor Isstpes
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge actor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
' ti6na •omnien an ar raw ngs:
AL
05103101

la:000M
,DivislomafWater,Quality
Y fP E n ig t 1
1 w
t, 1 Y § E.1 j, £
Divilsion of Soiland WaterCoaservatidn�
nib F
1e
$;3ther
Type of Visit l"' Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine Q Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Hate of Visit: 30 Time:
Not O erationalQ Below Threshold
Fill Permitted Pill Certified Li Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold -
Farm Name: �-�i" 110 J d r V County: &n6 h
Owner Name: a Lo'T 0 Phone No: 3 3 ,� • r- (� q ,� ` )
3
Mailing Address: A I n L&'I n) r rU �rp� / a- I I o c- a 735c)
Pr
Facility Contact: 11 fin r lb T Title: Phone No: 3 3(o S 3
�i
Onsite Representative: 0 rd Lo-Fli n Integrator:
(_ 1I �forL! L��'1 11 O erator Certification N mbe : n
73
Certified Operator: p
Lncatinn of Farm
Frelrm 1u5 %0 : u5 h err I Sd . L e ors o G60 I'lq Zo Jr
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry, Cattle ❑ Morse Latitude Longitude ©"
Design Current ©esiii t~urrcnf."
Design ` Csrrrent
Swine �� ;;'� a. ;-;.Ca�� aclN.. 'Pu ulation �'+�E'oultr '.Capacity` €Po` ulatiat%,- = ,C ttie,..
"Ga acity `'!Po vulation: T
❑ Wean to Feeder i [] Layer f Dairy
00
I l o
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer Non -Dairy ;
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
, Farrow to finish,; ;�" ,, tal'Design�ACapacity
T o
❑ t'
Gaits
❑ Boars I: TMA SSm 70cc j
J -'i:. ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ ❑ La aon Area 5 ray Field Area
3 N umbe`r of Lagiions,
a H6Iding"�P6ids`! olid;Traps �,. ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
_
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. 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 X 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
Struc e l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: eont"r v4t)re_
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
Continued
1�

1
'7
Facility Number: —, 3 Date of Inspection
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?•(ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
ANo
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
XNO
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
i
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
�`DC�1 No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pending ` ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overl ad
❑ Yes
XNo
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the CC#ified Animal ste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
A 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
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
ONO
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) / ZI
ElYes
No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (fie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & ample reports)
❑ Yes
No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
[XNo
21, Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
ANo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
El Yes
No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
X No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
VNo
KM
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
1.,-,�.•! S
Comments (refer tn'questian #) Explain anpYES answers'and/nr any lrecommendatians or anv other�comments. {
7S
Use drawingi of facility to better explain stttiations (use additional pages es necessary) 'momy ❑ F N
I
l Field Con final Notes
aE� ii , 1
I.I Bi It
rrFf.
Ceti
It 0 If Y) ! l!
� r
T
twwr•. ..y..f ,..w„-.., ..-..w -"ter-v...... , .. + �,..,.�.,«. �..,.-,
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: - Date: &GI--~�
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: -] tp — c-),3 Pat, of Inspection b
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below E Y-n B 'So
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? --E3-Yrr--E3-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 x No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? o
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? - Yes "-
'Addition a Ii Conarn ents; and/or, Drawings:'
z
00
1
daad' Al s �
IAO�J MAC-)
05103101

L
Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 23 Date of Visit: 12/5/2001 Time: 0420
0 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
■ Permitted ■ Certified 13Conditionally Certified [Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:... ......................
Farm Name: Loi iaRaixy..................................................... .... County: RAtad.alph......................................... WSR.O........
Owner Name: W.axle.................................... LQfjj0 ................................
Mailing Address: 2.4XQ.L.gfllAl.j?AJIKY.RR d.............................
Facility Contact: Clilford.0 lia............................................... Title:
Onsite Representative: Glintard..Loffla.................................................
Certified O erator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No: 336:495:054...........
saawaAc.............................................................. 2.7.350 .............
Phone No: 33G,4�.133b.1s[ A...........
Integrator: .....................................................................................
Operator Certification Number: Z13.23...............
From 220 Bypass take route 311 West, go about 5 miles. Landmarks - Citgo Station at intersection of 311 and Beeson Farm +
toad. Public School on right. 1/2 mile on right Loftin Drive.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ' S0 * 43 64 Longitude 79 • 52 L 39
,>
F
iSw �.e.0
�� �a�
Desi n Curretnt .:
C� , ,s s�M Desi ' 4 Cu rr eiit
*Design z urrent r, �.y. , _ } gn A .
Ca acti'o lation
PouitryCaracif P.o ula nti Catt�e� ' Caacit�Po' ul tion.
1.
❑ Wean to Feeder
Layer ®Dairy 300 11Ji
Po
Non-Layer0�1-1Y: ❑Non -Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
ther 6�
❑ Farrow to Feeder
.
Total Design Capactfy 300
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
, N
t Tata1SSLW 420,000
❑ Boars
....'.
.R` .n
h,3 a
Number of Lagoon0 10 Subsurface Drains Present 10 Lagoon Area
101 Spray Field Area
Holding fonds / SolidTraps : 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges A StreamImpacts
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: Comcmic.tank.... ................................... .................................... ... ............................... ......................................................................
Freeboard (inche's): 126
05/03/01 37 Continued

Facility Number: 76-23 Date of inspection 12/5/2001 W
5. Are there any immediate threats to theOinegrity 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_Applicatinn
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
1
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ 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, Small Grain Overseed
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? (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 ReviewerMspector 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
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No
Q No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Field Copy ® Final Notes
. Repairs and re-routing of "gray water" look great!
4. Operation is all "pump and haul."
9. need to keep a record of frceboard each week rather than monthly. Still need to obtain soil samples for 2001.
7. Any burial around the milk area is greater than 300' from the creek. Other burial site in the field needs to be greater than 300'.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signal
:lissa Rosebrock n
Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 76-23 1)Inspection 12/5/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
LJtddit1bMiIJgommenMM&Mfaw ngs:
w
05103101

•'36
0
,�, ti�4 i '� then Agency Operation Reviews°
�n !�+!'SEtE :i r3 .>@-,> 3.E. ! >E;• -lr �[S,rl:. ,-y. -
Routine O Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection b
Time of Inspection FEFEM 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted Wertified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered JE3 Not Operational Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm Name: .........LOt.I I..n ....b.o t....
T.
OwnerName:.....�..1.firGd......... U ... ti................................................. .......... Phone No:............. ......... ... ...... .......................
Facility Contact: ...1, .l . b..r ...... 'T..IL. .............. Title: ............................................................... . Phone No:...3 !P:.. 95:..�3,
Mailing Address:.....424/a tof 1.±..�........ �r.�....... .-�... �ti, �•���..J.�.�.........a�.....1....�5�...............��n ..........
nnff ofl ,� c Onsite Representative :.....1.l.!l.l.... ........L..o.l.,.n .... Integrator:.. ................ ........ ....................... .......... .............
Certified Operator: ........ 6.1.1+4of................................................................................. Operator Certification Number:.....( ..... . a.,, .....
Location of Farm: pa
1 .......£? q.�...........!f`I�.... �.................. ........lr''1......C�1f.�r.�.........................
.... .. ............................................................
Latitude =11 Longitude Eml • Mill l Em«
Design r ,Current Poult Design Current Caul 'Design ,Current
Ca aci . Po ' ulahon'
wine ,, ,, Ca act Po ulataon, r3! ^. a e °.,Ca act Pb _ ''
Il tl.
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow'to Feeder
El Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer Dairy d
❑ Non-Layerv.
Non -Dairy
ref �.
❑ Other ,r<r
r
Total Desjgn Capacrty'k
s • •
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes XNO
? Discha c 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 ycs, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 414No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes AKO
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: (10YN& e, S�ruLf a re -
Freeboard (inches): .........................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of th5structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes o
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 C Continued on back
f I

Facility Number: — of Inspection
0 0
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?
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
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
IT. Fait to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. 'Does the facility fail to have all components of the ertified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, reeboa , waste analysis & its ple 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 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?
yiQl 0tjgs'or, deficiencie5 Ore pQ( d. O(Wirig �bis:visit; • X60 wiii•teeeiye 0o fu4-tbtr
'rorri*fidence. abotit: this visit:
14. du,�
. ❑ Yes _XTNo
❑ Yes .�o
❑ Yes *NO
❑ Yes �'! Io
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes bkW
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
b o
VNo
tv No
�No
❑ No
) No
❑ Yes # No
❑ Yes [(No
'4 Yes o
❑ Yes to
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes WNO
.,
Reviewer/Inspector Name F ''�
fjt{/,j°
.M<ri'r� IUT`h
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date: d'

Facility Number: -7 — I140f IE1spection s D Printed on: 7/21/2000
• OdorIssues0
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below -des-4;.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 En Nu-
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? Ox, broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ 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? . n vas n terQ
5100

I r
: Revised April 18, 1999
JUSTIFICATION & DOCUMENTATION FOR MANDATORY WA DETERMINATION
Facility Number 13 Operation is flagged for a wettable
Farm Name: t.E7+'1113. acre determination due to failure of
On -Site Representative: c Part iI eligibility item(s) F1 F2 F3 F4
InspectorlReviewer's Name: �t-Operation not required to secure WA
determination at this time based on
Date of site visit: 1a S b 1 exemption El E2 E3 E4
�T
Date of most recent WUP: Operation pended for wettable acre
determination based on P1 P2 P3
Annual farm PAN deficit: i S'a 1­4"
AN P - � 1�
• 1. hard -hose traveler; 2. center -pivot s stem• A�inear_Vm*ove Irrigation System(s) circle #. h e p y system,
4. stationary sprinkler system w/permanent pipe; 5. stationary sprinkler system w/portable pipe;
6. stationary gun system w/permanent pipe; 7. stationary gun system w/portable pipe
PART 1. WA Determination Exemptions (Eligibility failure, Part 11, overrides Part i exemption.)
E1 Adequate irrigation design, including map depicting wei<able acres, is complete
and signed by an I or PE.
E2 Adequate D, and D2/D3 irrigation operating parameter sheets, including map
depicting wettable acres, is complete and signed by an I or PE.
E3 Adequate D, irrigation operating parameter sheet, including map depicting
wettable acres, is complete and signed by a WUP.
E4 75% rule exemption as verified in Part ill. (NOTE: 75 % exemption cannot be
applied to farms that fail the eligibility checklist in Part II. Complete eligibility
checklist, Part II - F1 F2 F3, before completing computational table in Part 111).
PART 11. 75% Rule Eligibility Checklist and Documentation of WA Determination
Requirements. WA Determination required because operation fails one of the eligibility
requirements listed below:
F1 Lack of acreage which resulted in over application of wastewater (PAN) on spray
field(s) according to farm's last two years of irrigation records.
F2 Unclear; illegible, or lack of information/map.
F3 Obvious field limitations (numerous ditches; failure to deduct required
buffer/setback acreage; or 25% of total acreage identified in CAWMPJncludes
small, irregularly shaped fields - fields less than 5 acres for travelers or less than
2 acres for stationary sprinklers).
F4 WA determination required because CAWMP credits fieid(s)'s acreage in excess
of 75% of the respective field's total acreage as noted in table in Part III.

__ a
'i, E r F. y f - I -E•rj a k i,i a f, .•E ■{ptr..{,.f,.,r �r.rr •�;, RI F y€ t
r ivisron of Water Quality
✓ '-,�1�€t4� �aE ffl f 61t , j 1 I s s y + y 6 1 f ".I 1 i 1 3 t E
r f y EvIswn of soil and Water Conservation k s�f
xsJ
�J24,Uther A
gency.
b
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection ay0peration Review Q Lagoon Evaluation Wk1Ston-Salem
Reason for Visit 04foutine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ionaiM it4ccess
Facility Number Date of Visit. — C7/ Time: /. Oia f' Printed on: 10/26/2000
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Etiermitted [3 Certified E3 Conditionally Certified [,] Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ...............
y:.................. �I .. ��...
Farm Name: r! ' Q.. �.�....1..�............�t4.1. r � ........ Count �••A-n1........................................
t
Owner Name: ,e1� �:o --t? n1 C�/r.......t7r ........ ��.1.11 Phone No: .. '.-.' 9. .. 1 .�.3.` .................
.... l ............... ......
Facility Contact: �! F%—orQ TitlePhone No .............................
Mailing Address: ........ .2.41G'
s.......Lof=/l..N.... A l�....! �7:..................... .��F �.1........... /ll.�................. ...................
Onsite Representative: i `� . L! . Integrator: �11J t°�
.....f:F.....1......................................................... f ...... .ti'. ....................
Certified Opera tor: ..... �Ii Ff Ord............40..F.e:/. N .............. Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
Locst-Vr- . op=F- wY 11 tye 5T- a iq 1-of=6iA1 lD Ve—
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry tattle []Horse Latitude 3S • ®` O Longitude 79 • ®` t v i"
Design
Current Design
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacitv
Population Poultry•:,,• Capacity
Population Cattle
Capacity. Population
Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
I
❑ Dairy
3 p 0 /
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
I
1
1171 Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
30 U
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons i 1❑ Subsurface Drains Present Ili] Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharge & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes EK
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. ]I' discharge is observed, what is the cstimnted flow in galhnin?
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 ❑-ilro
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverEa impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes 0-N`b
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus .;norm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
titrlEl:,l.:tc I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Icicntificr: .. %, J... !G... Gd ^JereTc irk c u r[:....:.....................................
Freehoard r7
sioo
❑ Yes Et—6
Structuei, h

•
Facility Number: 76 —,25J 1h Date of Inspection ! — - AM Printed on: 10/260000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the inTegrity of any of the structures observed? (iel 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 eo t2 nJ S ! 1A C L.. 5 !v�r-t-t_c— U .4 'A-)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certi
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?
Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
Required Records & Docnment5
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss 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?
�'VQ yiQlaiigrjs.or 00rjciendLj -*Ore ji ed dtrrii)g #hjs'vjsit' • Yoo MJ111 tooiye irjc ful tj>ttrr'
correspondence: abbot" this visit.. • . • . • . • . •
❑ Yes Q.N6
❑ Yes M.Ko
❑ Yes ❑ 0_
❑ Yes B-90—
❑ems ❑ No
❑ Yes Mwo
❑ Yes (1To
❑ Yes ❑`K—
❑ Yes DWo
❑ Yes j@-No
❑ Yes Elmo
❑ Yes
E9416-
0 Yes [a-bK
❑ Yes UAfis
❑ Yes Ea'Ko_
Blyes ❑ No
❑ Yes [;}-W
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 0'fqo—
❑ Yes
❑ Yes ,,t^
EltY Yes sv o
C4menents'{refer tit uestion .0 Ex lain ran YE5 answers and/or an reeomrrten<datlons or.;an other camtnents.
tY. P Y! Y
Use',d'rawin ." of facile to ex lain situations. {use additional pages as necessary)
re C
2 ! • f?for 5 t� t , f (c c/ 6l e-i A-1'z/
IF
Reviewcr/Inspector Name'
C
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: N ^ fI - / � � -f � Date: � r 5100

Facility Number: —�3 �e of Inspection 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 at/or below ❑ Yes [3-i-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 P'K�O
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ❑-M-6--
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. 1s the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? �V�/j` ❑ 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
5100

0 €I tY!Y - WJ r 4i j Y.I �141 d3 Y I €„I,I'-,'j l41jVi11V �€ i1,r V €' r:l: I! ' ,€ I:,.rlt71 rrrr
tty� V , t
Irrt""rihr I �€ ton of Wate"r QdAl "lir r, I ,ISV+r r , I,.
I r F(jrf ! 'i!lllst r r€t il�i �tr:€ t
c YI Y
1Q ton�of Sotl`and WaterrConservatian � � I!,•
. ! .rlt:_9, 1� a rV r � ,
Other Agency Is 1::',+I '€�.f Ir s='V:,@sfie"!It Ir f(r "Y�"_Pi I ' t f € 'Irrd€::;Pqf iid�f,I€ti r::�€ IIV €Y� :I iefir'• !V , !l.lel ! €€ I Vlr a j„
111�r 'rllci'1 f� ! tGf1 Ira�Vf r€ - r "�P€a€I I i €€€ rua €IV€
€ N.. ":. ... .., .. . , - ! € ° >i,i;Yi,uV YF €,II: 'lVld € !
to , :,.,_
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 23 Date of Visit: 11/7/2000 Time: 110o Printed on: 11/7/2000
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
0 Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold .
Farm Name: L911110.0i,r.X.............................. ......... County: Ralld.9.1ph ......................................... WSRO........
OwnerName: i?j'.ayag.................................... LRkllll........................................................... Phone No: 33.6-495--M...........................................................
Facility Contact: Cliffo d.Uflin............................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No: 3.ii>4Q .4 b.:( axxt ........
Mailing Address: 2.4lU.laakliAj).airy.Raad................................................................... SQPhj3.IYG.............................................................. 2.7.35.0..............
Onsite Itepresentative:GliffQxd..Lg.fli►t........................................................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:.liffo d.................................. LOW ................................................ Operator Certification Number:2.13.23 .............................
Location of harm:
From 220 Bypass take route 311 West, go about 5 miles. Landmarks - Citgo Station at intersection of 311 and Beeson Farm f
toad. Public School on right. 1/2 mile on right Loftin Drive. t
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 OF 50 43 Longitude 79 • 52 39 «
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population '
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
JCR Dairy
300
120
❑ Feeder to Finish
JE1 Non -Layer
10 Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
300
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
420,000
❑ Boars
-.' :1 Number,.of Lagoons L 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
. ;eel
I461dmg Ponds / Solid TrapsI ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ® Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: .... C.an rate.tank.....................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 120
5100
® Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
Not measurable
® Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 4 Structure 5 Stricture 6
..............................................................................................................
Continued on back

Facility Number: 76-23 Date of Inspection 11/7/2000 Printed on: 11/7/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to thezrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ ttsevere erosion, ❑ Yes ® N8
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 A lication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ®No
12. Crop type Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14, a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ®No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
No.yiolatiohs;or iieficiencies•ivere;noteddijting•this;visit.:You;Will receivep6-further-; ;
. , co rresvondence about 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. frefer to,question, fl -Explain any'iYES°answers and/or'any rec�oinmendations'or any other comments.
.Use, drawings ofifacility toy.better;,'expiainsituations. (useadditional pages as necessary) ,6" 1 '",
9. Gauged marker with top of "tank" may not be needed for permit. Will let it go for now.
0L, #2. and #8. There were discharges of silage "juice" and domestic wastewater (washing machine and sink) from pipe uphill of
small stream. Recommend contacting SWCD and county health department for suggestions.
w
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melissa Rosebroek
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5100

Facility Number: 76-23 Dates Inspection 11/7/2000 � Printed on: 1 1/7/2000
— V
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
'Additio onlment5 an or' rawing9 'Isia.IlPl
l
7
5100

la-► n'1
k
3 u'r { i�ion of Water Quality
�IV sion of Soil alld' Water Conservation
t; 1I 0 Other Agency k
sf�� h
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit koutine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date. of Visit: 1 Time: dQ Printed on. 7/21/2000
Q Not O erational Q Below Threshold
0 Permitted Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: ....t�.t I...I.,.r...t....�..r............................................................... County:...........i'"�'!.'...!....... �.'..
OwnerName:.... US.l�...4�t�F..�................................................................... Phone No:...{G?. T..{.v�t..1..5.2..................................
��}}}} 1l. / rr ff QQ�� I
Facility Contact: fit... n{�.... ......LY.)......... Title: ................................................................ Phone No a..'i:. h ...s.1 ��... .
Mailing Address: ...3.0....... i.. Ctt li.r�... ir.. .. �. k lGi .... z.0...... ....
Onsite Representative:.L.c�..�..r1 ......LAt.E.`.t ... Integrator:
.................r �............. .....
Certified Operator:..C.1,� rt�......'..I,.�......N.Ii...)..y,�...................... Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location 'of Farm:
from WSR-0 Sam on 4wq 311 f`ftiroLdk C leholo, U4 on> o L&Fin :►fy l
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle []Horse Latitude ®• ®4 66 Longitude • ®6
Dedgi CUrieQt
'Camritv,.Penn,lation
'LLt` Wean to Feeder
s•,
°'" Feeder to Finish
s:
aRr
.iq Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
;:. Farrow to Finish
7.pa Gilts
%7 Boars
Poultry Capacity..Polliulation C 'ttle
❑ Layer Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Desigtn' Capacity
Total SSW.
yFL i- iS--3W,
Numl►eti•;oiLagoonsI ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagnan Area
+ Holili�g P4ndsi'/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 A 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)
1 Spray Field Area :
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
Idcnti ficrQ t��.TOk11.-........................... ....................
Freeboard (inches): l ail!
S/00
❑ Spillway
Structure 4 Structure 5
9 Yes ❑ No
xYes ❑ No
❑ Yes ;(No u
Yes ❑ No
XYes ❑ No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes No
Structure 6
Continued on back

facility Number: Date of Inspection MA14040 Printed on: 7/21/2000
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 )&o
closure plan? ❑ Yes
(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 gNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes )�No
Waste application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pending ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes �(No
I2. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crtpiffer 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 *0
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ YeslNo
No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ YesNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available'? N/A-
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
WUP, design,
❑ Yes
)Vfqo
(ie/ checklists, maps, etc.)
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
o
tN
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yeso
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
Wo
22.
Pail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
9No
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
OfNo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
El Yes
)No
� io *y'W.a(.' . ' .s.o- &fici h6b,5 rµ�re jnptet3• 00ting �his.vispt! •.Y.00 .wiii eeoiye ijo lfutti o' '
;coriesnondence:abaatkthis'visit:::::::':':':':'::::::::':'::::::':':':'...... .
Contri exits (refer to question #): , Explain any YES answers and/¢r any, recommendation or any, oufler comtnentsi irg rtF
Oise drawiu of.facili to better ex Isin situations {use addttional a es as neeessa ) a r r � J"
1:� ,p P g i'y
q LID Ie&a &7 as �' M 4,k
orb
-. s �1 l2eC�, Ca �. n, s p ( p e- UP
ok
1 Lnj
V ; ,.., 4_ W1 %4- tea �{eQ
VJ > .. i. it � a �i r,:"df I r# . t �:.� s Ei
Reviewer/Inspector Name \ r „ :,. si }
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date: Q 5100

i It
D:�Inspection 0 • Printed on: 7/21/2000
F.Acility.'Nbrnber: "� —
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
$Yes--E4-No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? CYj T j a000 ,
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
YNG
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
a
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? o+y) i T, gOOO .
No
5/00

11BRoutine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWO inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other JTIt 1)2 Min 1
Facility Number Date of Inspection 1.r
Time of Inspection I
irpermitte ertified Conditionally Certified © Registered 1[3 Not Operational P D6te Last O .erated: r =�
..........................
n_
Farm Name: .... t? �.>.rl...... .i ........ county:....0 ,fl....d.� ��C\............................................
Tr ,
Owner Name:........ .(1s1,,..... .s 'i11 ..1.4Y.�.l...t-k 1'U.. r.1.;.:t1� PhoneNo: ...
33 ?.`. .................................
Facility Contact: ....................................................
Title: ................................... I .......................... Phone No:
Mailing Address: ..... f. ?........!�Gi .�`.►3. . .... t.S' ; y
.. ......................... .Q.tk?.�CL.k:C1-4; .� .............�1.. `�;..Q ... ..... I ........... I........
Onsite Representative:.:.i^.a..F .�1......� V?'�o,r...�4 k.1.!..! L. a.C. Integrator:_ ...................................................................................
Certified Operator: .... Qli.. Y a_A... De ... l s,t \. ......................... operator Certification Number
Location of Farm:
�?m....c `tat�.....7. [`A.1. h. .,.1...................................... ...i.'Z.....:.i.....:.
.. _._
.t ..tCG.!' 1, ..... ��.► s'............................................................... ..................................................................
...................... ...................... ...................
.
Latitude ® o =_ =11 Longitude ® • ®1 =11
F Dest n" ;Current
Des '' Current i°4`,ie estgnt F Current
D
Swine 'Ca acgi °EiPo'`ulition 1.0 Y.
Ga 'aci ""ulition °n_". "aci ;Pti''eilat�on
, _ -
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer
.,.Po .Cattle ,,.:-'Ca'
F' Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish ', ❑ Non -Layer
10 Non Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
P�F
: ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Feeder
R+ ❑ Farrow to Finish
k „
Total Design Capacity' �QQ
❑ Gilts
t ��f,�=
❑Boars
, Y, ,
it "Total SSLWi.
ir ❑ Subsurface
tg�ry,�ro'd f=Number. of Lagoons -I
Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area El Spray Field Area , a
tt ... .. _ ..._....._ ,3s-
T raps an o Liuid Waste Management System Pnd/ So11d ;`1 �"0"e! i t,kt
w; .$$i' - „t,t,t�ra.'
: m
Dischar es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a, If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (I1'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•----"-
4. Is storage capacity (free us storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: O t'y'1t'&t1_KAr`0__.
Freeboard(inches): ..........g...T............................................................................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures o`b erved? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes dNo
seepage, etc.)
Continued on back
3/23/99
❑ Yes 96No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes TrNo
❑ Yes UrNo
❑ Yes ZNo
Structure 6

Facility Number: — . !te of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintcnancelimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application .
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type � A 1 CAA l O c-r ; ,n
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. Ii there'a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Renuired Records & Documents
17., Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/_irrigati eebo aste 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/ spector 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?
® �'VQ yiQ1��i�rjs;o dirf cje cie vt re 0QteO. 04titig phis;vj9% Yojt ;wiii Leo iye Oti futthof - -
corresnoricieirci abotilw this visit. .............
X1 1H0.� vZO k-
❑ Yes [A No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes LYJ No
❑ Yes 5�No
❑ Yes dNo
❑ Yes ZNo
❑ Yes [vfNo
❑ Yes WIo
❑ Yes 53*No
❑ Yes Egg' Io
❑ Yes 0*<o
❑ Yes 91 No
ZYes ❑ No
❑ Yes allo
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [2(No
❑ Yes OINO
❑ Yes [ffNo
❑ Yes UVo
❑ Yes 021�o
❑ Yes (Olo
AL
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Y�.ri�S c. �L Date: (--

Facility Number: a of Inspection FA
Odor Issues
26,..Doo&4he2iise arge a or `ehbVr---❑ Yes ❑ No
liq
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes E(No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes U40
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�lo
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 M-90
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ff�Io
3 ac a submerged fill pipe or a r? ❑ Yes ❑ No
AI

Facility Number 76 23 Date of Inspection 12/1/99
Time of Inspection 110t) 24 hr. (hh:mm)
r] Permitted ® Certified E3 Conditionally Certified ® Registered ffi Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Lall t DAIr:.................................................................................................. County:RandoWli................... ...................... WSJ. O........
Owner Name: Wnyme.................................... LAW Phone No: .495.:.U#4....................................................................
Facility Contact: Cliff .Illin....................................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No: 336.495:ld&4......................
Mailing Address: 141Q.1Affln.Dai.Oc.Road,................................................................... sogthia NL.............................--.--. . 27350 .............
Onsite Representative: .Cling.I.1i1k'li n................................................................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:.Glittiord.W�. ......................... Le iftjr......................................... Operator Certification Number: 2.U23 .............................
Location of Farm:
�'rutn..22Q.Ay�ass.ta>ce.�.uip.3l.t.W..�,91�gn-a>aau�t,S.auil�a....L»x�mark�a..:.�ikga.�taitis�n.xR.uaxexa�ti�.at.33.1..�nd.l�r�ea�Fa,t•�m........
Rnad...P.�uhlir.S,ehanl nn.right,..a12 naiie.an.right I,oi]inlariYer...........................................................................................................................................
Latitude 35 • 50 41 - Longitude 79 7 ' S2 I F 38 "
r`
gE� =Deign Current
Swine
Design Curient
Poultry
Cattle
r Desigfl
CuRierit "
Ca licit P,o ulation
Ca acit P,o ulation
Ca act.
POPula,
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Layer
® Dairy
300
Ito
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
.r r
❑Other w�
'Total Design Capacity ' 300
r
❑ Farrow to Wean
}
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
!
-
Tatal. SSLW 420,000
❑ Boars'
Oft mum �'''�^�a.
Number ofsLagoon 0 ❑Subsurface Drams Present ❑ 1.a oon Area S ra Field Area
Holding P}o�nds l Solid Traps 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System r
.'1il)'�a' i'.- J' S
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 gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ® No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ 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: ....Ciseulujaak.... ...........................
Freeboard(inches): ...............96................ .................................... ...............................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
3123/99 Continued on back

A l.­_ - - .,-
-
Facility Number. 76-23 of Inspection 12/1/99
;. 6. Arc there. on-si#e which are not roperly addressed and/or managed through a wsanagement 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 Annlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, 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?
❑ Yes
® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
®No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
®No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(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 problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
lip No. violations: or:dk-d-ericies-- Were: noted: during tli6,-*Wt:: You will: receive;no 'i it-hir :
• corresnondence about..visit.' :
to be modified to include winter rye crop.
Reviewer/Inspector Name sW; Core Bdsinger
y
RoviownrlTncnnrtnr Cionatnro- Hato.

Facility Number: 7(p — Z3 ofinspection I� / q�% •
i 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
'AdditionaCoMhenshrdbrDrAwings 3 3 €. {:
€t t try €t =v I i
1
7
3/23/99

! ! E h t. , �I,, } I-Ial I I {fy . I i I
Itpp ,t l?ivtsion o and Water Conservation
,, {l Ifs iL 91 !t-, `I ,N rr i I('. 1Tt f hH
i t �,Dmsiion o and "Water'Conservation t CompLaiice ctaonr � € , j�l ", E ','„ e{ttE
- r,
• d ivision of Water Quality ,Com liance Ins eetion
F T' '"(1t� pt
lfr¢#j.d
Other Agency Operatl{in R£VleW,', �.
r .;tt , -..<.., .,., .I�t. ¢� _ .'t,i 1, -.,d J, ..,. a•i a.
Routine O Complaint Q Follow-up of DW2 inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number % Z3 Date of Inspection f�
"Time of Inspection //; D 24 hr. (hh:mm)
[] Permitted © Certified © Conditionally Certified JS Registered [3 .Not Opera Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ....................................... C.ounty:....1�f7�+.pa WSP-p..
.......
Owner Name: 'g%^!r ....... �cl�u Phone No: 33e— 4q �..- 1..3,8 ¢.......................
.....,............................................................. ............
Facility Contact:��� �-cI/............................................ .................. Title:............................... Phone No: 54.4r
.............................
Mailing Address: ........... 4 f.d..... La..1!2il2Y.c!�.......................... .... .....t'!fT.....,........C1�....
Onsite Representative: 4�;/FF,
Certified Operator:.... a11.F�rY?i.....l." 1,�...:...............
Locution of Farm:
Integrator: ......................................................................................
Operator Certification Number: Z 13
...........................................................................5........................................................................................................................................................................................... —
rV
'7... ..
Latitude 3S • ®& mot/ Longitude 79 sz j 38 '
Design Current ;Design Current , Design Current
Poult CattleCapacity- tt` Swine . E r : Capacity Population; „ �'J' . Ca acit .1'a ulation Po ulation ..
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
I„
❑ Layer Dairy
;I
�`'" ❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
r
❑ Other
,
Total Design Capacity �o 41;�
r:
Iota! SSL W 4Zr�6,
s ., Number of Lagoons . ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area 'f,
1-0 q�.z ��•.
;HoldingPonds'/-Solid Traps �,.: ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges &.Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Docs 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?
\4.
aste Collection & Treatment
Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S
Identifier: .11
eeboard(inches): ............. g............... ............................................................................................................................................... ......
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes ,XNo
❑ Yes *No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 6
Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes $�No
1 seepage, etc.)
3199 Continued on back

Facility Number: of Inspection IZ /
6. Are there structures on -site which are not property addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes 9No
(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? - ❑ YesNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes XNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes J_WNo
Waste Anolication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes �'No
11. Is there evidence of over application? 11❑ Excessive Pondiinng ❑ PAN ❑ Yes D� No
12. Crop type cool
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes U*No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes '1ZNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes •[!5No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes'Q-No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes •E3vo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes 0
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes ONO
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WllP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes R10
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 tR No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes d,�4 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
. ; �'Vo •vipla�ions ;oi- d�f�cae��ies •mere nQte�i• ct>�ri>r�g •this;visit; ;Y;oir wiil•�eegiye t}o: fu�the�' • . • .
ctirres oridence: a�aut: this vesit .... • ........ • . •
rs andlor a_ny;recom_ mnd'ations o`r any other,comments Comments irefer to uesbon # Ex Ian an AYES answe
( q ) "'• p
, < h .Y .
, �i. r.. . + Y � i'
Use'drawtngs of facilrty to'�betteriexplam� situations (use.addetibnal pages a '=necessary} ,, ;
a ,a_=''a_r
:)
JJh.
��IG�T �7t7 %. .�1G'!L�!- ZP-C l N Lr°i1 LL'GG' � Z.'1� r l� t� C//GtJP•
�
ReviewerlInspector Name B p'„i7W `'dt`�5 rl
fs'.,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:_ Date:
3/23/99

a
�y
l
Facilih, Number Date of inspectirm
i'irne of 111spection ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Registered p Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted in Not 0peratrona Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Lolliu.. Uiry................... ......... Counly: Randolph WSRO
Owner Namc:.���.'ayae.................................... LolIia .......................................
Facility Convict: Clifford.Laflin................................................ ritle: ......
Mailing Addr-css: 24.1.0..L0i1iM.D.air'V..fit),ad................................................
Onsite Representative: Cliff.luf!<in.......•........................................................
Certified Operator:Cliffand-W............................. Loilin.dr,............ ...........
Location of Farm:
.. Phone No: 495438.4....................................................................
.................................... I'llone No: same .........................................
So�tlaia.�lC............................................................... 27.3.5fi..............
nlegr:r[or.......................................................................................
Operator Certification NLill) her-:21.323.............................
Latitude ©�® ®�� Longitude ®•
Swine Capacity Population
[3 Wean to Feeder
[3 Feeder to Finish
[3 Farrow to Wean
13 Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to rinish
p Gilts
p Boars
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
p Layer ® atry
p Non -Layer 1 p Non -Dairy
p Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 420,0
a
Num6erofLa9'6ons1H6ldingPo6ds1j 0Subsurface
Drains
Present
rea
JE3 Spray Fieldrea
®
o
Liquid Waste
Management
hystem
{general
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
® Yes
p No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. I I' discharge is observed, wus the conveyance man-made`?
r Yes
®Na
b. li'discharge is observed, did it reach Surfacc Water? (Il'yes, notify DWQ)
® Yes
13 No
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (Ifyes, notify DWQ)
f] Yes
®No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
N Yes
p 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
N Yes
p 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

aci i y um er: 79-23
I)<►tL Eret:tic►r►
i 8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
p Yes
M No
Structures (Laaoons,yloldini; Ponds, _1_ Flush Pits, Cie.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
p Yes
® No
Structw c l Structure 2 Sn_►icture 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure
6
Identifier:
17rceboard01):...................................................................... .................................... ................................... ...................................
...................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
p Yes
M No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
p Yes
N No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
p Yes
® No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(3 Yes
M No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type........Carn.4Silagg.&.lwirain.)....... Small.Crain].(Vlplkieal..l�atley».......................................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated inane' 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
® No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
p Yes
M 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
Ig No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
N Yes
p No
For Certified or Per•nzitted Faciiities 0111v
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...o•via ions.or ic-enies-were.n� a uring rsvisl . on. -receive further.--,
oi^�eSponderie� abQu�'t�iis nisi}: : . . ..... . . . . . .. .
Comments!. re er: to'3 ueshon # Ex lain any Yla answers€and/orfan recommendations or anY'other comments ,
f.... 1,,.€..
€ .... _�. �q..E,..p .7{3„3�irsa ttk�:•.€?tAP€f.ij
drawings€ofifocilityvto,better,explainisituations {use additional{{pages as necessary)
,Use
i.._ Fr i-3 lf1.
FACILITY WAS APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION IN EARLY SEPTEMBER, 1998. SHOULD BEGIN WORK SOON.
A.
CONCRETE STORAGE STRUCTURE TO BE INSTALLED TO CATCH ALL MANURE AND PARLOR WATER. ONCE
CONSTRUCTION BEGINS, IT SHOULD ONLY TAKE 6-8 WEEKS TO COMPLETE (W/ GOOD WEATHER)
EXTENSION REQUESTED THROUGH APRIL, 1999. (WSRO APPROVED)
16. NO PLAN YET. SWCD WORKING ON IT.
3,5 RUNOFF FROM LOT AND PARLOR WATER.
2. RECORDS TO BE KEPT UNTIL PLAN PROVIDED AND BETTER RECORDS KEPT THEREAFTER.
Reviewer/inspector Name �W Corey Basinger" - .,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

a
Facility Number 23
Registered © Certified E3 Applied for Permit [3 Permitted
Farm Name: D.4!
............... �..................k:N...............................................
Date of inspection lti Z�l 9f3
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
In Not O erational I Date Last Operated :..........................
County: ....,....... doo6..P1' PV
Owner Name:........ W!4 /nl ...................... ...�!`:%- 4 "d........................................... Phone No: ...... ��.G'..�.. .C�.......jam',¢........................
Facility Contact: C-t t L—O � � Title: .... Phone No: 5a�e
..... .............................,............................
Mailing Address:_z74-to"cZ,j,�j„'DAtit.Y....kp:........... .............................I..... ...... ...... ............I..........
Onsite Representative:... �"�.� .............. .................................................
Certified Operator ....... ..0 i.` ? �' .. ....... .t'0f!,:! �........................... I............
Location of Farm:
.......... 1-.� �r 2 �35ca
Integrator: ......................................................................................
Operator Certification Number:..... �...��....I .....3...............
F.x..d �:z.........�...�..:!9... f..,3././... �....... �............�P......4��.../.'r.��'.... �..,,�-fir...... F?:r .. .rlt....... f�..��..-..............................................................AL
.. .. .... .................. V
Latitude • 6 4-I G6 Longitude ®' ' "
4,
Capacity .
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
J
300
¢Z-0, D a J
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes UNo
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? 'RrYes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ,Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow,in gaUmin? rh�hrw1kl
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes XNo
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? RtYes ❑ No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes 5dNo
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require N'Yes ❑ No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes JRNo
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes Q'No
7/25/97

Facility Number: lo— 0,3•
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (LagoonsMolding Ponds. Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4.
Identifier:
............................................................................................................................................. ...
Structure 5
❑ Yes �KNo
❑ Yes 'E�No
Structure 6
Freeboard(ft):.............................................................
........... ................................... .................................... .................................... ....................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9.12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ....................................................... ............... ......................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Onl
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
13-No.violationsor dericiencies.were-noted-during this.visit.-:Youmiil receiveno tirther
: coerOpQndeko A out this:vWt:• ::.:::
❑ Yes
5�No
❑ Yes
ERNo
❑ Yes
�lo
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ Yes
ErNo
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
;H No
❑ Yes
bfNo
❑ Yes
JR) No
❑ Yes
5'No
❑ Yes
A No
Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
l.I LI Q i�� <�ro G 'z at.R� V�`A.t�a.h 4--.a� �•�,�-A-�-� �N - `��"`-"- oil �
S ids C e�['[S -F'O -
s ram, /u U -�Lr /dpr` Gt,�k� QPP�>
t(.K
3, S - L.+ mod- � 6''
2 RFC s -7� !aP l a4aJ 0-Ifu.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

r�
10 nouttne p c.ompiaint p ronow-up of ijwy inspection p ra
Facility Number
0 Registered 13 Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted
Farm Name: Loflin..Dairy..........
Owner Name:.Wayne.................................... Laftin ....................
p vtner
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
in Not Opera=on-a-MDate Last Operated:
County: Randolph WSRO
Phone No: 495-.1.3114..
Facility Contact: .Cliff.Laflin.......................................................Title:............................................................... Phone No:....
Mailing Address: Z4.10..LA1Ha-D2iry.Road................................................................... saphia.Nc ............................................
Onsite Representative: Cliff .LaRia..
Certified Operator: Clifford-W.............................
Location of Farm:
.......... Integrator:....
..........I .............. Operator Certification Number:2.1223.............................
---------------
+arm. oca tatt,....ran?...Qk�....�:..:...::.:.-:......:xaa ..an....z71fi.....: s..:... a?r gr ; s In;air1r::......::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Latitude ©•®' ®�= Longitude ®• ©' ®�i
77 rinee ign'i rren. , ..,. esign; , urren a 7, Design. ;urren
Papaoultr 'Cap Cale appltopioCy pan
13 Wean to Feeder
13 Feeder to Finish
p Farrow to Wean
p Farrow to Feeder
13 Farrow to Finish
13 Gilts
p Boars
rl
Layer
p
Non -Layer
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ® Yes p No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ® Yes p No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field ® Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ® Yes p No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ® Yes p No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? minimal
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) [3 Yes ® No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ® Yes p No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? p Yes N No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require N Yes p No
maintenance/improvement?
G. 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

aci i y um er: 7 _23
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Laizooins,Holding Ponds Flush Pits etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2
Identifier:
Freeboard (ft):...................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
Structure 3
Structure 4
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(if in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
� 1
p Yes
N No
p Yes
p No
Structure 5 Structure 6
......................................................................
p Yes
® No
E3 Yes
® No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
p No
p Yes
M No
15. Crop type Care..(Si1age.&.Qrain.)....... rxtall.Ceaim]]pp!11ea�t..Dar�ey............................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
q .: �.o:oir:xveiaS�io�nesri.oer� abQRcr>re:tnhciise•1s'-were
iws�er: e.ne . uring 1.:. is v:s. ..ou.. will.receive no.0r .er . ,o . ' ' '
.::• --� :. :.
p Yes p No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ®No
rl Yes N No
p Yes ®No
Cl Yes ®No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
Reviewerlinspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: %.zW Date:

Facility Number:
1 8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
900o,
Structures (Laeoons.tiolding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft):...............................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
Eg No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
�No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement`?
❑ Yes
Iio
(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
eNo
14, Is there physical evidence of over application'?
❑ Yes
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .1 !.............................�?.............................................. .......... .....................................................
................ ...........
I........
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
H ,vo
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
R'No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
RNo
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
UN
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
KIo
22. Does record keeping need improvement'?
❑ Yes
RNo
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
0 No.violations or deficiencies. were`note'd-during' this.'visit.-Xoit.will receive no further
correspondence about this.
visit..
Comments (refer to question O Exolain any ,YES answers andior any recommendations or. any other comments.
Use drawings of facility io better explain stttratii�n5 (use add�t i�nal pages as necessary):
k:
iK.�1G wa.� s-freawe 6NXi-y rll.G i rsrew�e - •
x. &,vi .- wqAo- di a uP�a r9G
3. it it"
5- I..,t ru,n o(' aru�-.t �'"'ta" dt J4A-► t s&
13 , n!a GX
Oh , h,, r saiwe dxaA
z3-�. „&; y �- � ..�.�-�► dye P-
Aqp
7125/97
,
�.
Reviewertinspector Name ►jig 8,4 [�16
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: �}�

❑ DSWC AnimalTeedlot Operation Review 14
®"DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
M-Routine O Conmlaint O FfolioVl'-up of I)k1'O inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other• l
ill IIIII�III�IgI�I� rYY YYIIY�I -- -
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm}
Registered O Certified D Applied for Permit 0 Permitted Not Operation Date Last Operated
Z-6 , (Farm Name �,F}eR Count' :.... ........110t' LF�r........................ S�............................................................�.......................................,........,.............. ) / fin?...,...........
Owner Name:...., ,Ay.`... �..L? ).'"f........................................... Phone No:l g D .....�.5...-. 1364—
............... I.............................
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:................,............................................... Phone No:...................................................
MailingAddress �-1 O l-+oR � a-t p S6P6U A � � Z�3 �D
p...,.+?^......t?...la................................................t........,.................,.......,.,..........................I...............
...� �F .................
a to r:................ ......................................................................Onsite Representative ......... LL►F
.................................................... :...... Integr.
Certified OperatorL!?. ................ 0.�q....t..
Operator Certification Ntrnlbi•r;...4.)..��3
.....
Location of Farm:
................................................ ...............
'P...-u!...3.�...:�.....�!to....°1i...... t Mtn-o.I....iZ
�..:........j....,
.................................................. .
Latitude ©' L �� E� �`Y Longitude ®• ©� 3�°�
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle 'Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer IMDairy /
❑ Non -Layer JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity Imp
Total SSLW j 4zo
Niurnber of Lagoons / Holding Ponds '® ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management S}'stem
General
1. Are there any buffers that need mairite nance/improve ment? 5FTes ❑ No*
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? Y Ayes ❑ No
Discharge ori-inated at; ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ,Other fa,W for r-�
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? 19 Yes ❑ No
b. 11'dischar.;e is observed, did it reach Surface Watcr? (If yes, notify DWQ) 25'yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? /yliy�iaeRl
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes elff'No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ErYes ❑ No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes JjrNo
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require 9Yes ❑ No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes No
7/25/97 Continued on back