760051_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Type of Visit: W Compliance Inspection O Operation Review p Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: dRout'tne 0 Complaint Q Follow-up Q Referral 0 Emergency O Other O Denied Access `I
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 0 ` ' q Departure Time: County: R"Jo/pb Region:
Farm Name: U il-1 q km-�- Foorm Owner Email:
Owner Name: y 1 h+
Mailing Address. A) rI q fa,v'-�1
Physical Address: + -;z a I
Facility Con acts O Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Phone:
toLoe_ . vf_�t.y)_ �C I K Y I t
Phone: �3 g oZ 67 3 S�
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
1/
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35o q�2_ 1 OT 1I Longitude: —7 9 0 t 2-7
w + 6 4 E From
A,5 he-
rot IZ
02 m i Les
+v Irn
®n
e. ,. Fot.o^ t
O �t�
Design Current
Design
Current
De�sii Current
D.,
Swine
Capacity
Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle
Capac Ty
Popp
Wean to Finish
Layer
iry Cow
{
Wean to Feeder
Layer
iry Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Non -Dal
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
'
Qthcr
Turkey Poults
Other
I
10ther
:.=.�..
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 A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes IP No
❑ Yes W No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
DNA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment IV
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure l (� Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: (7 5 �Oond
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
r�
Observed Freeboard (in): 8
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? [:]Yes % No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes % No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ` Q No ❑ NA 0 N E
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 50 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 C& No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): n
13. Soil Type(s): KJZA-V j V
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 IV] No ❑ NA ❑ NF
16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No 4a NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP []Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑ Yes] No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
[-]Yes No
❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. PXA ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a�+en Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis $ is rs �eather Code
ainfall Stocking ®2rrop Yield Monthly and l" 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 XNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE

[Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste apoion 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
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
jVj No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
TX
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface 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). ,
C3) Le.0.x�h c0e_ 4o ]m 51 to jo i na i n to 54re&_yl,L+ �j
56i / fe64 S due- 2,6 19 .
[ LhQc1� SP&OLt1 3V_OL rL yte- -5 [Inarv�Sfe� jprin�j
v
® i\ 0 af�U Go,-;h 0-Y) nc� a�4 ',ri-E�a`Y�
ea l t bCt t} e, e\ l8
Reviewer/Inspector Name: lC, 0f_Q-U" uI"_. "--
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
�gb- �11 b• a `i
Phony
Date: 0i a [ `I
21412015

Date of Visit: 3 ,gyp Arrival Time:T. Departure Time: r ! County: Rmdo
Farm Name_ bJ�� Far YYI _ _ Owner Email: r/
Owner Name: QVI 1661 h-+ Phone: JZ) oLr re-
Mailing Address: ]rya h-+" -F&{-yyl LQf/� ��0.y} 1L� In V I �. [� . lVG. vZ 7
Region: \AJ5 PC
Physical Address: I oL `�
ra..n+
1TL_�I
_ L,,-Ln,e-.l, &e
he 10 ro 0-MC-, a7 �L-6 3
Facility Contact: S O
Wr t
�- Title:
Phone: :396 .3 5' a- • 0 � 3 S
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
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)?
❑ Yes P<No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes �)& ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: - `f Date of Inspection:
0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
6 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? t Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes lNo ❑ 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 Pond�ng ❑ 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? O Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes 4� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No DR -NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
,TNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
DR�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19, Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
YNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available'? If yes; check
❑ Yes
02'5o
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
eletistj� gee nts
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? I
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
n ❑-'dd+a , Freeboar E] Wast, *n� .Q.Se+1Amaly&is
as
❑ Weather
Code
]d mute n
ns ec ions r
&Wge
c.,.•.,
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
D<No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
�q NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412015 Continued

[Facility Number: - S 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
M�K'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
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
DjrNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
1
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes )6 No
[—]Yes a-N' o
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ONE
❑ NA 0 NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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).
d ri�o NO new v k 5,V�
C
s - low c W�j VOTE (�o%)
* P test's "Lo 6^%4,M1FK�eW-0!P
acp6i 1bs ]to oo 6k. .
Ujf�. F09D
Reviewer/Inspector Name:` Me, 1 I Ste- 1-05p—b rU C-IL—
Phone: _3� ,W- W.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date: �j 3�� 0 [�
21412015

P
1�
27; 2,y3
i ype of visa: W uompnance inspection v operation Keview v btructure Evaluation u recnnicai Assistance
Reason for Visit:(_ Routine Q Complaint O Follow-up O Referral 0 Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: County:�Region: u �s
Farm Name: Owner Email:
s� a
Owner Name:
• Phone:
Mailing Address: c 7 oZ yj?
Physical Address: -
Facility Contact: �1
4
Onsite Representati
Certified Operator:
Title:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
ElYes
WNo
❑ 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 DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
% No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
Yes
0
[:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection: d PP
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? [] Yes]
No
1❑�
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(� Structure I St cture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
I Identifier:
Spillway?. -
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �-
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
CSrNo
❑ 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
C!�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
CR'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
9No
❑ 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, et .)
❑ 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): �,c'1 �?/ V2 111��,! /!r l //I/,C_. .4D
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
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
f9fyes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
;'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
gaste
oes record keeping need mprovement? L S,.A, e ❑ Yes Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Applic ion Weekly Freeboa Waste Analysis Soil Analysis Weather Code
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield [Z120 Minute Inspections Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections 0_94���
22. Did the facility Milo Fo 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 0 NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: - � Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No �NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey []Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? []Yes ❑ No *A ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
[—]Yes rVNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[—]Yes NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No [] NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes 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 an other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
/V1
1 &_Ue t dJ4 ao I7 .
6jjA&-a� d4q aoll0 .
11„ I>ri �Srr�r/Mi
r. ,
Z14
c� p&A,� &2K, A/ "P`&�Zt PtA) AA—A—e
^� Perwn�P (v
Z SD- 07
f� %1
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Sv.* i' 1� r..l.^ r a± k �Ii i y) ..i r _r �y
Phone: T p— q k q
Date: / {
2/4/2014

Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection n Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: {e Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ' Departure Time: ® County: Rp�y o Q h Region: 1j�0
Farm Name: Vj n 6TF&r hn Owner Email:
Owner Name: (X V,I Q� V] -,I q yn {' Phone: Qr re-1 I (N) 3�+!O , 8 �. Z1
Mailing Address: q () L e- I� n ' d
Physical Address: _ a� o- 'g 1b r&_y \+ V M t? b" e- , Ar; h **,_b O r6, MO- P I 42-6.3
Facility Contact: L -50 rI Title: Phone: e, 3(g;L — 073S
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: • J)5._ rr e L ` w r't a Et Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 3S S Longitude: -7 ( a 7
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)
❑ Yes P9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[3 Yes
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes Cg No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: 71,o - Date of Ins ection: TdK
Waste Collection & Treatment 6 qW
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? [:]Yes &No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: �6jmiiL Po rid
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):�Q
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
[:]Yes
EANo
❑ 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
j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
TT``
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
[]Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes I 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): W6iLyt r'nrfn S r&4 \ 6 ra i rn
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,
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
E] Yes
D6 No
❑ Yes
CA No
[:]Yes
[:]No
❑ Yes
k No
❑ Yes
oil&o
19Yes
i] No
❑ Yes
%No
❑ Other:
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
P�`NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
21 oes record keeping need i ' rovement?•�H to b ❑ Yes PrNo I)iA ❑ NE
aste Application g
eekly Freeboar Waste Analysis Soil Analysis � s 6r-a— Weather Code
Rainfall ❑ Stocking op Yield 120 Minute Inspections onthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? []Yes ❑ No ONA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 214120I4 Continued

y Facili Number: - S Date of ins ection: p �01
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 1� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No PC�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?
24. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
[:]Yes JN�<o
❑ Yes Wo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 9§ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [% No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes . No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes C�rNo ❑ 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 draiwings of facility to better explain situations (use additionaC;pages;m necessary)." ,
� 6&1diiz-b� mCu2 a.o r 5� � . Puj_ o44.A�
� • So-�Q 't� Glut a o 170
�n s�a�►3 0.51
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
N ?
Phone: -7 -7 I — S a
Date: Jc v2 t�
214,2014

iv'ision of Water Quality
FacilityLN _Tm— 1 7 (p IMI ®Divisipn pf Sail and Water Co O Otservatian jQ / �"�
her Agency
Type of Visit: ompliance Inspection Z3 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit; (D Arrival Time: 00 *eparture Time: County: 12430"Na01 Region: W 6 P—Q
Farm Name:) t_q hA' FO-1-Yn Owner Email:
Owner Name: !E)GL1i' 1L h {- _ " Phone: D9t-r1reli I? Lt ;I I ? (H
Mailing Address: x;�_ $ CS r-axv�i V L&-n e- As he- born
Physical Address: 3 5 ij V � r I Q k+ Fa rr m L& -In e. , �� lz l iy1.v 1 le, ('3
Facility Contact: TOL5 o r) �}, y _� k+ Title:
Onsite Representative: I
Certified Operator: t) 0..1rr e j LL
Back-up Operator
v
zxs b n
Location of Farm: Latitude: ,3 S U 2 6 V Longitude: -7 q q,/ ; 7
Phone: C , � , a� Ca7.3S
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Certification Number:
❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? [:]Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters Yes *No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge? 1�4
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: • Date of inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes P�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: W w4e- P01' 4
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ 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 DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes k No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste A lication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes XNo ❑ 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 ofWind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): 0' orn 55 (oLW S t'�l,1 4 rQl I, - fe-60,De Tf a-i 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
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
tZNA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
CB"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?
XYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP El Checklists [3 Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
2 . Does record keeping need ' provement? r�elew X❑Yes No
[` ste Applicat' n Freebo d Waste Analysis oil AnalysisRainfall Stocking ,Weekly
Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Nmonthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility ail to install and maintain a rain gauge? [:]Yes XNo
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 2 of 3
RYA ❑ NE
Weather Code
�cLU40 suvwe�y
❑NA ❑NE
,NINA ❑ NE
21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - ff • Date of Ins ection: "Z
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 ZNA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(cs) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes 5jIN"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, 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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes r'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes ,g'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/ouany additional recommendations or.anypther comments
Use drawings.of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary),
WWI
CEO 1 [ ICZSf oneJ a .' � Q t o
L-/A47;'t&
. Kux+-Zal
61a41 aol3
i/31 ao3
s/)e/aoia:7
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
0A06 HP6-N/1600
�Oe_
1103
4,
N1 l000 c�P,
�s . tQ j Ip
�1,1CS.J►Zy`riT�
Phone: 1 —11 — I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date:
2141201;

Date of Visit: I - I Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: �ph Region: L�SRQ
Farm Name: �jr�t�`�"-� Farm Owner Email:
Owner Name: TD VIA Lo ti*+ Phone: Jr
Mailing Address: r S tQ L a 7 ;1-10
Physical Address: Q iY1 3 s g o w r j Farm Ln • FI~ _ a Zag
Facility Contact: ^ Title:, Phone: $ a C7 i 3 S
Onsite Representative: 1I Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
a rw't 1P 5
cw re.+r L4 }\ Certification Number:
S OY1 r Certification Number:
Latitude:3s 9 a ds r
- rorA ItS hr-A
& ra�-+U i (te .
orb on
l'b
tn. , ZQir
Longitude: 0
•on r-7 J2
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wet Foultny
Layer
Design
Capacity
Current
Fop.
Design Current
C•atti-e Capacity Pop.
airy Cow
Wean to Feeder
11
INon-Layer
I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
D
Design
i
Current
F.o
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
C1.ther
Other
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 1� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [] No
❑ Yes �No
[:]Yes 6 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continuer!

Facili Number: -7 - Date of inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment �(
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes I ]V No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No [] NA ❑ NE
f Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
y Identifier: �PO-h -
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): C� V
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan? 4
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? K b �1 ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? [-]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? 11
Waste Application �(
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes I YJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? `T
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, et ,
❑ 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): A/ylA^J-Q q) A-ilD k 1 i� A-4 1, J sLJ _&d,p
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 CRINA FINE
acres determination? T
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
CB�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents W V
19. Did the facility fail to have th 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:
tainfall
es record keeping needJrovement? rep i Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
ste Application W ekly Freeboar Waste Analysis Soil Analysis Waste Transfers []Weather Code
❑ Stoc ing Crop Yield 120 Mi ute Inspections onthly and V Rainfall Inspections [ £ dgc_ftT7r_7_
22. Did the facilit bfail to ins at an maintai rain g ugJ [:]Yes C)I<o ❑ 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: - 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 �A ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes 10 No ❑ NA NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ;R Ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a` regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes �VNo
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes No [DNA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes 2
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any -YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or. anyother'comments.;
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
vw e-&
0
d uc ao ►a ,
a a 1 a- s o i o a n t i
dp
%� a5ke -.
3� 3) IX041 = 1. 4 / 65 - po do rp,
113 f,;2- a lit = C' a 16-57. N/logo
2� .—
Reviewer/Inspector Name:R044broaM
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
21412011

Type of Visit AfCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit JVRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: U3 03 Arrival Time: Departure Time: . 16, County: Food'611211 Region: WS 0
Harm Name: �N f��ltieil'M Owner Email:
Owner Name: f,jl4f r� Phone:
Mailing Address: ZZ 6k7r'vr4''Ve Li nG l �5i'IG�D, r i C 27Z03
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: T 1 D✓t �^� ratiti- — Title: Phone No: `�� 3;?2 — 0 735_
Onsite Representative: 't
Certified Operator: T)
Back-up Operator:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
®
"�
Location of Farm: Latitude: EK10 Q� D Longitude: c ©" �.1ude: '7
�Q '+,f�� �r�, R Ple�sa,� �r !� f� ,,.� z-M�. �rd.►,�vll�� Ln.�
Design Current
Design C+urrent
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry C««opacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er VDairy Cow
1 7S a Z-
❑ Wean to Feeder
1 10 Non -Laver I
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
P Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry UDry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stacker
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
El Pullets El Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Boars
❑ Turke s
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Poults
I ❑ Other Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Stnicture ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes �No El NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ��/��/WNo
```"` ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 .12128104 Continued

Facility Number:.f — ,Sf • Date of Inspection D3 D 1
Waste Collection & Treatment
�,�'
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
Cl Yes XNo
❑ 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
ldentifier:wq346 Told
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 XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes gNo
❑ 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 JNo
❑ NA ElNE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes'qNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
\\
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) ;_I�1 U,c C K-I I a r. M Q+ I n
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
WNo
❑ 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
ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
l2g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
...' d"; ._!,'x p. rR.a -d =.;a... ." b r'+ ,r;3; s 'i, Ys?". .':ti:&'�'..
Comments (refer to question #} , Explain any YES ii;4ers and/or any recammendapons oraany,other•,co{�mrnents ; 4 .;
Ilse drawings of lacil ty to„better,c Dlain situations '(use additidnal pagesyaslnec.essartry):.�
.ja ts/ ac's 1.r, :! t/AfidtrJ.
7 1 reA'- 17rda�/ Wti'��I `� MU4/ t_mjfL POAd. ena bew l�n'Tl
ippf f � 0 e KJ G 06 1/ .' i•t9 Gc��� lDd ,
Reviewer/Inspector Name C:';�WYME zM rtz_,' i�f111;�� Phone: 334 7 � � 5
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �✓ �� ,�_� Date: P3 k 2b I
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: r74 — 57 of Inspection 43 0.3
Required
19.
Records & Documents
Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
�Ak
esNo
k
I --] NA❑
NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
?s- yes
R(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement?
ElYes
�(No
❑ NA
ElNE
Waste Application eekly Freeboard aste Analysis Soil Analysis rsaste Transfers
LJ"Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield G<onthly and 1"
Rain Inspections Wcather 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
WNA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
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
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
!/
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
XNo
ElNA
ElNE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
AddyfiunalComments°an`dlorD,ra'wings,»�
sd l fqvp le_ 5 PiI `—_575— Q�1 YIa�J t (CL'oMMt.� rJJ TDI l-.�^1� Q�I
2011, w4
L /1 I'A0 : Ib N I e aO A1.
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit
Compliance Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
Routine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: ounty:4Region:
Farm Name: IL) r In arm .. Owner Email: Owner Name: Phone: d 1�' ]�t l�['�' I ga Y— q� Is,
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: `]a P .
{
Facility Contact: — �OLae 1 I U-) r I ht Title:
Onsite Representative: ��Ta �� Otl
Certified Operator: J arf-e
Phone No: Oil C
Integrator: 3$ oft 0 7 3 5~
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes D<No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El NA
❑NE
El Yes
El
ElYes
L o
❑ NA
❑ NE
19Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: -7 • Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes __1 No
Structure 5
El NA El NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ 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 �10 ❑ NA El 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 Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
0
12. Crop type(s) �bft At J CAI&AP
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
El NA ❑ NE
ANo
❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]No
VNA ❑ NE
[XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
YNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name_ Phone: — oZ`d
Reviewer/Inspector SignaturkA I &I L dQDate:
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — 9 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 [3NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ElDesign ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. iwa's'
cord keeping neeace
vement? If yes, check a appropriate boZil
w. ❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
te AppIicati n ly Freeboard Waste Analysis Ana ysis Waste Transfers
Rainfall tocking top Yield onthly an 1" Rain Inspections Weather Code
I1kI
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 OfNA ❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[No
ElNA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑Yes
YNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
3 I.
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
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
6(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional and/or
i I
MEMO
t
0
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit T �Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit q1 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: d Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: RAMOIQ Region:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: fk�- Phone: n arm]
Mailing Address: 12d, 7'0nAV-'kk'P_ Lang, A5 e_n m , Mc,
Physical Address: &M
Facility Contact: 10`1"" -rr'' 11 Wir 1'Q h -� Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: __a-5N) A= D04�1'21111 hrteg er: �0�50 Y1 LCl ! -3
Certified Operator: Da r r e I I UQ Y'1d h"k Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: V Back-up Certification Number:
�� g ©o LZ.,,�J
Location of Farm: Latitude: Q Longitude: aZ
46
C. F-rw&hebm, I& K+ onfo [ea5cunf (did e_ ed. 60 t.wd
Ie,5 4- Eurrt rt h4 o f r +v, e t (�
n �o c�.n t h e Lan C� o qua nil � 5
i u
Current
Design Current Design
Current
Swine
C• acity
Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle C+apacity
Population
❑ Wean to Finish
ID Layer
Dairy Cow I
❑ Wean to Feeder
1 10 Non -La er
Daia Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
[I Non -Layers
El Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
El Pullets
El Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Othe
❑ Other
JEJ Turkey Points
10 Other
Number of Structures
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: — S Date of Inspection •
Waste Collection & Treatment �,/
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes LKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structur V."�
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: L
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
4No
❑ 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 [IN E
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
O(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 im r�oveinent?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
I. Is there evidence of incorrect application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
<NNo
❑ 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 WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes bdNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes ❑ No K 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
} _. ' ° # 9 =. S Sit t w't� Ga a4
Comments (refer to'question'#)..Eip in g4 YESanswers and/or any recomme'ndati`ons o� any ether comments. � � ':
t t - 6&t v q
Use drawings of facility to,better explain situations.l(useiadditional pages,a tnecessary �
0
Reviewer/Inspector Name ;p Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: d� ea-
12/28/04 Continued

��
Facility Number: —e of Inspection Z
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes )5jrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes �k<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. DZwastr
ecord keeping need improvement? 19--as�,.hee�k-z]� ❑ Yes No El NA ❑ NE
Applicat' n �ekl Freeboard M Waste Analysis Soil Analysis
[N Rainfal] Stocking Crop Yield [9129hlin>atei"spectiens 031monthly and V Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes i6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No LINA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No gNA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes JXNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ yes No [INA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by ❑ Yes XN 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 X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes 0No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or'Drawin s i" ,. p c'i yk1$F.=': `"' F
lift
3.1_
�4sFe. tea! 5 i
� 5
at.
12128104

Type of Visit ,Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit � Routine Q Complaint O Follow up O Referral , 0 Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:
ton I q Arrival Time:
Departure Time:
County: Region: AISP6
Farm Name:
r'in ❑
arVY]
Owner Email:
Owner Name: —4
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representa
Certified Operator
Back-up Operator: `—A u- �Ot -)
Ini 3�a - ©3 r
Location of `
U 1 . 4 I
i a a 8 On &"+v', 1 i& Line-, f
Phone: '??9 — S 3 µJ_ David
, inoro . IBC• a7ao'�
Phone NJ a a
Integrator• Operator Certification Number: Ci a 133 2_
Back-up Certification Number. l d
Z7��'/ NNnj
Design Current Design C*urrent
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Design C►►urrent
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish 10 Layer
Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
I I[] Non -Layer
I
I
C1 Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean Dry Poultry
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ La ers
❑ Gilts ❑Non -La Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Boars ❑ Turkeys
Other ❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other 1 10 Other
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
ElNon-Dairy
El Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
ElBeef 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 l of 3
❑ Yes '�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes JKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[Yes b No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — . Date of Inspection 02=1/4r"�
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 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): O
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? El Yes No ❑ NA El NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) XNo
6. Are there structures on -site which are not property addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ElNA ❑ 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 th eat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? /
11. is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 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
. � o
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
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
IT Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
�] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
PQNo [I NA [I NE
IComments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. 1
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): I
OR A
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phonef"Q 7 `—IN Sr C1
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu Date:
Page j of 3 �Z28104 Cont'nrf
�

Facility Number: — 0 Date of Inspection •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes Z2X0
El NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check El Yes NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists El Design ❑Maps ❑Other ,,�,
21. Dorr
ZS"ecord keeping need im vement?❑ Yes EVo ❑ NA ❑ NE
ri
toApplication Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis �S_oil_
�Zthly
An lysis 'Ittien
Rainfall took' ❑ Crop Yield s3 and 1" Rain Inspections rather Code
b rj-
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ANo ❑ 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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No XNA . ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes _/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes [)(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by ❑ Yes 060 ❑ 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 KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes �dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
AL
al (011?l6 S
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Ei
Facility Number
Division of Water Quality'
Division of Soil and Water
O Other Agency
nervation P
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 4 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: rjl p j I Arrival Time: Departure Time: gy-county: `O Region: A159-0
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: ( r 1 j I Phone: } 7
Mailing Address: a aS C011" A1y 1 1 IP _L ane , � the ba7r ` f -C 2 7 ;�03
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �ar�e.l + Title: Phone No: (1
Onsite Representative: �"Jj fl+� a4 nintegrator• r� p
Certified Operator: r ` h• l .. .. Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Iq E.
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
❑ Other
From Ashe bona.
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: �° Longitude: ®° ®' 2
pAr- 66
+Wp I J I6LL r 4 t5 A �-
s
Design" Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
T ❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Pouets
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at; ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
D Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: 7]
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 KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
El NA
❑ NE
El Yes
o❑:� `N''o
15No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
E54o
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — •
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm
a. If yes, is waste level
Structure 1
Date of inspection lao b ow
storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
into the structural freeboard?
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
El Yes [�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
tE
Observed Freeboard (in):
h�yyy
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? EltE l Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes �No
ElNA ❑ 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 59 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes '8 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 �ONo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 45 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
. Is there evidence of incorrect application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes )I Vo
❑ 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)
D
kZ���.�.dd�,. „ _ _._.• ,,.
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
XIo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
I No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
❑ No
D<NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
�WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
TR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
GG
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: dZ(�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
V V ` - - + v 12128104 ' ' Continued

Facility Number:' Date of Inspection
Re aired Records & Documents , j�
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? [I Yes 1J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all.compone s of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check El Yes �o ❑ NA El NE
the appropirate box. ��T p Checklists
El Design Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[1 Waste Application Weekly Freeboard taste Analysis IIQ S,o��il,,,,A""nalysis
P(Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield 53 Ntonthly and 1" Rain Inspections QW cather 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? 2,001
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?
Comments and/or Drawings:
❑ Yes
E No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
% NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
•NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
%,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes L�No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes &No
El NA El NE
El NA [I NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA El NE
12128104

.0
',NR
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection jV Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
�Nld 0 4 , 007
Reason for Visit At Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
- =m
Regional Office
Date of Visft: /Z�/� Arrival Time: Departure Time: �;�•1� County __. _ ._-- --._ Region:
Farm Name: _ _�&)4r6' _. L__._. .._._...__._ .__._.._. Owner Email:..__
Owner Name: _� Phone: 3C ' 87 S3 yt
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: _qw? 1 6 Title: _ w _ r.-- ,._._� Phone No:
Onsite Representative: - ..._.r,._�_ ... Integrator:
4f
Certified Operator: __.._._... .... _ _...___. ...._.._,._. Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:. ._ .__ ._ .-.,, �. ._W —.. Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: © e Longitude: 7.07 0 F771,
�!
E. &&P7 opi Uosovr 2 ACe45 ZW d'0#rVre_C .4l.
: > i Design
Current
Destgn Current Design `. Cairent 5-
>�Siv#ne Ca sEci a elation + �" .Wet Poult y `nx =
P atiop`
p, Population ' Cattle Capacity opal
p, :..... ,
:.
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
,xt
e ❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
'c ❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
,
Dry Poyltry
❑ Farrow to Feeder
`
t` [] Farrow to Finish
[]Gilts
``
❑ Boars
s
Q!#her, NP rJ S
-s
h
1T i J
iV
�:
❑ Other
7-7
F Number of Strugtures . 4
�
❑ La ers
❑ Non -La ers
[] Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turke Puults
❑ Other
Dairy Cow
/ 7
[]
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
D Caw
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Co
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c, What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
�] No
1
❑ NA
❑ NE
--I: - Were -there' advene-im acts -or tential adverseim acts-to,the-Watem ofthe state-----
�Y P Fo P
--
❑-1�'es��
No
�❑-N7�
❑-NB---' -: -
other than from a discharge?
12/28/04 Continued

A .
Facility NumLeL.A-� . Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes P] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
SpillwayT
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): d
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ yes
rM No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ yes]
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
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 l 0 Ibs ❑ 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)3.�
13. Soil type(s)
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
(Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
N 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
Reviewer/InspectorSignatirre: - •........ .....__.............._..--.__..Date:....._ �
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — *ate of Inspection � .
Required Records & Documents
19.. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[,VI�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20, Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropirate box. W`Up ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
OQ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and l"
Rain Inspections ❑
Weather
Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
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
bONA .
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
00 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?
�j Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
jj;Z D4

F Facility Number: - Date of Inspection
Technical Assistance
Needed
Provided
34. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
35. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
36. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
37. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
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
IVI
❑
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 evaluationtrecommendations
❑
❑
58. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
59. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
L]
❑
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:
2. 5.

•,
10
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 760051 Facility Status: Active Permit: 6M760051 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Randolph Region: Winstgq-Salem
Date of Visit: 07/20/2006 Entry Time:09150 AM Exit Time: 11:30 AM incident #:
Farm Name: Wright Farm Owner Email:
Owner: David R Wdaht Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 1228 Grantv!Ile Ln Asheboro NC 272038659
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°42'08" Longitude: 79°41'27"
Farm Location: US Hwy. 64 East from Asheboro and turn right onto Pleasant Ridge Road. Go 2 miles and turn right onto Grantviile
Lane. Dairy is 2 miles on right.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents © Other Issues
Certified Operator. Darrell G Wright Operator Certification Number: 21332
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Darrell Wright Phone:
24 hour contact name Darrell Wright Phone:
Primary Inspector: Mel'ssa $osebro Phone: .
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
3. Still need stream crossing to cut down on streambank erosion and sediment run-off.
21. 2005 soil test results were not obtained. 2006 results were ok.
24. Operator calibrated 413106. Not required again until October 2008.
Records look good!]
4/13/06 waste analysis=2.7 lbs. N11000 gal.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC760051 Owner - Facility: Davd R Wright Facility Number : 760051
Inspection Date: 07/20/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
O Cattle - Dry Cow I . 14
© Cattle -Milk Cow 175 1 116
Total Design Capacity: 175
Total SSLW: 245,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
kaste Pond WASTE POND 53 00
Page: 2

Permit: AWC760051 Owner - Facility: David R Wright Facility Number: 760051
Inspection Date: 07/20/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges $ Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
a Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify bWQ) Cl ■ ❑ ❑
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 ■ ❑ Cl
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Led large trees, severe
Cl
IN
❑
❑
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?
❑
■
❑
Cl
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
Cl
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
Cl
Cl
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

•
•
Permit: AWC760051 Owner - Facility: David R Wright
Facility Number: 760051
Inspection Date: 07/20/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
❑
■ ❑
V. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

0 61
Permit: AWC760051 Owner - Facility: David R Wright Facility Number: 760051
Inspection Date: 07/20/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Welt- Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
■
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑ ■
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑ ■
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑ ■
❑
Other lssues
Yes
No NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■ ❑
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑
■ ❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑
■ ❑
❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

0
•
Permit: AWC760051 Owner - Facility: David R Wright Feel IIty Number: 760051
Inspection Date: 07/20/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes 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

Permit: AWC760051 Owner - Facility: David R Wright
Facility Number: 760051
Inspection Date: 07/2012006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason forVislt: Routine
Technical Assistance
Needed
Provided
34. Waste plan revision or amendment
❑
❑
35, Waste plan conditional amendment
❑
❑
36. Review or evaluate waste plan w/producer
❑
❑
37. Forms need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
38. Missing components (list in comments)
❑
❑
39. 2W.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 Assessment
❑
❑
70. Other
❑
❑
Page: 7

Permit: AWC760051 Owner - Facility: David R Wright Facility Number: 760051
Inspection Date: 07/20/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Via it; Routine
List Improvements made by Operation
Improvement 1
Improvement 2
Improvement 3
Improvement 4
Improvement 5
Improvement 6
Page: 8

Facility Number',
Division.of Water Quality'
D Division.of Soil and' Water. nservation �QM
Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit (Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: �i r Arrival Time: © Departure Time: `o Q County:�Oh Region:
Farm Name: IA A- IQV'�- rMi-M l Owner Email:
Owner Name: �� 1 1 �1 Phone: �1q ~ S3 4 1
Mailing Address: _. a`� aroy)}V'l tl�P L awe sh2 i.�log LQ I a7� a6
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 1 QoLr r 2 _� f� r (4 Title:
Onsite Representative: ;1;Y1,-CY�e �� Sac, On
Certified Operator: ImEre }1 1
Back-up Operator:
Phone No: 02, 4— 12
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ®e 4Z O$ Longitude: ® ° ®�
gw\t [QL# E �osn e t-o • oI�[}p ect 5ca-v�Lt Re Sa a m t je5 .
�(XAO (firc_Ln�,r %tke to ►n a Gc) +Lpo (till 5 °d �Qt r '1S or) r
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Populatiom Cattle
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
4
❑ Farrow to Finish i
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other:
❑ Other
n --- i
❑ La er i
❑ Non -La er
Dry Poultry.
❑ Layers
ElNon-Layers
ElPullets
❑ Turkeys
El Turkey Pouets
❑ Other
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?
Destgnr; ti ,,-
"�:Capactyy:
tDairy Cow
1 S
Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
El Dry Cow
ElNon-Dairy
ElBeef Stocker
ElBeef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures
Er
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 14 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes >(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — S • Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are
, there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes '*No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
El NA [I NE
[I NA ❑NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes `4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require [] Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
a
12. Crop type(s) 01 AA-44 C<Ju A 0 4� kjap
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
,❑ No
X NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or,.Iany other comments
'Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): :.. ..
3 XWAAAAJ
AL
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: S o� p
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date:
� O
Page 2 of-3 ' - 1 12128104 Continued

Facility Number:'110-5fl 4ateof Inspection
ReQuired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes VNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check El Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WU, ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Do s record keeping nee7wt
ovement El Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Applicati n ekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil An lysis --�ae�e-Xr�Rfe�e-
© Rainfall Stocking 2/crop Yield U12..A4iu6cw4nePeetiiens Monthly and 1"Rain Inspections M'Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
)dNA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to by (X)V• o(0
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
calibrate waste application equipment as required the permit?
o
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
**gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ YesVo
❑ 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
X
❑ NA
ElNE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
o
to
ElNA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
a a.00s so%ls ? amG ? aw(0 G41, . R ZooS S .
/3
I. D4
% N a o o g o
I
a
Qjo(o 7 1�sN /)goo
3 of 3
r212VO4

Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection Wperation Review 0 Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 'Q� Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up- 0 Referral 0 Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: T �K Arrival Time: i; Departure "rime: � County:��, Region:..__.._.__
` Farm Name: _
—'l Owner Email:.
Phone:
Mailing Address
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:. Phone No:
OnsiteRepresentative: Integrator:._.._.....-----.......__..__.._........-_...---.__--__.-_---_ _
Certified Operator: ��(t __-- _...___..._._.._.. Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: — ----- Back-up Certification Number:
il
Location of Farm: Latitude: p ® Longitude: ®° I n
� AS� j 'T1� asatrti� �icic�C. �� Coo Z h-i� . "�T j �: C�aKtvA U_LK•
�-I l
.� A` Yam' y h y .5 -
ys* �' Design Current _ -Design Current Design Current
� Capacity Pop;ulatron Wet Poultry Capacity Population . .' CatEle Capacity Popula4on
..�, ar:
+...
El Wean to Finish ❑ Layer
ir, ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Non -La et
' ❑Feeder to Finish
,r..' zh ❑ Farrow to Wean
l Dry Poultry
1:
❑Farrow to Feeder
❑Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
r ❑ Boars
s Other
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
EJ Turkey Points
❑ Other
Dairy Cow
1/7
Dai Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
apry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
1' Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure gEl Application Field El 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 [g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No [ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No 9NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes �'No ❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

I
Facility Number: — Date of inspection b
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
InNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier;
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in)-,�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
[ LNo
❑ 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
5`No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[j No
ElNA ❑ 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
Ix Ye
[ikNa
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[)&o
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. 1s there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 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?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination,[--]
Yes
❑ No
[ ,NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
qNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
G� . YN�t � vJu� UIti11 cc.�p
"pX, T h&LL CV A;_� JWj w -ta
ReAewer/Inspector Name tw t � "�' (�pq
Phone: Q fj
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 1Continued

Facility Number: — *e of Inspection 0 •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes RPNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes )4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
0 Waste Application 13 Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
3 Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes YNo I] NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No [ 5NA ❑ 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
[ZNA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
`: 27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28..Were
any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
[]Yes
ERNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
[] Yes
Dd�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
5gNo
❑ 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
EgNo
❑ 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
fo No
❑ NA
❑ NE
V . `,] 11V Ut1 - --kU . 6�j V? it 1 n d-V_CLL. TLi I •ram
12128104

t
Facility Number: Hate of Inspection I G�
Technical Assistance Needed Provided
34. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment ❑ ❑
35. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment ❑ ❑
36. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer ❑ ❑
37. Forms Need (list in comment section) ❑ ❑
38. Missing Components (list in comments) ❑ ❑
39.2H.0200 re -certification ❑ ❑
40. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA) ❑ ❑
41. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
42.Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
43. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
44. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
45. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
46. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
47. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
.
48.Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
49. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
50. Site evaluation
❑
❑
51. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
52. Irrigation system design/installation
❑
❑
53. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
_
54. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
55. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
-
56. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
s
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
❑
❑
k`
List Improvements Made by Operation:
4
2. 5.
3. 6. 12128104

• 0
Division of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency___
Facility Number: Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC760051 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: CoMpflance lasoection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Randolph Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 07/14/2,QQ5 . Entry Time:10:00 AM Exit Time: 11;45 AM^ Incident #:
Farm Name: Vdaht Farm Owner Email:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 35"42'08" Longitude: Z2*41'2T" -__ _
Farm Location: US Hwy. 64 East from Asheboro and turn right onto Pleasant Ridge Road. Go 2 miles and turn right onto Grantville
Lane. Dairy is 2 miles on right.
Question Areas:
0 Discharges & Stream impacts
Q Records and Documents
Certified Operator: Darrell G Wright
Secondary OIC(s):
0 Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Other issues
Operator Certification Number: 21332
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Darrell Wright Phone:
24 hour contact name Darrell Wright
Phone:
Primary Inspector: �M lissa M RQsebroc Phone: [phone]
Ap Ext.383
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary lnspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
9. Cattle crossing looks better. Vegetation on slope of crossing looks better as well.
21. 2004 soil test results are dated 114105.
513105 waste analysis=2.4 Ibs. N11000 gal.
Operator's son, Jason, also participated in the inspection.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC760051 owner - Facility: David R Wright Facility Number: 760051
inspection Date: 07/14/2005 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
® Cattle - Milk Cow 175 111
Total Design Capacity: 175
Total SSLW: 245,000
Waste Structures
Tvna Idantiflar Closed Data Start Data Deslaned Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Waste Pond WASTE POND 78.00
Page: 2

'1
Permit: AWC760051 Owner- Facility; David R Wright Facility Number: 760051
Inspection Date: 07/14/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
fps
❑
No NA NE
m ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
01111
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
IM ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■ ❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse Impacts or potential adverse Impacts to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑
Yes
0 ❑ ❑
No NA NE
Was s Collertinn_ Storage & Ifeatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I a./ 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
❑
0 ❑ ❑
closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or Improvement?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑
❑ ❑
and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
M ❑
improvement?
Yes
No NA NE
Waste ApplIcglinn
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑ ❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Fescue
(Hay)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley,
Oats)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

•
•
Permit: AWC760051 Owner- Facility: David R Wright
Facility Number: 760051
Inspection Date: 07/14/2005 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?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
18, Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
■ ❑ ❑
No NA NE
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on Irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■ ❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
26. Did the facility fall to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Page: 4

•
0
Permit: AWC760051
Inspection Date: 07/14/2005
Owner- Facility: David R Wright
Inspection Type: Compliance inspection
Facility Number: 760051
Reason for Visit: Routine
t7thp_r I-mijes
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.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Yps No NA NF
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ M ❑ ❑
Page: 5

( Type of Visit (X Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance I
I` Reason for Visit VRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
r
Date of Visit: Q. Arrival Time: 0 Q © Departure Time: © County: n 0 1 O Region: 061 l�
Farm Name: r h)rt a h T Fo-ir ryi Owner Email: r% ' a S ►4
Owner Name: Urih Phone: 7 1 S 3 Z
Mailing Address: aZ t J 1r4-V1 T f f l L a,yi e-1 boo ro /V C_ TA 0
Physical Address: 1 {
Facility Contact: _b�r r� 1 1 l Q Tl lJ itle: Phone No: a —
Onsite Representative: �a'rre4A Integrator:
Certified Operator: (➢wre 1, L LD ` Operator Certification Number: �� 3.3 t
Back-up Operator:TL Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [� M [5Longitude: En [9,
U S V" & 4 �Frow1 As hp- ho fo . .j21 q hk- onto P 605" V" "� t
P-d. (jo a mt�gs * tern r ia, + o`nl+o Cora nfUI Ile Lan
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 V Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
i
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
UDairy
Cow
s
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifei
❑
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: FTI
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ;(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ElNA ElNE
ElYes No ❑ NA El NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — 0 Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
1Z a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
1 A � Structure 1 tructure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: P.64
t
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
VNo'-Q-NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
'l<;__
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
11
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes
�No ❑ NA ElNE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need El�No
El NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
YNo ❑ 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) f V
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination%❑
Yes
❑ No
J�rNA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
o
to
❑ NA
El NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
El Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
@omments (refd to question #)f recommendations or any other comments.
d.S�4M N' � v iP A
Use dra nos ofhfacillty to better explainisitu,ations a(use additional;pagesr'a.necessary)•
ti
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: 1 .4IPbl
Reviewerllnspector Signet Date:
12128104 Continued
cM

Facility Number: — Djef Inspection 0
Required Records & Documents I
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? El Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes lNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropiiate box. I❑'WUp ❑ Checklists
❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does cord keeping need im rovement? If yes, check a appropriate box bel w. ❑Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application L�J Wee Freeboard Waste Analysis oil Analysis
airt� 11 Stocking Crop Yield onthly and�Ir"Rain Inspection Bather Code
22. Did the faci fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No *A ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? Ock. ❑ YestNo
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit'? ❑ Yes XNA ❑ NE
26.' Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes jNo ❑ 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 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings: r k
a . aoo� Sails 7 ()&Ted /4( f os
5�3 jos a •�' 1 bSa N 000 re
12128104

ical Assistance Site Visit Repo
• DiMon of Soil and Water ConservatiorA
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 76 - 51 Date: 12/21/04 Time: 1 930 j Time On Farm: 45 WSRO
Farm Name Wright Farm County Randolph Phone:
Mailing Address 1228 Grantville Lane
879-5342
Asheboro NC 27203
Onsite
Representative 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 DWQIDENR referral
O Response to DSWCISWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by prod ucerlintegrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy +7�
❑ Non -Dairy
.Q Routine
O Response to DWQIDENR referral
O Response to DSWCISWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by prod ucerlintegrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy +7�
❑ Non -Dairy
® Dairy +7�
❑ Non -Dairy
97
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? []yes ® no
Structure) Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier 1 1
Level (Inches) 1 +18
CROP TYPES Winter Annuals Fescue- raze IFescue-hay 1corn, silage
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

a
n
Facility Number 76 - 51 Date:
12/21/04
PARAMETER
O No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
El
❑
El 10. Level in structural freeboard
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
El13. Waste structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
[115. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. 21-1.0200 re -certification
[116. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (POA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance.
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33.Organ izelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39.Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker checklcalibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
designlinstallation
❑
❑
El Other...
irrigation system
Date:
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45.Operating Improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
5'
56.Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
6
56. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 76 - 51 Date: 1 12/21/04
COMMENTS:
'waste analysis - 1218/07 N = 1.3 Ibs11000 gal +
"lagoon freeboard - complete wl rainfall
records - complete - fall applic to fescue & small grain
- sent samples in @ end of Nov - not back yet
"lagoon - good veg cover, filled few small animal holes
--- continue efforts to watch for animal activity
- planted small grain, some flds will be planted in spring oats; hay flds look good, not over grazed
las received new permit
-- New records - rainfall, stocking, crop yield records
-- Irrig cal - every other year
-- No sludge survey required
age - look good, no runoff
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lBetsy K. Gerwig
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 12/22/04
Entered By: 113etsy K. Gerwi
3 03/10/03

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 8 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 Sl 'late of Visit: 9/8/2Q04 Time: 1000
NNot Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified p Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ...................
FarmName: W..righttfaxim.................................................................................................. County: KAadalAlx......................................... W5RQ........
OwnerName: DAyid........................................W.xigi►lt......................................................., Phone No: 879.-53.42 ....................................................................
Mailing Address: 12WCj..ran .yIlls.LaaC................................
Facility Contact: DAmell rig11.t..............................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: 33.&jj4,.42,j$ .......................
Onsite Representative:) axe �,yyKjlg�X .......................... . Integrator: ....................................................................
Certified Operator:Daxr.cU..G.............................. W.rigbt ............................................. Operator Certification Number: 213,32.............................
Location of Farm:
Farm Location: US Hwy. 64 East from Asheboro and turn right onto Pleasant Ridge Road. Go 2 miles and turn right onto
Grantville Lane. Dairy is 2 miles on right.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 42 08 *� Longitude 79 • 41 2764
Design
e ign urrent
Design Current '
Swine Pulation
Poultry
aestfCurrent
Cag Population Cattle
Capacity . Po ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
IN Dairy
175 46
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Oth
Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design' Capacity
175
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total.5SLW
,
245,000
Dischary-es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c, If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes to No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ...... W rite T and.....................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 35
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 76-51 Date of inspection F9M2004 v
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 N 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 N No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes
N No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
N 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
ONO
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
N No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
N No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
N No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
ONO
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
ONO
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
N No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Coimments (refer'to question 4) Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any�other comments x „ ` ,
� �1'F.w.x.i�l w � 4.is...:...... ........s.f.....,..,.........n��.Ai�a
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use Additional pages as necessary) ,1❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes !
W—.-
3. Stream crossing looked ok today. Check leachate next visit and suggest moving hay rings back a little further from the creek this
A.
inter.
3. Records look good!
9. CAWMP states that facility has two waste storage ponds. Since there is only one onsite the CAWMP needs to be revised.
/15/04 Waste Analysis: 5.3lbs. N/1000
Facility had received about 4 inches of rain in last 48 hours.
rr
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melis I"4osebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12112103 l 1 r Continued

Facility Number: 76--51 of Inspection 1 9/8/2004
Required_
Records & Documents
21.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24,
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
28,
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
®No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
NPDEES Permitted Facilities
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
® No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33,
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
35.
Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Stocking Form [:]Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall [:]Inspection After V Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
12112103 '

(Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: it Time: rrUUV I
Q Not erational Q Below Threshold
Permitted [3 Certied� 13 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .. _. _.
FarmName. ............. �,] .. Q rm.........._._.»....._....».»._»..........._...... County:.._. ^.. .._......._- ...._........
Owner Name:. »A....�.. ..lN.r� .... Phone No:
Mailing Address: _ 2-...... r...» !II_ Ile._.�Lo-ne ._� �� �.ora �. N.C_.__ a ? �� b
Facility Contact: . �.�.......LN f .1 Y i Title:.._ .............._ ...... ...»»_...._._..._.... Phone No:
Onsite Representative:., - 1.��.,_.1is�,� L t. 1 ! _._._. »
» __.. Integrator:....
y�
L
Certified Operator:, r ..1.�_._..IhJY L ! » ....._.._.. _ ........»... Operator Certification Number:.__ .9 .52_
Location of Farm:
U S w In E rr l 5 a. fz. i h ©
P ea� of . 1 �e , o a-.
Q r` a �r �v�
e Ln h�r-n� ri
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑ Norse Latitude ®' �� ®" Longitude �• DM, «
DesipY_.Current I- "f�jgq;
, Current ;_ Des<gta 7 `CmrrenL
Swine Ca ?Po tion xPonitry;+•; ci lE'o "uiatzoa';; : Cattle Ca act :;Po tiara ;
Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer
u Dairy
-_ Feeder to Finish t ❑ Non -Layer
r
10 Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
IQ Other
Farrow to Feeder
�.
Farrow to Finish D11
' Ci .
❑ Grills
Boar$ I� �' ' �'
- ` TuttaI "f ��
►h7LW 4
` r xY �� s� li s '•�� f �i i�
NutnberxofL}�a�g,yoy�o��ns
AnlAina i�nneie'/
rl�blf �1 �
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?
[:]Yes KNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ YesNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes IqNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes XNo
j jStrucjt-ure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S Structure 5
Identifier: �L �!i T ........
Freeboard (inches):
12112103 / Continued

Facility Number: — 5 Date of Inspection
5. Are there an immediate threats to the i9 ' of an of the structures observed? ie/ trees, erosion
. y �ty y ( ,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste A lication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? if yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload Q Frozen C7oynd
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ
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?
Copper and/or Zinc
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? I
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? 3
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
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
Air Quality representative immediately.
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
XNO
XNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes YO
e—
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes *o
❑ Yes KNO
��ref �..; IIt -� `� .���,. .�� .s;-�s nar,-"u'�nr: �;*+a � •�, ry
�( !j'rtQ;QOLSbO �) �''Y�II_ i1111 siD,y Y�'8a$WIrS'811�/OT AI1j�1rlL�Om�1lQRS Ot }�Qtftlr C41ts.
-
�U � r'tlrsv,ioffael�y toy%xter�e,�Pla%�situatio�as.P(ittia� des as��x�ec�sari!}=' ,� Field Copy ❑Final Notes -3 ; �;
a3.
Reviewer/Inspector Name i h. t € E cj ai. °' ? �� ��■
u�t
Reviewerllnspector 5ignatu Date:

Facility Number: ~% D e of Inspection •
Re hired Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?)(No
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
o
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ✓
❑ Yes
o
❑ W,sste Application ❑ Fy�board ❑�e Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
7
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
o
25. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
tNo
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yeso
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
El Yes
;rNo
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 3I-35)
❑ Yes
o
rNO
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
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 YieId Farm ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
No violations or deficiencies were noted durine this visit. You will receive no further eorresnondence about this visit.
gLid
41 ISJo� S. 3 I 6S • N / i 0o0
to U p--
l2/l2/03

° ision of Water Quality .
r� ision of Soil and Water Conservation
I Q Other Agency
J
Type of Visit O+ Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit@ Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility' Nunlhcr 76 51 Date of Visit: 12/21/ZOl)3 Time: 1300
O Not O erational 0 11clo►►'Ihreshold
Permitted M Certified O Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Date Last Operated or AboveThreshold: -....
Farin Name: 1'.!'rfight.F.um ......................................................... ................ County }?: 1149AQWL.........................._.... SW.....
Owner Name: AR�Ld_ - --- --- - --.-Clgbt---------------------------- Phone No: 3_Ct_879:�42---------------- ------------
Mailing Address: 1. x.�mlxllle.. a�nse .............................. ... Ache Qm.N.C................................ ... 172V ............
....................................... ......................
Facility Contact: DAT. ll.Wrigit...................... .Title: ........ Phone No: ......................................
Onsitc Represenfativc: p�trr�lll'�'x�bS----•-----------.-----------•-------- Integrator: --------------•----_.,,-_---_----.----------•
Certified Operator:DAtrr Al..Gin............................ .W.lC11gllX.............................................. Operator Certification Number: 21.33.2 .............................
Location of Farm:
Farm Location: US Hwy. 64 East from Asheboro and turn right onto Pleasant Ridge Road. Co 2 miles and turn right onto +
srantville Lane. Dairy is 2 miles on right.
[]Swine []Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Ho►se Latitude 35 • 42 - Longitude 79 • 41 27
Design Current
Swine C %knocity Pnnnlntinn
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Cai)acitv Po ulation Cattle Capacity Population /
❑ Layer ® Dairy 175 87
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 175
Total SSLw 245,000
Number of Lagoons ® 10 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area .
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 0 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System u
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. lfdischarge 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 ® 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 -1 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 {
Identifier: __._Wmstt.Pond_ .... ........................... -------------------------- .................
Freeboard (inches): 58 -
05/03/01 �¢ 9� 9s� ntinued

Facility Number: 76-51 • Date of Inspection 12/21/2003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ treesevere 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
N'aste Analication
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload [
❑ Yes
® No
12.
Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Hay) 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?
(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
(3 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to Question # : Isxplaln any YES answer andlor any recomm ndations ar an other comet
ngs of facility to betterexplain situation ..use additional page a cessar Field Copy ® MFinalNotes
3. About 75 feet of stream has been impacted due to runoff of sediment and animal waste from the denuded lot uphill from the stream
_
crossing. Operator plans to seed area in February when cattle are removed. Operator needs to install crossing this year to try to keep the
manure and sediment from washing into the stream. Check next year for possible stream violations (BOD, etc.)
19. Records look real good!
9/16/03 waste analysis = 2.0 lbs. N/1000 gal.
r
Reviewer/Inspector Name !Melis osebroek
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: a" a
05103101 r Y ~ V Continued

Facility Number: 76-51 D &f Inspection 12/21/2003
r
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.)
3 t. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101

Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit `, Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:Upr—�Q
'Time:
Facility Number
Not O erational 013elowThreshold
Permitted Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: __ rI � Fa r—no _-___- County:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address: 17 Z�
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry-MCattle
Design
Swine Ca acit
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
LJ Gilts
❑ Boars
Phone No:
Phone No;331o,<KJq
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
❑ Worse Latitude Longitude
Current, Design Current Design Current
Population `Poultry Canacity' Population Cpttle Cauacity Pooulation
"` Numh r of Lagoons ". ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ S ra Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System M "
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 ill ti & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (frecboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Stntcture 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
❑ Yes XNO
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
L�Q No
XYes
',❑`` No
❑ Yes
XNo
Stntcture b
Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ 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? ❑YesNo
(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 A No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes XN
0
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes AN 0
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ANo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pondir3g ❑ PAN Cl Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes P(No
12. Crop type
13. Da the receiving crops differ with those designated in th ertified Anima] Wast 04anagement Plan (CAVE El Yes IN
o
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yeso
1
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? El Yeso
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yeso
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yeso
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yeso
Required Records & Documents �f
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes L,i(1;No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified A mat Waste Management Plan readily available? Y
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design. maps, etc.) , / % ❑ Yes o
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ i _ /ion, 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 DR'Q 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 XNo
25, Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes JVNo
Q No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
y.N#E_ �'� i !kf � :.. �-�1 R�'{ _�. ....•��.TM��,r� i��ki�:i`1 lMt�hb:{. .��. ;� ,!..if Jw.: �.rwl,.i kn�-.�( - •j"'1Y 4 ¢. ..� A'-t � rl
Coiitments,Y{refer to gnestion . _Ezp]aiti at y YES'enswersPandlorsny recommendations nr an eerromments.
Use drawings iIty to betteezplaut sttgat�tonr(use addtto:pge�Far pt.Copv 0 Final Notes
rfa __;
q �lo� as o 1 l000
UR
Reviewerllns ector Name'"., 117,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date:
05103161 t - t Continued

41
Facility Number: — s 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 No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, Cl 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?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.) E9 ires EtNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? 9 *eS-- rrio
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? 4 m "a^ f '1 wo
I.Additional Comments _and/or Drawings:.
�✓ ? u.t'o-�'-t 7 s Q� .J
LP
Mta-&* &"V44 74_�� LP
4 C6 pep ✓hce�u+�e �-�d -
A
05103101

ethnical Assistance Site Visit
Q Don of Soil and Water ConservatiofflF
Natural Resources Conservation Service
p Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 76 -
51
Date: 123103
Time: 9:11
Time On Farm: WSRO
Farm Name Wright Farm
County Randolph
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 1228 Grantville Lane
Asheboro NC
Onsite
Representative Darrell Wright Integrator
Type Of Visit
®Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
Purpose Of Visit
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 -Layer
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
1751
122
❑ Other
27203
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
Structure) Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier WSP I
Level (Inches) 14
CROP TYPES Corn, silage Fescue -graze -- Fescue -ha mall grain s4l 10rchard Grass ha
SPRAYFIFLD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 76 - 51 Date:
4/23/03
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❑
[311, 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)
❑
❑
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 101bs.
30.2H.0200 re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Latelmissing waste analysis
33.Organ izelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
[121. 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
❑
❑
❑ Other...
system design/installation
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 evaluationtrecommendations
❑
❑
New WUP dated 2/21/03
2.
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
�'
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6
58. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 76 - 51 Date: 4/23/03
(COMMENTS:
May want to consider a stream crossing and watering facility.
Waiting on new permit.
Waste report- 3-20-03 Soils- 9-23-02
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST 1B. Barton Roberson
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 7/18/03
Entered By: IRocky Durham
3 03/10/03

Facility Number 76 51 Date of Visit: 9/18/2l'i02 'I'imr: 1030
Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted ■ Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: !'right..Farm .............................. .............................--.............. County: RAIL Ipli.........................................W-SRO........
Owner Name: T);itXAd ............................. ..... YV.It............................... ... Phone No: 33.b-$.7.9.5342...........................................................
Mailing Address: � .Ox tityalle. Ali..... ..........................
Facility Contact: L?axtt7e11..11'rfight...................... :..................... :. Title:................................................................ Phone No: 33.6&Z4,..42j$.DgtrrCjl.......
Onsite Representative: Dartre(j,,W.rjghj............................. Integrator:
............................................. .............................................................................
Certified Operator:lC)jKjr.klj.G ............................. wright.............................................. Operator Certification Number: 213,32 .............................
Location of Farm:
Farm Location: US Hwy. 64 East from Asheboro and turn right onto Pleasant Ridge Road. Go 2 miles and turn right onto +
Grantville Lane. Dairy is 2 miles on right. .r
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse - Latitude. 35 • 42 { D846Longitude 79 ' 41 & 2746
N
Design
p
Current
,� ��--r/xe., 6A�- '�:s�r'm
Design Current : Desr m„c Current
`
Swine
Ca serf
P,o uiatron
Poultry' Ca acit P.o ulation �'�i Cattle f Ea acrt Po ulatton
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Layer
®Dairy
175
118
t _
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Nan -Layer
❑Non -Dairy;
t
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
fit"
❑ Other
4,
❑Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity 175
Gilts
'>
Total SSLW 245,000
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons .4 ® ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area
❑Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps 1� ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
DischargesK 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 ® 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: ...... asic.Pond...................................................
Freeboard (inches): 44
05/03/01 � � � 9 p� Continued

Facility Number: 76-51 Date of lnspectinn 9/18/2002
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes IN No
Waste A- plication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Fescue (Hay)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ® Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
RVQuired
Records & Documents .1
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.
Comments refer to ques ion # : Ex aln any YES answers and/or any recom en ations or any o er com ents.
Use drawings=of faellit to better expiain situations. use a itional pages ec a :A ❑Field Copy CMFinal Notes
3. Operator to dig small retention ditch if silage leachate or residual waste starts flowing towards creek. Is not a problem today, though.
_
3. Per operator, he is working with Co-op Extension on plans for a cattle crossing, well, and drinkers. Are getting some streambank
erosion into the creek. Crossing should help.
3. Recommend that operator move hay rings back from creek about t00 feet to prevent further run-off of soil and manure into creek.
13. and 25. Tract-3991 Field -DW3 needs to have corn added as a crop since operator has already applied corn here. This is a violation
of the permit. Need to check acreage for this field, too. Operator says field is 15 acres, while CAWMP lists only 5.24 acres.
Reviewer/Inspector Name �Meli Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature Date: qz
05103101 IF
Continued

Facility Number: 76-51 D01, lnspcction 9/18/2002
doIssues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31, Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes [-]No
[]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
i_ ona L o,ommen tan" . �ojr raw ngs:
19. Need to use PAN from CAWMP rather than the soil analyis in performing calculations on SLUR -II forms.
25. Tract-4018 Fields-MB3 and MB2 and Tract-3942 F-1 have not been added to CAWMP yet (see 2000 inspection). Need to send
NOV next time since operator had applied waste here in 2000. Is waiting on technical specialist to add fields before putting more
waste on these fields.
25. Need to add "rendering" to mortality checklist. During inspection, Ms. Marty Day, technical specialist with the Co-op Ext.
visited site and changed checklist for operator. She added her initials and today's date. She also changed fescue application
window to "Year-round" (for one field ) for operator since he had applied outside of his application window.
3/30/02 Waste analysis = 4.7 lbs. NI1000 gal.
05103101

Divlsiari of+Water Qaality M
E'�.:.ryiBE,+ t I 3:! € ,! � �IE3
?1t
i�E.` €f <
M r�
!
. ,.1
r :�13j': �11�
f,•
i •'B•� IF
Type of Visit P Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit XRoutine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
RUMFacility Number Date Of Visit: ime:
Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
0 Permitted Certified 0 Conditionally Certified Registered Date Last Operated o Above Th
r hold:
Farm Name:1111 County:
Owner Name: r ` I Phone JNo: 3 3 � • fD�7q• �J�
Mailing Address: do y {. /_11;� r ]� �%� ro >, 1 " 9 76 `� eI3
Facility Contact: 4 r` Title: Phone No: T' . - I d/F
OnsiteRepresentative: r re— r I.a Integrator:
1
Certified Operator: ri Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm!
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry
!
Swine
Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
US w !n t°a5f -Pronrl , e. bo ro . orn rt� h onasc ,
o v 1 �
C J C 7a ne
1)e5ln Current! ; NE D@51;11 CR17ent€;.'
it_ r
Csnacity i Ponalstion ;' Pouli6 `., Cauacity Tabulation Cattle
U Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Horse LatWude ® a ® • K Longitude
c LJ Layer I ILN Vairy
iE
❑ Non -La er;`, Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Des>gn Caparrty
! !}..h-3d i . � i { � � fd3',� I FE ie• r I� ii 6F f !E { E -q
Number of,Lago W!,s ,! ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oon Area ❑ S rav Field Area
Holdtnk'Ponds, Solid Traps 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream ImRacts
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 oU� tental adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste ollection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway
Eyucrur.( itructure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: �n
Freeboard (inches):
❑ Yes Ko
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
XNO
Structure 6
05103101 1 Continued

0
Facility Number: — Date of Inspectionam&g
j,,�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?(ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes JCy No
seepage, etc.) ,
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑YesNo
(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 XNo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes b(No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pending ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload El Yes No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those desigoted in the Certified Animal N' ste Management P# (CAWMP)?
,lPes
❑ 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
I S •
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
Required
17.
Records & Documents
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.) / V
❑ Yes
�No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
*15s
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
rzNo
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
XNo
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
4
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?
ElYes
No
X
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
Yes
❑ No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to'queshoii'€�) Explain aaj YES atnsrie and/or any precommendations'or any of er comments `E i :°:
Use drawings of facility. to betterexplam situatioasr;(use addi4onat pages as necessary) +Field Copv El Final Notes
j 1
:3.•_�'/{ ,lj�\/�J�f � i�fJ] ii� A' 1.3.•3... ..� i.//{ -{:
1
V� I
i
r
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:JLCA" Date:
O5103101 JV Continued

n
Facility Number: —5
0 -1 1
Date of Inspeclinn
E
dnr Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
.or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanentitemporary cover?
0
❑ Yes No
El Yes o
00 ' !
�, i I .
Additional Comments and/br.Dn*ings::
17 aa- 4 7 lls laoa N

Facility Number 76 51 Date of Visit: 12J412t101 Time: ll20
tQ Not Operational Q Below Threshold
■ Permitted e Certified 0 Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Wright.Earm.............:....................................................................................
Owner Name:
Mailing Address: ��,.GK�Atltxill�.m�........................................................................
Facility Contact: DarrAl............................................................... Title:
Onsite Representative: D.arjvjj.ffrjght
County: RAr dalph......................................... WSRQ........
Phone No: 33.6:17.-5342 .........................................:.................
A dwb oxo. N.0........................................................ 27.203 .............
Phone No:
Integrator:.... ...............................
Certified Operator: iia><xCli.Gi.............................. Wright.............................................. Operator Certification Number: Z1332 ...... .......................
Location of Farm:
Farm Location: Hwy. 64 East from Asheboro turn right Pleasant Ridge Road go 2 miles turn right on Grantville Lane go 2 +
niles dairy on right. w
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Norse Latitude 35 • 42 08 ({ Longitude 79 • 4l 27
j ;rF^)9 f A'lyi ryp ,F 5t 4�f
Cur;ent�u:
'Sn2:'iH Ydl� 1`IL 3'( . KC
Designs Current
Design CurrentiMEMO!
4_ k v
'
Swinety, �t�Ca actt .,iP,o ulation
t
Poult
!'Ya Ca acit P.o ulat�on 'Cattle .a act ,.' Po iiletton
;;
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Layer
® Dairy
175 131
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer ; ❑ Non Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ OtherJZ
{
..Total Design Capacity
175
❑Farrow to Finish
f
❑ Gilts
FaJr
"TotaI�SSLW
245,000
❑Boarst
.:, ,"
Number of Lagoonst ©
//
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Fie�Aren
Holding on / Solid Traps
1
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System ,
h e j& Stream Impact,
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
.2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge.
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: ........Wastte. P.oud................................................................................................................ .................
.................. .......
Freeboard (inches):. 66
05103101 373 1
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: 76-51 Date of Inspection 12/4/2001 .
5. Are there any immediate threats to the tntegrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes ®No
(If any of questions 4.6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
l 1. 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
IN 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
IN 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)
[I Yes
® No
23,
Did Reviewer/]nspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
® Yes
❑ No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
ts referto ques on # : ain any Y San we andoa an y of er com
ings of facilit to bet a explain situation . (use ad itional pa ece ary : ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
E
14. All pump and haul.
19. Per soil analysis, some waste fields have Zn greater than 1500 units. Per operator, waste is not being applied to these fields now. Is
trying to rotate applications around.
25. Need to have new application fields added to CAWMP as soon as possible since waste is being applied to fields not in the plan. Was
noted in 2000 DWQ inspection. T-4018 F-MB3 (20.22 acres) and F-MB2 (7 acres) and T-3942 F-1 (24.9 acres). Operator already has
the aerial photos.
lPoultry WUP and records look good.
Reviewer/Inspector Name ;Mel' sa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date: a2
05103101 / r Continued

Facility Number: 76-51 ' Da Inspection 12/4/2001 0
Odor Is%ues
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
J
05103101

.3D
MRoutine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWO inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number Date of inspection p
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
7770 Permitted Certified © Conditionally Certified [3Registered Not O erational Date Last Operated: ..........................
i�� o `
Farm Name: .....1�....� t.I.l.....l�..i�r.�i.................................................... .......... County.
r Coun n.... 0�.�
ff ,,,, // a _ C�
OwnerName: ......... .......... �.A...... iN r 1..................................................................... Phone No:....:33..!(�:... �.7..1.................................................
jj II �� jj,, Facility Contact: r .l..L..... ......;��.�1 .........Title....... ... Phone No:..5��.:go............`'�'� p.J�
U m
Mailing Address:...I.. . ?......L r 1�i� .. .i..�.� ..... �c.........'�_13............... ..........................
OnsiteRepresentative:.1 akA.Lu............ ............ ...... ....................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:. ;U, r 1�........ -L�} ................. Operator Certification Number: ..�.3.. ........
Location of Fa m:
u.#............... ........rt7k'1ry....G... �. al...9� ....r..r�.....r. Z . 1....... ..........
.... �..... �.l0; ..�...... �.r..n... r.�...� .......oil......... �.l.l.�.. � �... ..t�..�.... �... - -
.. s:a...J.. 1 L L" 10 1 IJ / I. I J t �/ Itr i .. ".: a...J,. 1 f (J i a 1 11 1 Ic 1 / 7 111 on 1 r `1 /
'-'»`•`»^^^' 1 J..7 , 1 1 •� 1 1 v 11 1 "`�••b•`»»� 1 I/ 1 1 f i I 1 11
Desrgn `Current Design', Cti'rrent;'
„ wine Poultr
Capaclty,iPopulation. y
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
I❑ Non -Layer j
❑ Other
U
im
,J00 Dairy 1e
❑ Non -Dairy
gn'Capacity *
,
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? Spillway
• Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: W4A T, P6nj
Freeboard(inches): .................. ............ ................................................................................................................................................................I..................
❑ Yes J No
Continued on `back
❑ Yes JNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
A No
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ Yes
#No
Structure
6

acility.Number: — . Iof .Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or XNo
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)
fDo any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ONO
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes A No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level XNO
elevation markings? ❑Yes
WasteWaste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes j No
✓ 11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding P PAN ❑ Yes No
12. Crop type p
13. Do the receiving crops differ with thos9designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
'KNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
ONO
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? t -•
❑ YesINo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ YesNo
16. Is there'a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
0No
Required Records & Documents 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.) �// /te
❑Yes No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, wanalysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes ONO
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 VNo
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes 0
4 No
25, Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? Yes %rNO
4 YiQlAiggs o de>Fjcaencies ire nQtea d(rring (hs'vislt; Yoh wiil teeeiye trio f'uttgr .
co rresnoridence. abauf this visit ........... • . • . • .... • .................. I
Reviewer/Inspector Name I"
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: U/f JQ f Md.4 lf)k-,A /4, A7 #0 / Date:

as
Facility Number: — s D* Inspection a Q Printed on: 7/21/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or bielow
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
. 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) 'Y
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? --B Yc —S-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 WNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? i5j'_C�No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ... 9 "eli 9-,.
"u� AL
uPc�U
7 at,&aa)_
T- 39 �� Ca4 R atAzg)
5/00

•
•
Revised April 18, 1999
JUSTIFICATION & DOCUMENTATION FOR MANDATORY WA DETERMINATION
Facility Number:h� - -51 _
Farm Name: (02{nT Firm
On -Site Representati�ID�.
Inspector/Reviewer's Name:
Date of site visit: 1? y C i
Operation is flagged for a wettable
acre determination due to failure of
Part 11 eligibility item(s) F1 F2 F3 F4
Operation not required to secure WA
determination at this time based on
exemption E1 E2 E3 E4
Date of most recent WUP: Operation pended for wettable acre
e nation base on _ P2 P3
Annual farm PAN deficit: pounds ?
! y
Irrigation System(s) -circle #: 1. hard -hose traveler; 2. ce move system;
I'. 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 li, overrides Part I exemption.)
E1 Adequate irrigation design, including map depicting wettable acres, is complete
and signed by an I or PE.
E? 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
wee able acres, is complete and signed by a WUP.
ET 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 11 - F1 F2 F3, before completing computational table in Part 111).
PART IL 751/6 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
fields) 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 CAWMP includes
small, irregularly shaped yields - fields less than 5 acres for travelers or less than
2 acres for stationary sprinklers).
FA "A determination required because CAWMP credits field(s)'s acreage in excess
of 75% of the respective field's total acreage as noted in table in Part 111.

�`gi't a f ar,�i +I �,'F `f vxsron Of +WaterIlall it
.'fix 1 ,, rQ
g
andMater Conservation
r s t r r Y r1 y ,i
A
�I�:� t3p�r �} •r,�� n.:�:,� x, ,r � ,. � L?ther E
ytg, r i Ei �tw HN.
� �g i. _�+•n,.
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection peration Review Q Lagoon Evaluation iVUV U 52001
Reason for Visit CA-butine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification O OtfMj;,,,l,,s_ _ Q Denied Access
Facility Number 1)atr +,f Visit: %_x -O Tom;! un: 10/26/2000
O- Not Operational Q Below Threshold
[�ermitted C] Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above 'Threshold:
Farm Name:..l..rr./i �... ..A County: l`'.L.� ...............................
. ......... ............. .............
Owner Name:......... . .......... +............... .... r.G ......� ......... Phone No:
�....(...1a... �. ........ � ...$... .` ....... ........,?.............
Facility Contact: ............�-...... ....... Title :........................ .... Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: .1Z.2.8....... �.�?.N. .V...1..4 .C....... -. ?N... ..............AS�A Ft3a!?a............... �,l...(............. ..�72:3.Q
r.
Onsete Representative: Integrator: p the.....�?.T......................
Certified Operator:.�-L........ ....G.), Kug�H. �......................... Operator Certification Number:... Z.1.332 .
Location of Farm:
A-0 G ii-Te' D D (ter �rJT1/I Gc r C ANF l�a.a .�o O
[]Swine ❑ Poultry. []Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ©' �° �3��4 Longitude ®• ®®"
Design Current
Swine C'anacity Pnnulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer Dairy s
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 2<0
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 now in gal/min?
d, hoes 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 B?Ko
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes W-110
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (Freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes /No
StructuN 0( Structure; 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Siructure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ............................. ................................... ... ........ -1....... ,................:... ............
Freeboard (inches):
42 It
5100 Continued on hr

number: - j . Date of Inspection 117-3 -'0 -A Printed on: 10/26/2000
_,Jere any immediate threats to the integrity of any'of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
'6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ'with these 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?
fled Animal VFa'ste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
Required Records & Documents
I7. 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?
P'NQ •04kitjgs o* r• ¢gfick0i',es� •K`ft �1004- 00'r'ing 01s'visit; • Y00 Will-Nboiye 4 fu>i thor -
6riesporidence: about this visit:...:....... ......................:.. .
i, '4'yl" k�"Z "
f ° ALI�
❑ Yes 11
❑ Yes M410
❑ Yes P10
❑ Yes � Rio
❑ Yes [ (o
10
❑ Yes
❑ Yes �Io
❑ Yes GJ o
❑ Yes 10
❑ Yes P<0
❑ Yes v No
❑ Yes 2No
❑ Yes R<O
[:]Yes 01<o
❑ Yes EkNo
es ❑ No
❑ Yes 091To
❑ Yes [�o
❑ Yes EWo
❑ Yes M14
❑ Yes 2 0
❑ YesC&No
Tom/ o /'�? Cl✓O' i �r a •✓.4t rrA GINS / -f -^
`�� ` l `Gk r V LG ,,,e r � /d s o,91
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: /l—A - 6/' atnn

�Facility Number: — 5- !� of Inspection �/! �� -p � Printed on: 10/26/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes 2<0
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes W
40
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes LIJ40
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? �1//�- ❑ 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.) NX El Yes E] No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate Cover? ////���/////� ❑ Yes ❑ No
5/00

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 51 Date of Visit: 11/16/2000 Time: 1055 Printed on: 11/16/2000 0 Not O erational Q Below Threshold
■ Permitted ■ Certified [] Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: 1'Yrigltt hi rm ............................... ............ County: RandQlph ......................................... !'.4',SW ........
Owner Name: Dxyid....................................... Aright............................. .. Phone No:...............................
...........................
Facility Contact: P,t r rPll.Wril ilt.............................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No: 336AZ4,4218.............
Mailing Address: 12�2#.G>ta�ntyall�.11�u��................................ .... Z72.03 .............
Onsite Representative:)Qgj;t�iA.y4?�j�gh.......................... Integrator:.....
...............................................................................................................................
Certified Operatora?sxa ClA................................... Wgjght......................... Operator Certification Number: Z13.32,.....
................. ........................
Location of Farm:
Farm Location: Hwy. 64 East from Asheboro turn right Pleasant Ridge Road go 2 miles turn right on Grantville Lane go 2
miles dairy on right. w
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 42 08 i< Longitude 79 • 41 27
Design�'Current '�''� � Design rren Cut Design Curirent
Swine ,( �. Ca acit Po ulation eultry Ca acit P.o ulation Cattle Ca acit P.o ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑Layer ' ® Dairy 175 104
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Dairy Non -Layer y
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder y ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish T0ta1 Design Capacity 175''
❑ Gilts
° ❑Boars ITotal SS245,000 i
,W
NuWnd
,MiTi
�0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding0 ❑ No LiquidWaste 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 ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Wq5tg Q21leCtion & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: .......Wasta.Roa 1...........................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 84
5100
Structure.5
............I.......................
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Continued on hack

r
Facility Number: 76-51 Date of Inspection 11/16/2000 Printed on: 11/1612000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the int ity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, evere erosion,
❑ Yes
® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
® 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
1 l . Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12. Crop type 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 Rccords_& Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
IN 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
IN 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
IN No
0: No •�iolaiioris or� defcie"ncies •r"vere noted during•tl�is: vis:it:.• :You:wiTl• recei�e�no•furthet•• : •
* corresporid6 'e; ab6 ' f this :visit.. . . . . . . . . . .. ... .
Some silage juice is running into dainage ditch. Silage is not in creek. Suggest repairing berm/bank and reseeding.
Need spillway marked on marker.
3. Waste was applied to tropical corn in June. This is not in plan. Rye is part of small grain? Need to have WUP revised.
9. Will need to keep weekly freeboard per permit.
9. Waste is being applied to the following fields that are not in the WUP. Need to revise plan as soon as possible to include these
4018 Fields MB3A (was split, 10 acres), MB3B (split, 10 acres), MB2 (7 acres), MB IA (split, 12 acres), MB 1B (split 12 acres).
perator has poultry WUP for his poultry operation, IVI
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melissa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5/00

b
Facility Number: 76-51 DaInspection 11/16/2000 Printed on: 11/16/2000
CQd 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/tetnporary cover?
❑ Yes
® No
!XdditJ6ifaIWvRAffments M .or;i - rawIngs:
r
L
1W
s/00

rn
f k
veston`of WaterQuality
J. �:I
Rivision'of,Soff
and,:Water Conservation,
r,
Q Other Agency
-
:.-,"O..'
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit tX Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Thne:Printed (in: 7/21/2000
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
[Permitted Certified © Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
FarmName: .. .(`.) ..t.1.. ....... ............ m.......................................................... County:.............. ............. . Ql....
Owner Name: +�J ...... ........ .I�....Q.................................................... Phone No:........�......� ......... ..7..L......�.:�.� .....
Facility Contact: ...... L..........L11.�1 1.. .. .... Title: ................................................................ Phone No: ..��.. .!P..'.. .:.. �
Mailing Address:......a3 a
................................. . t...� Onsite Representative:. 1� �.k.....�'r 1 } ......... Integrator:.....
III......................
Operator: rt? L Zr.W1 � Operator Certification Number: a l Certifiedp ........�1r5 .................. �.......1�C1 ......................... .�........................... p e.................................
Location'of Farm:
r
'A �e not o is Ie 500w, 5 ran+v I ,e , o e le
on ljrQf � Yllle
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle []Horse Latitude Longitude EVIT«
„i
Design. : Current Design Current' Design'Currrent
n, Capacity.:,Po ulatian PouItry CaactPoulaon Cattle., Ca' aci po ulati .p,
Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer . Dairy i
Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
Farrow to Finish Total Desl Ca ael
pia Gilts � P.. tY..� 7.5
Boars Total SSIWli2qsQQ
resent ❑ ❑ Lagoon Area Spray Field Area
k Ngptkl►er o! Lagoana ❑ subsurface Drains P�
H ;� Ponds / Saud ,Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes XNo
Discharge originated at: [3Lagoon ElSpray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If diu:harge 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 tN
o
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? [3Yeso
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway ❑ Yes No
lructure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ............... ....... ..........................................................
Freeboard (inches):
5/00 Continued an back

t
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 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
closure plan? ❑Yes VNo
(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? Ayes T❑� 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 maintenancehrnprovement? ❑ YesXEINO
o
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding El PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload El Ye
12. Crop type UffS WA./-ksAA 1l-• de,
13, Do the receiving crops differ with thoke designtated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes VKNo
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
Ik
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
XN 0
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
4 No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
XNo
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freebo , 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?
\111111�
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
ElYes
No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
*0
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
KNO
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
WNO
iQ yiQl t itit>!s ;o(r i1 f eieaies v1 re jnQte ¢4r><°ing �l�ls'vis t; Yoh wi�i >4 ee�iye too fu t#. • -
. .
•corresiroridert&aba tit:thisvisit:•.•.•.•..::::.............:.:•:•:•:-:-:........ .
Canrtnnents (refer to questfop #) Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments
,, ( p g r i �',
i
Ilse drawings: of facility to"Better ex taigsituations. use additional a es as necessary): , , , {
SOhle- St10_36jL)jCe15 rcmr�.' V\ :r.5 A,
'10c) �,L)�qes­t—reyalriv�-i be,,rinvV hart
i
°l- r-.e Ski i V
pit
Reviewer/Inspector Name �� �',
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: g/00

� 4
Facility Number: DO Inspection � ! Printed on: 7/21/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below -B Yes
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? T
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 �lo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes 4No
30, Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes AIo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes �N<o32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover'? OM i TJ a�-cs-B-No
Additional ommen and/orDrawings:,
as
e4,ved 6;J1_
T - ya � s� dVl t3 3-.l3 Ccc.�as yp
li
T46Ig YV181-8

Routine O Complaint O Follow-uD of
in
I Facility Number I
of
Date of Inspection 85 ?glorial QftIC
Time of Inspection L 124 hr. (hh:mm)
M(Permitted DICertified [3 Conditionally Certified [j Registered 113 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ...LU.I ..4.�r'.�C1 .. 5`!'�'7................. ...................... County:..... C�. 1 ...`L...............................................
OwnerName: ... b..a i.t.A ......... ....:... ......................................... Phone No: ' ......`.......�.y................I.............
tj
Facility Contact: ?1.:.I�R,.....��.iG'..1�'.'-........ Title: ...... .C'n1..41i1a.i Phone No:;?.-.`.i..-..(.I...
Mailing Address:....�:.v `r+�...... t-AC1„ 17..!..�.�.L....�,. :........ ............. I..N.L......... 5?��aao..........................
OnsiteRepresentative:........................................................................................................... Integrator:................,....................................................... ...........
Certified Operator:..1.4..Lrs`.4,,.1`1.3".1. .�n�,`...................................... Operator Certification Number:.... Ja�J�. .a`L..............
Location of Farm:
....f)Cl
............................................................................................................r.......................................................................................................................................................
F.CLot:�a O�.i�43.!�4?.�.i��..........]h.G?�1C�SL.i�C7�........]1...C1r.�1�......�,..(�MA.A>.1...
Latitude '='=« Longitude =• =' =11
De51g[ld° CUrreQt Design ;"9CuITentfs; ai"§. �3a aa� w9r q� dlie51g11�� '16c C1iITCQt, }
- -„ €� , j
��z y�wwlne ao£ c A '�Ca aci "'� PO "" fi, 0Q,6 '� ='Point attle 4 a ?!i
Ca aCl PO Dlati C
j.., . r3 .. ... d�.,�.,�..� E.__Ca a��_ ,:., Pa ulaaon „,a�
u ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer Ji Dairy t;
a
❑Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer ;; Da
�?b' ❑ Farrow to WeanGaA�S
s� ri k c�,P v YC� f 6 K a,� ' 0ttl1 ig,�tc4r yt try' 99i.
Gat ❑Farrow to Feeder ❑Other �ti �'ti `� �iCy �, ; ..,. ,I .,,,::; C j
'a Farrow to Finish "' Ofal eS ' " T D 1grr; Cap cktY�
❑ Gilts
�Fld ❑ Boarsir� : Y n , A��TOLIL SSL
rgEy
�iI -°$°Number£of,Lagaons� 1�k ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ID Spray Field Area
�-
IR
r i?Holding P nAdsF/,SoId�T cps_ ._ .....,:,� t ❑ No Liquid Waste Management .._ ...
System �r�ra3"'�ls�
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, slid 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
tructure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: if VKC'V- i2.r
Freeboard(inches):...fr�.y............................................................................................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (icl trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes 03No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued an back

iv
a ��jacuity Number: — C fte of Inspection
here structures on -site which a,e n ro erl addressed and/or managed through a waste management
6. Are
t p p y b g g or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
[(No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
[ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
No
Waste Application_
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
No
12, Crop type r- ;
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
21 No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
0 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
VNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
E�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?
�,,
d No
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
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
(f No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
Yes
06 No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
df No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
.❑ Yes
EdNo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
M No
.
Rio vi. titjris or-ftrjCjencies -W re )IO(po• ft.ririg •thls:visit: • Yoir will •teoeive ito; fu f tl r: • .
:.
core'sporic�enke' abaut: this visit: :...:....:..: ' .:.:::..:.....::...:: .
hifja F3"'4Reviewer/InspectorName LYf r
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
3/23/99

:..
. � Facility Number:.? 6— 5 1 � of Inspection
Odor Issues
26.
co o t e storage Knd or lagoon at o isc gar- cm
❑ Yes
❑ No
Il n go-pond-with-no-agiT� zoi n'��
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
ENO
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
dNo
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
dNo
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
[ No
3 ❑ Yes ❑ No
AI

f
hacilily Ntnnhcr )late of Inspection
Ifirttr of I11"pection ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
p Permitted ■ Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered 10 Not heratrona D'I(V Last Operaled:
harm Name: W..right.Farm................. ........, C'ount.v: Randolph WSRO
Owner Name: David ...................................... W..right........................................................ I'lione No: 879.-53.42...................................... I ..... I ........... I ...
........
Facility Contact: David.Wright ................................
Mailinf, Address:.1.228..G.rautXitl1e.Latm................
Onsite Kew-esentative: L?atxid,&.Darxell..W..riglA
..... .'I'itIV: Ocaner................................................. Phone No. 3 6-S.79-.5142.......................
............................................. Ashr-Um.N.0 ......................................................... 27203 ..............
Certified Operator: DarrrJL.G...............................Wright......................
Location of Farm:
IIIto„, r;i tc,I-: .......................................................................................
Operator Certification Nrtmhcr:23.3.12.............................
:artott.. aea tntta.....txy . .. as . rnttn.. a afro.. rn.xa easan . ge. oa .ga..m e5. urR.rl<g Qn.. raR Y. e.. ane.gat.....
Iaiies.ciair...alu.xi i!.t.............................,..................................................................................................................................................................................... . g!.
Latitude ©0 ® ®` Longitude ®a
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to FinisF
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finis
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer ® arry
❑ Non -Layer ❑ on- airy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 175
Total SSLW 245,000
Number of Lagoons
❑
u
sur ace
rams
Present JFEFg5-3-57rea
p Spray Vield Arela,
Holding°Ponds / Solid3raps '0
. ,
❑
o
Liquid Waste
Management
System
Dischar(-Fes & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
I)iscl>argc ori��inaled at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. I f discharge is observed, was the conveyance ratan-nmtdc? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. II -discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the Slate`' 0fyes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes 17 No
C. Il'dischargc is observed, what is the eslimatcd How in �allmin?
d. Does (liscliar`-c bypass a lagoon system'? (ll'ycs, rtotilj, I)\A'Q) ❑ 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 Structurc a Structure-1 Srr'UCUre 5 Snruclure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): .............. 2-5 ............... .................................... ....... ........................... .......................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Con inued on hack

Facility Number: 76_51
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
p 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?
p Yes
N No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
M No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
p Yes
M No
Wasie_AP1?lication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? p Excessive Ponding p PAN
p Yes
® No
12. Crop type Fescue (Graze) Rye Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
p Yes
M No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
M No
c) Does this facility lack adequate documentation to make a determination of adequate acreage?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
p Yes
N No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
p Yes
N No
Remlired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
p 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.)
p Yes
®No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
p Yes
®No
20.
is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
p Yes
®No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
p Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/[nspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
p Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by samc agency?
p Yes
®No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
p Yes
®No
' NA:violution�'or.'13efiri�>ncres-were'itnted'dtiritig. this:visit. ' Vau• willl re eivpe tria further.
• Jeofres 66dek6 a oir# this:visit: • . ::...........:.. . . . .. .

li
[] Division of Soil W Water Conservation 0 Other A
El Division of Water Quality
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow- u of DW ins Lction 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection 3 �9
Facility Number
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm}
©Registered 41certified © Applied for Permit 0 Permitted JE3Not Operational Date Last Operated:
FarntName:j�tcot{I 1A2►�1 County:.....j�.ASS►?aLpt;l......................
......................................................................................................................
Owner Name: ,�„ �V�n �2« . Phone No: 33b - g S3¢Z
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................
Facility Contact: �C.►1� kZm` cnsiT- ... Title: ram- .... Phone No- r .1 ..8 �}..-s3�Z.
............I.............................
Mailing Address:......�22g.....�-- A.L1111�.�c L i�'`' > ! `� o.................:..1�,� ................... Za3
.................................................. ............. ............
Onsite Representative:..-n! U�1u tort F �D�Z 1�%+-i- �J)z� t Integrator: ...................
Certified Operator;...-. `G�..'-...-, ....--.� :��-��....... Operator Certification Number,..... Z 1 3 3Z
......................
Location of Farm:
�a......T................... �.. {{.dh.A1.... ...r1c*............t.4:1..................... .... A
try...+.�c..�........r� .!....�..:..... ............ ...... - ..................................... ...
Latitude • ®' ®" Longitude ®• 4-Z ' "
Design ' [.urrent h Design
CapacityM'Population� aPoultry Capacity,,I
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
IL] Non -
Cattle
�CEMairy 1.
.. ❑ Nan -Dairy
❑ Other
> xL Total Desiar Civk
Total'SSL
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes KNo
2. 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 ffNo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes (PNo
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 MNo
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes (9 No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ErNo
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes UNo
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes RNo
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes P } No
7/25/97

Facility Number: -7f. — 511 site 0
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons.11olding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft): ................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes V No
❑ Yes 19-No
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure fi
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 ...... �'��r�! 4 ...................... 4.4 ign..... (...... ).......... .............
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?
................... I................
❑ Yes BNo
❑ Yes LI-No
❑ Yes JI-No
No:vitilationsor'd6ficieacies:were-noted,during this:vis1t.,:You,W'i11 recei'Ve',n' 6 irth:er.::
correspkideke ci oOt this:vWt::
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes EQ4o
❑ Yes eM No
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes [37No
❑ Yes Pi No
❑ Yes J-No
❑ Yes 8 No
❑ Yes eQ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Z.

p`Dtvision of Solt and r Conservation:- Operation Neview
p'Dtvtsiaii of Soil_and er Conservation--:Compliance+inspectio,'
Division of Wate"r ualit Com lience inspection;
�,. .� �.. �� Q Other''Agency"'`�'Operatton+RBV1eV1!�+`€, i 1i , °e��, t��l, �:., "1' € ' �'•, ......
19 Routine 0 C:oulptatrtt 0 ronow-up of Dwy inspection
Facility Number
M Registered p Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted
Far'ni Name: .1'U.right.Farm.......................................................................
o►►°-up of uaw4 review 0 Vtner
0,1te oi, 1nspeelioll
'11111c of ilrspectioli ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
In Not 01erattn,ta Date Last Operated:
............... County: Randolph WSRO
(truer Name: David ...................................... .Wright........................................................ Phone No:%79x53.4Z ...................................................................
Facility Contact: David.3N.right..................................................I'ifle: O.1' ne7r................................................ Phone No: 33fi-S79.-S34Z .......................
MailingAddress:........................................................................ Ash-ebDra.N.0 ......................................................... 2720.3 ..............
Onsite Representative: David.&.Darren..W..tright...................................................... Intel;ratur:................................ ... ....................................................
Certified Operator: Dar:x'&G.............................. Wright.............................................. Operator Certification Number:2.1332 .............................
Location (A I arm:
Latitndc ©•®® Longitude ®0 ®"
Swine Capacity Population
p can o Feeder
p Feeder to Full=
p arrow to Wean
p Farrow to Feeder
0 Farrow to Finis
p Gilts
p Boars
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
p Layer ® Datry
p Non -Layer p Non -Dairy
p Other
Total Design Capacity 175
Number of°Lagoons tHolding.Ponds
Total SSLW 1 245,0!!___J. I
ur ace rains Present p agoon Arco p pray ie rea
Jquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
p Yes
® No
Discharge ori-inated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. ll'discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
p Yes
® No
1). ll discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water`? (If'ycs, notify DWQ)
13 Yes
® No
C. ll'discharge is ohscrvcd, what is iltc cstimatcd flow in galhnin?
d. Does dischar4=c hypass a lagoon system? (Il'yes. nolify DWQ)
0 Yes
®No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
p Yes
®No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
p Yes
®No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
p Yes
®No
maintenance/improvement?
6. is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes
® No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
p Yes
®No
7/25/97

act t y Number: 76_51 I)IMPectiolr
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (L:}l-'Irolls.V oldirrt; 11n)ds, Blush Pits. Cie.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
strilcture I Structure 2 SIRAClure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Frecboard(lt):...............4................. ................................... ....................... I............
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 rninimum or maximum liquid level markers?
W.tsle Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
0
p Yes N No
p Yes ® No
Slrtretlrre 5 tiu•ucture 6
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes M No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
15. Crop type ....................... Fescum...................... ... :I:itnathy. 0xchacd.,.&.Rye..............................................................................................................
ra
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in t2e Asnimal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? p Yes ® No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Vermilled 1 acililies Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Anirnai 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?
R.. o:viu lons.or cren.cses'were.nns nrmg rs vlsl :. Ytau will -receive no, further---------------
.:.
p Yes N No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes M No
0 Yes ❑ No
p Yes p No
E3 Yes p No
VE BEEN COMPLETED BY OWNERS. CURRENTLY WAITING ON SWCD TO COMPLETE CERTIFICATION
Reviewer/Inspector Name WCorey Basinger:,a.,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

S
a.,c.�;r .`.. :b'" :.E;;x'�: 4-1:.o-u
❑ D�vtsion of Soil Water Conservation ❑ Other
�'. Division of Water Quality m y
Routine OConiplaint O Follow-u o€ DW ins ection O Follow-u of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection e�J 2Q y
Facility Number
Time of Inspection /: D 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Registered 0 Certified © Applied for Permit E3 Permitted [3 Not Opera Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: WQ.t 1b t4� FAQ County: ...... �aM1Doi,P ...................... �!.`.1SPO
.................................................................................... .................... I ............. I......
Owner Name:....D,:�.Ut�... ;j„6 L+'T Phone No:
...........................................................................
Facility Contact: .. !4!!,+� �'`��`�'`*'r 1��- ... Phone No: S ' S3..2
.................... ............. Title:.....�?.ti..............................................................................................
..... ........
/]�s��� � �
Mailing Address: ...................... �4..... .... ........ .
Onsite Representative:...w�.+�..� °+?Av�S,....1��.�k1.......................................................
....... .... ............................ 'Integrator:..........................
`✓ orator Certification Number Z 33 Z
Certified Operator;...........,dk.R..�Lc� ...LC� p..........................................
................................................................................. O
Location of Farm:
i��- 6WS7 Ev ...` + c�sarp ... /L -f4 r..�.r`..0:u-T.'` .... .Kd''. 0.......................................(. ............. #
,..pp ...............
4�1 t�/as�L01�$ L.t� ,, �e lui �. LQ/ !' f d ../1�
Latitude ®• ®1 ®" Longitude ®' ¢Z ` iR
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gins
❑ Boars
Uesign; .Current.
}Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
1 ❑ Layer JC3 Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I0 Non-Dairy
10 Other I I
x Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW'
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes R)No
2. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes [XNo
Discharge originated at.: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes b'No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes allo
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 P3'No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes [R'No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes '? No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes ®No
maintenance/improvement?
6. is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes Q No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes JM No
7/25/97

Facility Number: is
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lazoons Holding_Ponds, Flush Pits. etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
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 ......9SGu2 by
❑ Yes 10.No
❑ Yes P No
Structure 5 - Structure 6
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?
No Violations'or. deFtciencies.were"notid-during this'Visit., Yoit;will rece'i've'nti'ftirther':'
coeresOOWehOy0ottt -this. Visit. ,
1M.
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes 0No
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes 1ffNo
..............................I
❑ Yes Q No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes K No
❑ Yes Q No
❑ Yes ®"No
❑ Yes Q No
❑ Yes 19 No
❑ Yes Q No
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes ®' No
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: �;�,) QZ%' %'

Routine p Complaint p Follow-up of DWQ inspection p Follow-up of DSWC review p Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection � 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Farm Status: ® Registered p Applied for Permit
p Certified p Permitted
p o perational 1 Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Wright Farm
Owner Name: David ...................................... W..right........................
rotAt"ItTwtsnttraevotrounours
(ex:..25:for 1 hr..t.5:min)).Spent.on:Review
or:insp'ectioii�(includ"es-travel andiprocessing),
Facility Contact: D&W.Wrigbi.................................................Title:.......................
County: Raindolph.......................................... .WSRO........
.. Phone No:&7.9:53:42....................................................................
PhoneNo: ....................................................
Mailing Address: 122K.Grantxille.Lan:e........................................................................ AsImborn.N.0 ......................................................... 2720.1 .............
Onsite Representative: Daiuid..Wrigbt............................................................................. Integrator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator:Darxell.Gi ............................... .right............................................. Operator Certification Number: 21332.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ©• ®� ®°° Longitude ®. ® ®
�',� i, f4 ,. - 9
Type of Operation 'r:'€" ' Design '�°`Cu'rren`t' i ,° „�3' `11 Design' Current "' Design' Current
'Swine Q,f , Cacrt Pp
P CateI
Capacity
E,
F
.Population'...
-•.Population ,,.p
e
!R
P
3 resenl� p Lagoon rea
g 0 ' 0Subsurface rams
_Number�af'La aons,/=Hakim Popdi14
p pray Fie rea
#
�3..
_ .
:..
p can to
® airy
p Feeder to m�s on- Layer
p arrow to can , « '
p arrow to Feeder �s ° E ,Total''D'es�gn Capacity
f ,
p Farrow to Finish
�❑Other '
*
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? p Yes R No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? N 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) N 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) IN Yes p 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 ® No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require p Yes N No
maintenance/improvement?
4/30/97
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? p Yes R No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? N 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) N 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) IN Yes p 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 ® No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require p Yes N No
maintenance/improvement?
4/30/97

tacinty Number: 76_St
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? Yes No
� P PP g p
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? p Yes ® No
8.
Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Cl Yes
M No
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds
9.
Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
p Yes
®No
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
8 ft (+)
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
® No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
®No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
® Yes
p No
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
p Yes
® No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type ....... Com.(Silage.&.Graiu)i........ Sm ILGiraan11..(.W.h:cat,..Earley......................... kescue..................................................................................
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in [h'Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
p Yes
p No
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
® No
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?
For Certified Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
Reviewer/Inspector Name
p Yes ® No
p Yes H No
p Yes H No
p Yes ® No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
[]Yes p No
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �'rf,�,�/� Date:

�4
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of. DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection ZS
Facility Number �fv t
Time of Inspection IO: 00 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status
�egistered El Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review 0
❑ Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection includes travel andprocessing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated: ............................................................................................... . ............... . .... . .......... . .................
FarmName : ............ }!...... .................. w........ ............. ........... ...... . County: ..»2Arl-r7tal.t�i........................,�SIZO
Land Owner Name:.......��?........ .....Wa2 rFT....................................... Phone No:..... `�.�4?..-....r..`-�'.�.4 .'..........................
FacilityConctact:..... ,�P ` ! R ...... S. — !A,0T ......................... Title:................................................ Phone No: ..... .................................... ...............
Mailing Address:....«2 a.....C?..��w1TV.1.►:...,..............Ld!a................................. �lrr�$aizo.......... G.................... »Z . �'.'..? Onsite Representative: ....... J) LD......... kli'.RIfo.k.4"I»........................................... Integrator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator:....a R? ..................................................... Operator Certification Number:.......................................,
Location of Farm:
...00
G4 ...�2T ..... t....I..... .. .. .f.,Q a .E4 �.......... a�.�.....1?.,......Caa..........!!:tt.4A... nt.................... 4
�1 ..-G!R...wmf.w.........4 8r........�Ik� .... ... t!?Y..l. ..°^ .lk ...................................................................... ........... �y
Latitude Longitude ®• 4 Z ®
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes RNo
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? )5 Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field IN Otherpgr /or [. A*W
a.. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? JR'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 gil/min? /jl,n�Mg 1
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ONO
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ff Yes ❑ No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes Q No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes .rNo
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement? Continued on back

Facility Number.....
6. Is facility not in compliance with any Scable setback criteria in effect at the time ofogn? ❑ Yes D(No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes ETNo
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes XNo
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Pou"
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? [:]Yes t9'No
Freeboard (fi): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
g
............................ ............................ ............................ ............................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes CZNo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes KNo
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes %No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? Yes ❑ No
Waste Application_.
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes JgNo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of three ,State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ........t..l?....�5.1 q4G..........................klr�r�/�r......................................... ...........................................
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
Wo
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
Q'No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For Certified Facilities t7illy
❑ Yes
09 No
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Comments (refer to question #) Explain ariy YES answers `andlOr any recommendations or any other comments
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations"., (use additional pages a . necessary)
Zd 3 — A-10r V3&49A- dAf-C4A411 cak eers..� c�r✓z<c�{td` by ad cl'sitl 4
13 M„ia,� Paa,+-
1 to _ T' l a.« c y-c jb 5et c.% ,kQ_d Pl
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
cc: Division of Water Quality, Wafer Quality Sectidn, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97