410008_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 410008 Facility Status: Active Permit: AM410008 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Guilford Region: W0nStg0-5alem
Date of Visit: 03/06/2007 Entry Time:12150 PM Exit Time: 02110 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Keck's Dairy Inc. Owner Email:
Owner: Lee Roy Keck Phone: 336-685A664
Mailing Address: 2416 NC 62e JMI*an NC 27283
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude: 79°37'45"
1-40 east past GSO. NC Hwy 61 south to NC Hwy 62 south/west (turn right). Farm on left.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Certified Operator: Lee R Keck
Secondary OIC(s):
Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Other issues
Operator Certification Number: 21605
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Lee Roy Keck Phone:
24 hour contact name Lee Roy Keck Phone:
Primary Inspector: M I' sa Rosebrock Phone:
A A Ct )W. I I L . I �) A
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
3. Stockpiled waste in pasture near surface water pond must be moved within the week and land applied. Suggest moving feeders to
higher ground. Need to re-establish vegetation in this area.
9. Must extend earthen berm another 25 feet to contain potential leachate from covered stockpile.
21. 2006 soil test results are ok.
28. Stockpiled waste from waste pond must remain covered and waste sold or given away within 60 days. After that, it must be land
applied per closure plan.
28., 31., & 33. Mr. Keck began close-out procedures prior to obtaining closure plan, integrity of the WSP dam was not compromised.
Dam not breached yet.
2/12/07 scrape=2.6 lbs. Nlton
315/07 liquid=4.3 lbs. N11000 gal.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck Facility Number: 410008
Inspection Date: 03/06/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle - Beef Feeder 16
Cattle -Milk Cow 170 0
Total Design Capacity: 170
Total SSLW: 238,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Laste Pond WASTE POND 108,00
Page: 2

•
0
Permit: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck Facility Number: 410008
Inspection Date: 03/06/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
m I ..
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ ■
❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ ■
❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
■ ❑
❑ ❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yea No
NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
Cl ■
❑ ❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le.l large trees, severe
❑ ■
❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■
❑ Cl
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
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
■ ❑
❑ ❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No
NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance altematives that need maintenance or
❑ ■
❑ ❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

•
0
Permit: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck
Facility Number: 410008
Inspection Date: 03/06/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason far Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare sail?
❑
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 I I
Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
110
❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC410008 Owner - FaclIIty: Lee Roy Keck Facility Number: 410008
Inspection Date: 03/06/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No NA NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below,
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
■
❑ ❑ ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Other Issues
Yes
No NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
■
❑ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑
■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

n
u
0
Permit: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck
Facility Number: 410008
Inspection Date: 03/06/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Clthar I*Qija& Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with,on-site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
■❑❑❑
Page: 6

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number Division of Soil and Water onservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit C mpiiance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit gRoutine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
t r
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: a: County: Region:
Farm Name: ��pp1 Snc Owner Email:
Owner Name: Lee' leo Phone:
Mailing Address: a N L ►L. l a Z 0AAA 19
J
Physical Address: �r, l f/
Facility Contact: Lei- ,' "I K aL!' = Title: Phone No:
. r
Onsite Representative: f (I` Integrator:
Certified Operator: eQ Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
s- 46 5f v 5 g a ou tA,
SC o �u�tiavl
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
❑ Other
Bach -up Certification Number:
Latitude:
®o
M Longitude:
°
M ,
6'�
s � ut�) (4 TRf
4 V
4 I)
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
f ❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
oZ-
Dair Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cowl
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: Q
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 )4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[--]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
IN Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facilitv Number: — Date of Inspection M
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate'? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure061A
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: NIa5k _
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
)6No
❑ 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
El
[3NA ElNE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
No
El NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA [__1 NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or I0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window J] 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
3
❑ NA
❑`NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
FR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
19No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
3.
,ad q` " Z a
VV
Reviewer/Inspector Name V-Q Phone: —7 XS
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
l ` - 12128104 Continued

Fz'
Facility Number: — 41te of inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes *No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑ Other
21. Do record keeping need impr ement? If yes, chec k he appropriate box b low. El Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application' e ly Freeboard Ltif Waste Analysis Soil An is Waste Transfers-Eertifrcati[lt1
t VRainfallVtocking Crop Yield onthly and I" Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El Yes No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ No tg(NA ❑ NE
$Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes
❑ No
VNA
❑ NE
Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ElNE
❑ Yes tSI,f No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
R1 Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
'Additionali and/or Drawings.
IF I�f �, ��r, �i ! �•s�
�i: d,
7
12128104 ' V

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 410008 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC410008 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Rouling I County: Guilford Region:
Date of Visit: 08/17/2006 Entry Time:12*55 PM_ Exit Time: 02A5 PM Incident M.
Farm Name: Keck's Dairy Inc.
Owner: Lee Roy Kech
Owner Email:
Mailing Address: 2416 NC 62e Julian NC 27283
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Phone: 33"05:4664 ,
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°55'35" Longitude: 79°37'45"
1-40 east past GSO. NC Hwy 61 south to NC Hwy 62 southtwest (turn right). Farm on left.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Lee R Keck Operator Certification Number: 21605
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site RepresentatIve(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Lee Roy Keck Phone:
24 hour contact name Lee Roy Keck , Phone:
Primary Inspector: Me,' a R sebrock f
Inspector Signature: `
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
21. 2005 soil test results checked. Are ok,
21. Records look great!
417106 waste analysis= 12.2 lbs. N11000 gal.
Phone:
Date:4//d
"All milk cows are to be moved to Mike Beeson's farm around Sept. 15, 2006. Heifers to stay at Mr. Keck's farm and to be sold off as
they are ready to freshen.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck
Inspection Date: 08/17/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 410008
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
❑ Cattle - Dairy Heifer
W Cattle - Milk Cow 170 89
Total Design Capacity: 170
Total SSLW: 238,000
Waste Structures
Type identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
aate Pond WASTE POND 78.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck Facility Number: 410008
Inspection Date: 08/17/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
G 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?
❑
IN ❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■ ❑
❑
discharge? '
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
improvement?
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWC410003 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck
Facility Number: 410008
Inspection Date: 08/17/2006 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 manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Soybeans
Crop Type 3
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ From those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP? ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck Facility Number : 410008
Inspection Data: 08/17/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
23. 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 fall to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑ ■
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
27, Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑ ■
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■ ❑
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑
■ ❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑
■ ❑
❑
Quality representative immediately,
Page: 5

Permit: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck
Inspection Date: 08/17/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Other Issues
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/lnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 410008
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yea No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit � Routine Q Complaint O Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
1
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: 60 LI'lEd Region: WJ R
Farm Name: e_(?j4, �� �Q I /- -1 Z �i, Owner Email: Owner Name: Y-, e- Y-- Phone: 33 (- p 6 U
Mailing Address: a N C EQ T _Ti !2:n 1 NL, o- -7 a g3
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �LA r'1Q Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: � L�Integrator:
Certified Operator:Operator Certification Number: d
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: EU-0 ` Longitude: ° �"
+-� E ,pas+ VS
Design C►urrent
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry C►apacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
10 Layer
Dairy Cow aZ d
❑ Wean to Feeder I
IE]Non-Layer I I
Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Daia Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
ElNon-Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
El La ers
El Stocker
❑ Gilts
El Non-Laxers
ElBeef Feeder
El
❑ Boars
El Pullets
❑Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Other I
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other I I
umber of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
ElNA
ElNE
Discharge originated at: ElStructure ElApplication Field ElOther
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
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
*No
ElNA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page l of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: —64K 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: oa
d
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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
ElYes fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes t
oElNA [INE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yeso [INA El NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes 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?
It. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
El Yes &No El NA ❑NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes VkNo El NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes ❑ No Ld, NA El NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes XN T❑`NA ElNE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ElYes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other -comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
AL
Reviewer/Inspecto Name- I Phone: S
Reviewer/inspector Signatur Date:
Page 2 of 3 V V [, - - - ' V I -- 12128104 Continued

(C.
Facility Number: — loate of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes (No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Do s record keeping need imp vement? .a�eP-i ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Appli lion Wee y Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil A lysis Q Wnst
B ainfall �p Stocking Crop Yield cftons Monthly and 1 " Rain Inspections �Za'ther'C'o'de
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? wet
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
)NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
*o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
WNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ANA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
ElYes
fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
*o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
O
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
a I a o0.Yy- aao(6 Sb i I +es+ 14s ? aoog- c� .
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number; 410008
Facility Status: Active Permit. AWC410008
❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
_ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine
_ County: Guilford
Region:
Date of Visit: 05/20/2QQ; .
Entry Time: 01:15 PM Exit Time: 02:45 PM
Incident #:
Farm Name: Keck's 12ai[y Inc.
Owner Email:
Owner: Lee Roy Keck
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 2416 NC 620
Julian NC
27283
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant
❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 35"55'35"
Longitude: 7993745"
1-40 east past GSO. NC Hwy 61 south to NC Hwy 62 south/west {turn right). Farm on left.
Question Areas:
(� Discharges & Stream Impacts 0 Waste Collection & Treatment ® Waste Application
Records and Documents 0 Other Issues
Certified Operator: Lee R Keck Operator Certification Number: 21605
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Lee Roy Keck Phone:
24 hour contact name Lee Roy Keck
Phone:
Primary Inspector: Me sa M Rosebrock Phone: [phone]
Ext.383
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
21. Went over the new permit requirements with Mr. Keck.
21, 2004 soil test results are ok.
28. Mr. Keck has a verbal lease agreement to apply waste on 10 acres next to T-9047 F-4 (owned by Mr. Keck). Approximately 2-3
tons of dry bedding waste is applied per month. Need to record applications and make mention of this land in the WUP, including
allowable PAN, acreage, and crops.
4/13/05 Waste analysis:
7.9 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Page: 1

•
0
C
Permit: AWC410006 Owner- Facility: Lee Roy Keck
Inspection Date: 05/20/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 410008
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle - Milk Cow 170 139
Total Design Capacity: 170
Total SSLW: 238,000
Waste Structures
Type IdentlHer Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Waste Pond WASTE POND 48.00
Page: 2

•
Permit. AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck
Facility Number: 410008
Inspection Date. 05/20/2005 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? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ 0130
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
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?
❑
YPc
❑ ❑
No NA NF
Waste C allentinn ,Stgrage & Treatment
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.e./ large trees, severe erosion,
❑
. ❑ ❑
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑
M ❑ ❑
closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑
0 ❑ ❑
and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
M ❑ ❑
improvement?
Yas
Nn NA NE
WaGte A lip allo_n
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑ ❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 tbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge Into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Fescue
(Hay)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain (Wheal,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

• .
Permit: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck Facility Number: 410008
Inspection Date: 05120=05 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
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)?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
IS. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
M ❑ ❑
16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
❑ 0 ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
0 ❑ ❑
No NA NE
Remrds and ❑ornm ±nic
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fall to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on Irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑ 0 ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑ E ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
E ❑ ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑ 0 ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck Facility Number, 410008
Inspection Date: 05/20/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? N ❑ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those mortality ❑ M ❑ ❑
rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the Inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fall to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ ❑ ❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? 00 ❑ ❑
Page: 5

Type of Visit 9N,ompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit? (uoutine Q Complaint O Follow up O Referral Q Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:
old
rrival'['Ime:
Departure'rime:
County:
Region:
Farm Name: �� ± V. h, r
Owner Name:
u ]Dh � - l
Owner Email:
a/
Phone: __
—�
l L-'
Mailing Address: °t I f �"
�a ;,� �o U
1
%t_� � cs2 :2
Or
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone No:
Onsite Representative: L
Q�
Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Operator Certification Number:
1
! S
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ET Longitude: Mo In, U-
V W t45+ Pa sf b. C- y S oL*h 4t M C, StL)y 6 a s/w
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other --
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
I 10 Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑
Layers
❑
Non -Layers
❑
Pullets
❑
Turkeys
❑
Turkey Poults
❑
Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow 0
a0
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifei
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non-Dai
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: EDI
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: — 0 Date of Inspection lTT •
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes /❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
� tructure l� ructure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: G1
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
[]NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
4. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
i No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes KNo ElNA ElNE
maintenance/improvement?*No
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. El Yes ❑ NA ElNE
ElExcessive Ponding ElHydraulic Overload ElFrozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > t0% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) �r� t r�0 5 ( 613 A 1
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
ElNA
[INE
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!
El Yes
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
XN o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
VNA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name ! e,p' c.ile 1 Y Phone:
Reviewer/inspector Signatu Date: �p Q
12/28/04 8�C ! Con�nu_ed�

Facility Number: — , 110of Inspection a _ .
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes N(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ElNA ElNE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ElChecklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does ecord keeping nee7'rovement? If yes, chec the appropriate box Clow. XYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
aste Applica n eekly Freeboard �aste Analysis L1�Soil Analysis
Rainfall Stocking ❑ Crop Yield Xmonthly and 1" Rain Inspections IPA' Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? 0 (0
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
2$. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
ko
ElNA
❑ NE
ElYes
❑No
)d NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
❑No14NA
[I NE
❑ Yes
)6No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[:]No
1XNA
❑ NE
Yes
[]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes
lNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
K.
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
ElYes
❑No
❑ NA
❑ NE
e i I I I I Draw!ng
•.
I�
i
•I .� J ,� .' r , i r
! . • �/
4113 Jos = 7 . 9 1 J95 . N �1600

Facility Number 41 08 Date of Visit: t11912004 'rime: 0940
O Not O erational . O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
... County: S.xullfA7 d ............................... Farm Name: 1�c�l�a.I}airY.hs,..................................................................................... ...,........ W5RA........
OwnerName:L99-RaY................................. KC& ............................................................ Phone No: 33.6-6,85:466.4 ...........................................................
MailingAddress: UNMAN .........................................................................................Julian ... NC.............................................................. VIM ..............
Facility Contact: WrAu.1.S.eels................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: G..4S1�15Q........................
Onsite Representative: LexRoy..M&............................................................................ integrator: ..............
Certified Operator., LmR ...................................... Kvs;k .................................................. Operator Certification Number: Z1.6Q,5.............................
Location of Farm:
-40 east past GSO. NC Hwy 61 south to NC Hwy 62 south/west (turn right). Farm on left. +
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude F 35 • 55 35 Longitude 79 • 37 45
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
CaDacitv Po ulation Cattle
Capacity.Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
200 161
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
200
❑ Gilts
Total Skw
2801aoo
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons Y�nlrlmn Pnndc 1 4ZMirl Tranc
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ®No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ......Was:te.Fond.....................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 90
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 41-08 • Date of Inspection l]/9/2004
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ® No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes IN No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes ® No
elevation markings?
Waste Anplication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc > 3000
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ®No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes 19 No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ®No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20, At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes ® No
Air Quality representative immediately.
q ) i. y • Y necesd • or, any other'c'omments.' Comments (refer to uestion # Ex fain an YES answers and/or sn recommendations
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as " ry) Meld Copy ® Final Notes
JJ
.al.�.. .,:;ice E •,:r I., :� i
3. Creeks going through the pastures look ok today.
15. Soil sample #005 reports zinc=3140. Need to re -sample. If still>3000 this field must be removed from CAWMP. Contact
SWCD/NRCS for assistance.
3. Went over new permit requirements with Mr. Keck,
110/26/04 Waste analysis=4.4 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Reviewer/Inspector Name ,Me 'ssa �Rosebrock! r;y
6 i4s ,I,L-•el, l I j �I �.i ,u��:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu Date: Q
C. V 111 L/!"U

Facility Number: 41-08 Dof Inspection I1/9/2004 •
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall []inspection After V Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
12112103

Type of Visit ��Cfompliance Inspection O Operation Review O lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 4D Routine O Complaint O Follow up p Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: 4 Tirne:
�Permltted
O Not O erational O Below ❑ Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated 9T Abovve reshold: ............»..».... .
Farm Name: � .__� TV) C ___•_ County:
Owner Name:...... _J .2� K0 _..b�. G..._.»..........».»....»................... ' Phone No: _. .s �P.L.!Q��A.. 74?.4? Y.
?Mailing Address:».w^sJ
Facility Contact: Title: ..... Phone No:»�.1.�SS"b
Onsite Representative:. .�,�„� _ ._ _ ...____ .. Integrator.
Certified Operator:... Lee_
.............................. Operator Certification Number:.,,, �11...L oz_....
Location of Farm:
Arm 0. nn la .,.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude
�Dcsign °, Current, a IG Deszgn �„ 5 Current
E ,
Swine - .. .iC_a�se,w.-.P.►rnil3fren .a�`POultry,..? , ..._;aC9nacitv�.Pn�i9$ot
Longitude ' ®4 I 'tom I'u
Wean to Feeder
❑Layer
Dairy
O O
11
Feeder to Finish
i:g=
❑Non -Layer
Non -Dairy
11 Farrow to Wean
Farrow Feeder
Other
to
t
7
Farrow to Finish
TvtBl D Capacr<ty ti oZ�
x i r , !M ,
Gilts
Boars
z�1�; :; .'.:Total'SSLW ` D Gb0
4. :...
r
U ALM
Discharges & Stream I- mpacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes PNo
Discharge originated at: []Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes �ro
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yeso
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes XNo
Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S Structure 6
Identifier:........ ».». _»._...._ .._ ._.»»..»__.».... ._.. _ _ ...».».»... ..... »» _ » .»»».».. ...._ ..__ .........
Freeboard (inci)os):
12112103 ��� CondnUed

Facility Number: — Date of inspection
5: Are there any immediate threats to the Itrilty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tresevere erosion,
seepage, etc.)
❑ Yes No
X
I
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑ Yes No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes k,o
�J�!"``Wo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenan�mprovement?
❑ Yes
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes "RNo
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
w
12. Crop type A e&j�2
13. Do the receiving crops diffe 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 XNo
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes *o
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes )KNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes )d No
Air Quality representative immediately.
°'i�F9Yffi;?4�ftc-- ' z€oi"!lTL,�17jlE6iND 3dS?'..� zb8a{. wG�•""45717P'31'i'i51�t&-,�baP �11ll�tlriilEri4:&F4d1'y£ie%5i9i`°4°'�'s'.ii...?�':dii:NI1sV41i�;1;���`,6`i�i "S�i ttY!`i1- �Y.7: } .tia,,:'.fi€Rat�}P°E'TfC ;�7'.*.�ilS�i� a ;? x§ a9s•yE�� c� {E�I.i c
Cow (i[�ei'e�r�to gneSbost #) 'tMp"' am ' YFSsaaswers's l'or any oY, ather�taomments: ;
s s A 3 � •�ac� � e.�a�;.a >af �-aey. u �._.�:,,xSeW:'uuw.:.a..3.iu+.u� � ' -.t�S
( S��17FA ?
3Use� draws af�facility to�lietter �cplaiun.situationde. (�addltionai pagis as neoes�ry): Reid Copy ❑Final Notes � ''
U
-Dail roon�QXO re_'C'0r'5 p
- L 1 o naL�
c.k-, uDa�Sfe_ p o rd Q -%.� l `' r� i n Ii" c� g
Reviewer/Inspechor Names i' x ->'M J
Reviewer/inspector Signature. Date:
117n17m2 !'natis.u.A

Facility Number: _ D of Inspection
Re
ttuired Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. D record keeping need ' provement? If es, check the appro ate box below.
Waste Application Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWN??
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
❑ Yes ))(No
❑ Yes �o
❑Yes r
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes VNo
o
❑ Yes
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes [--]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit. I
b /,2(a 04 .ste Ar�lySi s = `�- b- I �3s . N�(ooa�,
5s131�o� �
Cos jj&'to Z'01 rN :3 GO
resa-uu,p�2 . � �' s4� I >3000 41 s os-i-
be
12112103

i
echnical Assistance Site Visit Repo
• D on of Soil and Water ConservatioAl
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 41 - ® Date: 127104 Time: 1 11:10 1 Time On Farm: 80 WSRO
Farm Name Keck's Dairy Inc. County Guilford
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 2416 NC 62E Julian NC 27283
Onsite
Representative Leroy Keck 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
© Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Canacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish ,
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy zoo "I
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL UESTIONS:
1, Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier WSP
Level (Inches) 44
CROP TYPES lCom, Silage I ISmall grain silage I IFescue-graze lRye grass (graze)
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES ApB CeB2
CcB
En C
VaB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy zoo "I
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL UESTIONS:
1, Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier WSP
Level (Inches) 44
CROP TYPES lCom, Silage I ISmall grain silage I IFescue-graze lRye grass (graze)
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES ApB CeB2
CcB
En C
VaB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 41 - 8 Date:
4/27/04
PARAMETER
© No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
El 10. Level in structural freeboard
5. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
2
❑
❑
[111. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
ElEl15.
Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30.2Fi.0200 re -certification
[116. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (POA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
[118. Late/missing waste analysis
33.Organ izelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
[120. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Reaulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43.
El
El
❑ Other...
Irrigation system designlinstallation
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 evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5. '
66. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
67. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6.
58. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 41 - ® Date: 4127104
COMMENTS:
Waste analysis: 3-24-04 LSD 7.3 Ibs.N11000 gals. B, 10-17-03 LSD 5.8 Ibs.N11000 gals. B
The last soil sample was dated 4-6-04
There was no waste applied in the Fall, according to Mr. Keck. The last waste application in 2003 was
gig ust.
The Spring 2004 records look good. Good farm.
Mr. Keck elected not to add the field, that waste was applied to in August 2003, to the waste plan
cause he doesn't plan to apply waste to this field again.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST IRocky Durham Millie Langley
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 4/30/04
Entered By: lRocky Durham
3 03/10/03

(Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 41 Og I)atc nt' Visit: U9/D5/2003 Time: 1054
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted ■ Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated.or Above Threshold: ........
Farm Name: Kc&'.s.JDail'J:. m.................................................................. County: Gutilford................................. W, i.Q......
Owner Name: I.Roy_.-.------------------------------------- ---- Phone No: 3�Ct-b$5:3h44---------------------- - -----
MailingAddress:.......................................................................................... MiAiI............................................................... 27283 ..............
Facility Contact: Dete..RoxKmk............. ..:.................... Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: $Qi Ket'Jc----::---:-------------------------- Integrator: -------------------------------------------.
Certified Operator: Lm.&.................................:.: Klee.....:............................................ Operator Certification Number. 21605.............................
Location of Farm:
2 1/2 miles NE of Julian on Hwy.62 (SE side) at intersection of Smithwood Road and HWY 62. +
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • SS 3S Longitude F 45
Design Current Design Current Design Current
ine @a acit Po ulation Poultry Ca aci Po ulation Cattle Ca aci Po u❑Wean
to Feeder
❑ Layer
®Dairy 200
116
❑Feeder to Finish
❑ Non-Layer[!.�nm
Farrow to Wean Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑Other
TOtAI Design C►apacity 200
Total SIS 280,000
® ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Number of LagoonsHaps
Holding Ponds /Solid �1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6-
Identifier:....13mtr.2sutd,..... ........................... .......................... ........................... ........................... ...........................
Freeboard (inches): 30
05/03101 �p�/ /� �� Continued

. Facility Number: 41-08 __... • Date. of Inspection 09/05/2003 •
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 prciperiy addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes ®No
(If any of questions 4.6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes IN No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes. ® No
It. 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 pendW for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
IN Yes
❑ No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments refer to question iFI. Ex lain any YFS answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better exonsituseinaniti0l"PIJP.BgEMRReces—sur-YA-M ❑Field Copy ® Final Notes
19. July 2003 Waste analyses: 3.6 lbs. N/1000. 2003 soil analysis resits ok.
25. Application of waste on 8/12/03 (t9 loads) was on land not in the CAWMP yet. Technical specialist is adding field to CAWMP
now.
Reviewer/Inspector Name MMelissa Rose ck
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date:
05103101 1
1
1 Continued

V Facii0ty Number: 41-08 I01' Inspection 09/05/2003 .
t dor 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 Iand application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ❑ No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
E
05103101

f0:304M
Type of Visit NCompliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit JoRoutine 0 Complaint O Follow up 0 Emergency Notification Q Other
Facility Number Date of Visit:
*Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3Registered
Farm Name: Ker-,L5 hat r q �i C
Owner Name:
Mailing Address: �` jr 4 1 ((02 C&zz
n U
Facility Contact: [ �� L 2t,4 City
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Time:-�+-�.�-�
❑ Oenied Access
Date Last Operate or Abov hres old:
County:
Phone No: ,,,,3 a4 • /
i a n oaZ go
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: 01O5-
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry x Cattle
❑ Morse Latitude
Longitude ICJ «
Design
Current Design
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity
Population Poultry. Capacitv
Population Cattle :
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
113 Layer I
I JjZDairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
ILI Non -Layer I
ILI Non-Dai
❑ Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
ZO 0
❑Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
Number of a`goot%s
` ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ S ra Fietd Area
Holden ,�•
g Ponds I Solid.Ttaps�
--
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges && Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes %No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ElSpray 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? El Yes o
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes XNo
`- �Struc tre l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure G
Identifier: 1►v
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 Continued

•
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection Iy/CL31
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
KNO
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
❑ Yes
No
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
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 Ai31211cation
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
o
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
No
12. Crop type 1 Qra t n t 0—o rn
13. Do the receiving crops differ with fluse designated to 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
ANo
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
KNo
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the ertified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
INUP, design.
❑ Yes
*o
(W checklists, maps, etc.) +~V
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (I eeboard, waste analysis & sesample 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 D�VQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge. freeboard problems. over application)
Yes
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?
❑ YesNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?{Yes
/❑ No
ES
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. will receive no further correspondence about this visit'
�Ylou
1
i. F'�,�. '�:-� an Y1 Ti.7ta��i�'r��anlL ax:`•.3L.i,ut..i!-y F:«S f'Y(°dtyn �w`"a•"'c' ki{u�F�`�r�yj � �i 4I I
mments(refer to'gneslton.. Ezplahhii: y lli{t� D^� YSi+df? fL. `O. ff
or, ny mommen ons or a
(1
,
w e,commen Lse drawangs of facllit} to better explain sitnattans f nse addittonni pages as necessary) rE KE Field Co ❑ Final Notes
j%Y s°m. L
It
U,M&e, /4n a.1 � Ses :
3. R I bs
&-)a yses & .
Reviewer/Inspector Name ��
; ; ; ' :.' i ` a `l ��; ,.' w�a
w
Reviewerlinspector Signature Date:
05103101
/ + L r
Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Odnr Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
' B N'er G.?+e
❑ Yes fNo
oYes
❑ Yes kNo
o
❑ Yes
t3rr u
Additional Comments sndlor. Drawings: =
O�A'
,/x 2- �O
05103101

1
T chnical Assistance Site Visit Repo
40 Di n of Soil and Water Conservation MF
p Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 41 - ® Date: I17/03 Time: 1 9:45 j Time On Farm: 75 WSRO
Farm Name Keck's Dairy Inc. County Guilford Phone:
Mailing Address 2416 NC 62E
Julian NC
Onsite
Representative Lee Roy Keck Integrator
Tyye Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated: [3 Operating
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
p Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
Q Response to complaint/local referral
p Requested by producer/integrator
Q Follow-up
0 Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
0 Dairy 2a0 159
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
910-685-4664
27283
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
p Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
Q Response to complaint/local referral
p Requested by producer/integrator
Q Follow-up
0 Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
0 Dairy 2a0 159
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
910-685-4664
27283
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
0 Dairy 2a0 159
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
910-685-4664
27283
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
6• Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
❑ yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Identifler WSP
Level (Inches) 36
CROP TYPES lCorn, Silage Ismall grain Fescue -graze Rye grass (Graze)
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES ApB CeB2 CcB VaB
7. What type of technical' assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in -comment section)
03/10/03

a
C I
41 - 8 Date:
4/17/03
FFsollil.yber
ER
0 No assistance provided/requested
ste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
26. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer,
❑
❑
❑ 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.
❑
❑
[315. 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 I ze/com puterizatl on of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
36. 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:
Other... ❑
43. irrigation system desigMnstallation
El❑
Date:
44. Secure Irrigation Information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
11.
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3.
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5.
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
S
58. Cropfforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

•
•
Facility Number 41 - ® Date: 4/17/03
COMMENTS:
Waste analysis: 4-04-03 ALD 4.7 Ibs.N/1000 gals. B, 8.1 Ibs.N/1000 gals. S.I.
9-24-02 LSD 10.1
Soil Test dated 3-28-03
Provided Mr. Keck with some freeboard forms.
Fv-
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham Millie Langley
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: /21/03
Entered By: IRocky Durham
03/10/03

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1U/10/20t12 '1'iuic: 1300
Facility Number 41 S
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
e Permitted a Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:: ...............
Farm Name: Kt;rk:S.I?airy.ttxr...................................... :.................................................... County: G.ug(Qr.d ........................................... !'.[BRO........
OwnerName: LCA.RQY.................................. KCFk............................................................. Phone No: 33.6,-,6A5.!.46A4 ...........................................................
MailingAddress: Z.416ACRE.........................................................................................blin.Ac .............................................................. 2.72A.3 .............
FacilityContact: U.C. li.QY..T enk................................................ Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: LCC.RQy.,Kggk................... ... Integrator*
.......................................................................
Certified Operator:l~t~g.R...................................... Keck .................................................. Operator Certification Num be r: Z16Q$ .............................
Location of Farm:
112 miles NE of Julian on Hwy.62 (SE side) at intersection of Smithwood Road and HWY 62. +
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 55 f 35 ♦f Longitude 79 • 37 C 45 «
4. )+ Des n� Current
�.��• rrReA Desi� :Current
} F Dent n�� " f
urrent; '� ,,� .� gn
gElio!
Swine wL Ca acit l?o ulahon
Poultry Ca acrt ulatiion ' ;Cat�'.a ;� Ca act -Population
s �
:
b
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Layer
® Dairy
200
158
r
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Nan -Layer
;
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑Other _ 1 "�� ^; _tKkg'
❑ Farrow to Feeder
q , al Design Capagt 200
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
Fa . ` lip WW o:�
s 280,000
❑ Boars
r4 , .. or
�Yy �Af.
Number of Lagoons ® ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area a ,
,
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps I� ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
..
Discharges C& Strgam ImpagIN
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. li'discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c, If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2, Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ......Waste.Ptaud......................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 54
05103101 rJo't q a Continued

Facility Number: 41-8 Date of Inspection 10/10/2002
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 maintenancelimprovement?
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 ADnlication
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
IN No
❑ Yes
® No
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
[-]Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
IN No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No.
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
o en ts efe to stfon #}: Explain any Sans ers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
U drawings of faci i to better explain situations. additional pages as necessary : ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
Operation and records look great! Keep up the good work!
19. 2002 soil samples have been taken and sent to tab in Raleigh. Are awaiting results.
9/24/02 Waste analysis= 10. 1 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Reviewer/Inspector Name ,Melis osebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: a--�
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 41-8 1). Inspection 10/10/2002
Odrrr Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
J
05103101

PM
4iui�Jo
O (?they Agency `Vit, WW 0 Q "I 1�,
4,;
"U.i ,AMJ lo, 7x "I'le 2 P;3I3.��ir
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review '0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit X Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other El Denied Access
Facility Number jslate ol,visit: E �6'ime:
Not Operational Below Threshold
PermittedDate Last OperaVt or Me Th shold-
Perm ted Certified E3Conditionally Certified
z County:
Farm Name: 1Ze C_Ks ai ry Th c - U j
Owner Name: Pou- L&c K�! Phone No: 33 6, /v ?S-. 17161-�
Mailing Address: — 9 q &- N C &62
Facility Contact: - byle- Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representativel. Integrator,
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
U��_s [;_�, 0 6 "66 &W
17 �OK .4— P vl+. --F1'),nA An r1jel-4. 'T, ) , ; 0 n /kz
El Swine 0 Poultry 9 Cattle 0 Horse LatitudV Longitude Ev
'Desigh Current ..,Designs .,Current -Design'
. p . sign 'Current'
!"Capacitv I.Oopullaiion tToultry Capickv-1populati6n,"I 'Cattle.;q"
.... ..
.1. , 1. Cabacitv.., onu ation .
ry EJ Wean to Feeder 10 Layer Da'
❑ Feeder to Finish 10 Non -Layer 10 Non-DailprL I
El Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
.El Farrow to Finish Total Design',C`fa'parity''c;260
L.J
0 Gilts
wl
Boars S tiaal
Number of"Lai6ons Subsurface Drains Preseiit:110 Lagoon Are; 10
Sprav Field Area 11;(;�
n on dls�/,S�hdTraps
di=No Liquid Waste Management System
., R.;
Discharges &Streani ImRacts
1, Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
El Yes No
Discharge originated at: [3 Lagoon [] Spray Field E] Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
[3 Yes [I No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
El Yes El 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)
El Yes [3 No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
0 Yes %No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
0 Yes
Waste CollectiQn & Treatment
KNO
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? El Spillway
El Yes �No
true I all Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 keC4
Continued

Facility Number: Ell— • 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? El Yes <No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes o
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ElYes 4NO
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? A Excessive Pondin� ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ wit those designat d in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Rectun'ed Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
ti
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the iC.ertifed Animal Waste Managemen Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) \jf ✓/
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ielg 4a, a oard, 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 pro�lems, 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. VYere any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes ' No
❑ Yes JNo
o
ElYeso
ElYes
❑ Yes ke'No
❑ Yes 3No
❑ Yes *10
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes 3�o
❑ Yes KNo
[I Yes No
ElYes A
No
❑ Yes WNo
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to -question #) ,� Explain "yAS answers undlar`;any r'ec6mmendations or aoy,other coutmeiits;
eai
f f VI
LiceF`drawings of fA0ity to'bRter ex` pWh sit lotions. (use ddltionat�'pages ss necessgry) 1 ° Field Conv Final Notes
7 `"`J'�"
3 .1 S' ,H r' . 4
�
s-: ter' _� a' _•r�,�-4t 3.>€.. ._ rr..._..�, r tr,-� 3.�
Reviewer/InspectorName
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 r LContinued

1 4
Facility number: -- bate of Ins/►action
dor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters.. etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
Additional Comments and/or Drawings
N//000 �p
C9 000--47(� "-� jlq-w eA'k61'-) V-
(T
=�.
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yeso
05103101

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Q1 13 Date of Visit: 4/16/2002 Time: 14:30
Not operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted M Certified (] Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
FarmName: Keck'S.DairJ'Anc........................................... ............................................... County:(;.99fQjr.d ........................................... W.SRQ........
OwnerName: LmRax.................................. Re.ek ............................................................ Phone No: 91Q-fi#S-.4f154...................................
MailingAddress: NONCOM ......................................................................................... JI)IJiRK..C.............................................................. 2.72,13 .............
FacilityContact:.............................................................................. Title:.............................................. Phone No.
Onsite Representative: Lce.Roy..Kark............................................................................. Integrator:...................... .... ................
Certified Operator: Lft.R...................................... Keck................................. .... Operator Certification Number:ZjftQS
............. .............................
Location of Farm:
Z 112 miles NE of Julian on Hwy.62 (SE side) at intersection of Smithwood Road and HWY 62. +
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horee Latitude 35 ' S5 ' 35 66 Longitude 79 • 37 4 45 i.
D-ischarges & 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) 0-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 l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 48
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 41-8 Date of Inspection F4—/1-6/-2002-1 0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the AnegIrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? Yes ®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Graze) Rye grass (graze)
13, Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents I
.
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
Q No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
menu e e to x laln an. an o an. comme datio or any of a omme ts.
awin o better explain situati d'tiona aeslammnec a ❑ Field Copy ®Final Notes
2. Mr. Keck said that rats and/or groundhogs had opened up a pipe that comes from a junction box on the concrete lot and allowed
_
approx. 50 gals of waste water to enter a drainage ditch. There was no evidence of waste water reaching waters of the State. Mr. Keck
thought he had this pipe closed sufficiently and it has been for several years. Mr. Keck stated that he has the pipe closed permanently
now.
25. The DWQ noted that Rye needs to be added to the waste utilization plan on T 9047 field 3,4. The waste plan could show Fescue
with the option of over -seeding Rye, but maintain the fescue N rate since it is not needed for a PAN deficit anyway.
ewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durhamewer/Inspector
E
Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 41-8 D.� Inspection 4/16/2(102 0
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or.
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
aste analysis: 3-07-02 LSD 15.6 lbs.N/1000 gals. B
11-16-01 LSD 9.1 " " S.I., 6.5 lbs.N 1000 gals. B
analysis dated 11-16-01 and 12-04-01
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
❑ No
J
05103101

Date or visit: 9/t3/2001 Time:: 1240
e: Printed on: 9/13/2001
Facility Number 41 08
01%* o wl`.undow
S Permitted ■ Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
i0 M N=U . -i£CA!5-Vailrx ltxt;,. --=- _ Cam= QWUfwA ... IWSAQ.._._.
OwnerName: Iat: Atty.................................. Kerk ............................................................ Phone No: 33.6::6.85.7.466.4 ...........................................................
MailingAddress: 2414t.KG.G2E......................................................................................... blian... NC.............................................................. 272A3 .............
Facility Contact: 1,ee..lZ.Ry..1S.P.Gk ................................................ Title:.:.............:.... . Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Lee.ROY.Kg& ............................................................................ Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:Lcc........................................... Keck .................................................. Operator Certification Number:ZI605.............................
Location of Farm:
Z 1/2 miles NE of Julian on Hwy.62 (SE side) at intersection of Smithwood Road and HWY 62. AL
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 55 6 35 64 Longitude 79 • 37 6 4546
�";;. zr «:
`etr "`
Design
Ca acit
Desi n �z -
Current Design :Current, : u g Current':
P.a ulation Poultry Ca acit Po ulation Cattle " "` Ca acit l o fillitio
❑Layer ® Dairy 200 168
❑Non -Layer JEI Non -Dairy
❑ e„ Other ''` IN,� 1
r '
'Total Design Ca[fBCity 200
T280,000
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
�- El Farrow to Wean
r ❑ Farrow to Feeder
[:]Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑Boars
Number of Lagoons ® ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps1 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges _& Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes IN 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 Cgillectign _& 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: ......Wasie.Band......................................................................................... ............................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 55 > '`
05103101 ntinued

Facility Number: 41-08 Date of Inspection 1 9/13/2001 Printed on: 9/13/2001 A.
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑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? UYes KNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
AwWA i
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
9 No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Graze)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
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? (ic/ 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
IN 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
IN No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
omments prefer tow-u- WHOM): Explain any YES an we and/or any ecommendations ar any other comments.
resin of faci it to etter explain situations. u additional pa es as necessary ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
19. Applications of waste in June 2001 did not have an associated waste sample. Still need to obtain soil samples this Fall.
r. Keck plans to plant rye infields 3 and 4 of T-9047 for winter grazing. These fields are currently listed as pasture in WUP with a
waste application window of June -Aug. Suggest contacting SWCD to see if application windows can be extended since owner wants to
apply waste during FalllWinterlEarly Spring on these fields.
w
Re viewer/Inspector Name Meli sa Rosebrock�
Review er/inspector Signatur r. Date:
05103101 1 Continued

Facility Number: 41-08 1 DV Inspection 9/13/2001 0 Printed on: 9/13/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the Land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
ClYes Jallo
❑ Yes JJNo'
O Yes Q No
❑ Yes ❑ No
:Addifl6nal,qRipTents nd/, r. r Jogn.,<" ; : f•.� t � ., «tom.... w : _ . .. x+
05103101
05103101

Type of Visit P Compliance inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit X Routine O Complaint. O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time:
EIIM
Q Not O erational Q Below Threshold
Permitted 1Certified [3 C7o�nditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above T�jhreshold• ...
FarmName: .......IL �.. ..... Ia.i.c .. ..n.c.... ........................... County: ..... 6.1.{.�.f..�. ref...........................................
OwnerName:........ .pr ..1�.. ....L!- .. '.F. ........................................................... Phone No:.... .!( ................................. .............� ..........
FacilityContact:........L�.�..+�II.__........�.,i......1� Q ��..F..........Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: ...... ta.9.i..!�.... tJ...c...... ...............ZL,?AlictY.l.., ... N.c...................a -7 ag.�.........................................
OnsiteRepresentative: .......,Lee•...•iw .....)� Integrator:
......I ....................... ............
e
Certified Operator: ........ L ............e.......................... ,,,Lf-C .................................................... Operator Certification Number:.....: .... .,
Location of Farm:
I wy t02-1 now o f Ju I ian 4-5ooih o A lanion ee- e- h urc
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑ Morse Latitude ®' ' 't Longitude • 6 ®64
f'� 'Design Cu'r�erit'
Swine Ca aci Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
�Desigp Ctir ent 3 . ;Design Current
Pon]try Cattle, C� Po "ulatlotdi;
❑ Layer Dairy 1 20 0
�3
❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
E:
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity. 2 O
T t� sSLW z �o, aoo '
Nts ' beir of Lagoons ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area (]Spray Field Area
3, 1
IJ
HoldingPQnds / Sa11d Traps: ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System `4
Discharees & Stream Imnacks
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 x No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes fio No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Kspillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
fi Identier:.W..6161r,..Ir1Lt.............................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 55
5/00
❑ Yes No
Structure 5 Structure 6
Continued on buck

Facility Number: — i'te of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the in ity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
gNo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
-�losure plan?
34-6 the
❑Yes
No
X
(If any of questions was answered yes, and situation poses an
`' �S
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
4
t '
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
XNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimproveme t?
❑ 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
KNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
No
d
12. Crop type Corn a 1 k a Q �lt e__ I eY m j c6 m s fu r_
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
J`No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
( No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes gNo,
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified imal Waste Management an readily available?
(ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) 1 ❑ Yes XNo
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ irrigation, freeboard, ste)nalysis & soi sample reports) Roves ❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes KNo
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 KNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes �(No
dfce�c a vre tptet 009 AthYw�ur •. .
ictirres• ' deuce: abouC this visit: '
` l "iH 4 .sn
€ e: � e"jEReviewer/Inspector Name 1{ try
g r
Revlewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 16 5/00

acility Number: tl I — I f Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
Iiquid 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?
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 A No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
Additi ona , gmMents an or ra ngs:
AL
d

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit: M10/2001 Time: 11:15 Printed on: 8/28/2001
41 8
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
FarmName: &&s.AatryItic.......................................................................................... County:G.vjjK9r.d ............................................ W.SRQ........
Owner Name: Cep.tia................................. Klr k............................................................ Phone No: 910,485-4644........................... ...
Mailing Address: 241.6.NC.62E..............................................................
Facility Contact: ..............................................................................Title:
Onsite Representative: Uc,R,.K k..........
Certified Operator:Lcc....................•...................... Mck ......................
Location of Farm:
Jiu1iaxt..lY............................................................... 2.72M .............
.................................... Phone No:......................
........ ................
Integrator: ............................................................................
Operator Certification Number:21603 .............................
112 miles NE of Julian on Hwy.62 (SE side) at intersection of Smithwood Road and HWY 62. A
T
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 55 f 35 « Longitude 79 • 374 F-45--111
Ci
acit
❑ Wean to Feeder
ei�u•i,..s
Current
P,o ulation
Design Current ,•
Poultry Ca acit P.a ulatitin
• •- '" :aN;IJbes
, #)e
Cattle ta
,
i-ign
rent ra
citP,o ulation
1 200'
:...
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer
❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑Other14
s.
Total Design Capacity
a Total SSL.W'
200 ,
'`
280,000111
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑Boars
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps
d
L�
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area
I0 Spray Field Arca
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischacg-es & StreamImpacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Coftetion _& Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ....................
Freeboard (inches): 49
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: 41-8 1 Date of Inspection 4/10/2001 Printed on:
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tree3"'Seyere erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management 01
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?
8/28/2001 4.j.,
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
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_&Mcumgnts
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?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
en e e t x lain a a a a an a ommendation o an the common .
a Inge f aa' otter ex lain situ f d'fo a! pa nee ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
Overall records and farm look good.
Waste analysis: 3/14/01 LSD 0.67 lbs. NI1000 gals. B
wer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
wer/Inspector Signature: Date:
F
05103101 Continued

ility Number: 41-8 4of Inspection 4/10/2001
Printed on: 8/28/2001
Qd4r Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
J
05103101

n
iii ��{i � n��� �{ �l �� � lei i : f ' n § i� 1�t E •�� i " $ton Ot Wa
{• �i l
islon of Soil
0 Other{ Ageneyll
�I (� :a `I1 � °��I l .lY��i J i.I ' �.� I � �",�l'{, i� _�� ..,'.tl 6 ��V'!{Ell.rih t { EI + •.�`� �i IG 11 �f
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit: 9/11/2040 'rune: 10]5 Printed on: 9/11/2000
4] 08
O Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ®,Certified [3 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:.. ......................
Farm Name: 1{uk'N.RalryJar.,
OwnerName: Lge.RQY................................. Kpa........................................
Facility Contact: la99.Xvck.......................................................... Title:......
Mailing Address: 2.41.4i.1.C.QX......................................................................
Onsite Representative: Lcg.Kvgk...................................................................
....... County: Guilford ........................................... W'jSRQ........
....... Phone No: 33.6:485.46.6.4...........................................................
.............................................. Phone No:.........................................
tullan..Ac...................................... --- ...... ..............
....... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:Ue.R...................................... Keck .................................................. Operator Certification Number:2,1695 .............................
Location of Farm:
1/2 miles NE of Julian on Hwy.62 (SE side) at intersection of Smithwood Road and HWY 62. kA
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry 0 Cattle [I Horse Latitude 35 • 55 ' 35 Longitude 79 • 45 ��
Design Current
Swine Canacity Pannintion
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ® Dairy 200 159
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity, 200
Total SSLW f 280,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area I0 Spray Field Area
Holdi%Ponds 1, Solid Traps a 1 ,, ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Imnacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: .......Waste.P.ond.....•.................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 28
5100
❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
...............................................
Continued on back

Facility Number: 41-08 Date of inspection 9/11/2000 Printed on: 9/11/2000
r
5. Are there any immediate threats to the Ority of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tr*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
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12. Crop type Tropical corn Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16. is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required Records & Documents
17, Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
®No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
®No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
N6. iolations:or :deficiencies•rvere'noted ;during•this: visit.• :You'Will receive n6•further• : , : •
correspondence. about this .visit. . . . ' .
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/ r.any 'recommendations'or"a' ny rDale ' R ` `�cammenfs:
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
7. Cows accidently got out last Thur. and damaged top of darn. Dam has been reseeded with rye and fescue and straw spread over the
19. Need to start keeping weekly freeboard readings per permit rather than every 15 days. No soil sample records for I999. Need to
take 2000 samples.
0
Reviewer/Inspector Name ?Melissa Rosebrock l} ,
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu &K 111A 1 1/1yJAIj _ /AL/)WI / t ,,p. 1Y J Date: <-f/// /O U 5100

`I Facility Number: 41--08 Dat of Inspection 9/11/2000 Printed on: 9/11/2000
is
Odor
Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
® No
.
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
® No
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
M
5/00

6
ivision of Water Quality
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation t
O
Other Agency
Type of Visit ACompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ benied Access
Facility Number bate of visit: I
Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified © Registered
Farm Name: t� �.r.............:.........................
Owner Name:.......... 4-.............I.......I............ ................
`i-="-Time: ® Prinled un: 7/21/2000
Not Operational O Below Threshold
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
�a �i_ 1
County: ..�tl ...1.Z�... �. T]Q 1�iG1!................... .......................
Phone No:.....s:.t1.J�......6...x5........444.
FacilityContact: ...............................................................................Fitle:................................... Phone No:
Mailing Address: ..�.[(1.... r v..1L.....6.t-..c...... ...Tp.. 1a. n j.... t�...................... '....1...2.33. ..........................
OnsiteRepresentative:.... 8.e ............ .................................... Integrator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator:......L,� ... .'.......1 �I,.............................................. Operator Certification Number:........vZ�
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine [I Poultry [I Cattle [I Horse Latitude • �.i Longitude �•�«
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ FarroW to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I RO-Non-Dairy
❑ Other J j 1
Total Design Capacity D
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons 10 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lag, n Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impact~
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 nrtn-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
h. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (Il'yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
e. II'discharve is ohscrved. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge hypass 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
❑ YesX
No
S1ruCLUN I StRICLUre 2 StrUdUrC Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure
Identifier: .wadi& ... .orli........................................................................................................................................................................
Frechoard (inches): 1
��
45/00
Continued on back

Facility Number: — ovi Date of Inspection Printed on: 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the411grity of any of the structures observed? (ie// tre , 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?
El Yes)(N/o
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes �00
8. Does any pan of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance improvement?
❑ Yes >10
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 VNo
111. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes 'VNo
•
12, Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designateLA the Certified Anima aste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes N"No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes VNo
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 Wo
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes , t 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 VNo
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ 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 Nkw
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes 1IQo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application) El Yes o
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes )?<o
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes (kNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes *0
Rio . Mh (:igris:or- deficiencies -*� re ho a#- dtp-ririg •this'visit= • :Y00 :will-keegive too; l'ttttit�r.
corresnorideirce: about: this :visit. • ::::::::::::::::::: ::::::.:.: .
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
a.e eI d
oFd+ A usaq4- jamq.oh6
6
0- I.Carn
ha-5 bM f&,WJed 0/r-y e-w--kscue-w- J
0 %ff-j" 4he- S�Oja
ILI - oea4 4 ab�r+- �4e� I nq fre_abc��4 t,&eh U_�'.
0
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/inspector Signal
Fl
Date:
5100

Facility Number: — of luspection �j11� I�%QQ_I 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 M No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? Om IT O16M XNO
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? %❑ Yes
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes )iQo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
24. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes Y 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)<1No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? 30rA -So
� T �ooa
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? l .—g 3;@F' 91 NO
Wks.,
-Lv
�, rep
5100
J

- 3 -n
III., u€ E^:' t♦M EalDriOfSDi�andllWa_terIC01_lSetVat101ti I.i.lf i1-o'illi ' Ili(III I lI
� - �+ [r I ill I i
Ik I. D Other Agency
u IV i'11I d i I
jl..
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit: 6/14/2Q00 rime: 10:45 Printed on: 9/8/2000
41 8
0 Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted 0 Certified [3 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .....................
Farm Name: Kesk.'s.miry..Iu............................................................................ .............. County: G.ujj(Qr.4 ............................................ W. .SRQ........
OwnerName:Lrf,..RQY.................................. Kuk............................................................. Phone No: 9jQ:-,6.85,,:,46,6.4 ...........................................................
FacilityContact:.........................................................................:....'Citle:................................................................ Phone ND:...................................................
Mailing Address: U16.>vCAZE....
..............................................hilaia-Ac .............................................................. 2.7.28.3 ..............
Onsite Representative: Lelc.&Kg.ck................................................................................ Integrator:......................................... ................ .... .........................
Certified Operator:Lpe.K...................................... Kcck .................................................. Operator Certification Number:1160 .............................
Location of Farm:
1/2 miles NE of Julian on Hwy.62 (SE side) JA
❑ 5wlne ❑ Poultry ®Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 55F-3-5--T Longitude 79 • 37 45 ;
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer 110 Dairy 200 163
❑Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity' 200
Total SSLW 280,000
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Ponds;/ Solid Traps] ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System Holdin g
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
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ® No
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes 0 No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Stricture 6
Identifier: ................................................. ................................... .................................... .................................... ....................................
Freeboard (inches): 36
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: 41-8 Date of Inspection 6/14/2000 ' Printed on: 9/8/2000 �' ►• +�
5. Are there any immediate threats to th6grity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ 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 onenvironmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ®No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ®No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes' ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
No fiolations or, :deficiencies •i e're'noted :du>i ing this: visit.:Ytiu:fviII receive nt further
correspondence about this .visit. - • .. • •
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes OR No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
Comments (refer to question #):. Ezplam any YES answers, ' dlorany recomtriendations oi'a`iay other eotriments I;j j°
Use drawings of facility to better ex lain situations. (use additional a es as necessar�' ' ��i,f'
P .. A l5. Y) �
U 17. Need to keep a copy of the certificate of coverage with the WUP and application records.
0 19. Need to organize paper work. Had waste analysis and dates and amounts on each field. Need to complete SlurII form for Spring
2000. Start keeping weekly freeboard levels on holding pond per General Permit.
V,
Reviewer/Inspector Name ,Rocky Durham Millie Langley
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5100

,,; .15aciHty Number: 41-8 DaInspection - ti11412000 Printed on: 9/8/2000
0 40
Odor
Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge actor 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 permanentttemporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
5100

Facility Number 41 S Date of Inspection 12/14/99
lime of Inspection 11:55 24 hr. (hh:mm)
j] Permitted ® Certified [] Conditionally Certified [3 Registered 113 Not O erational Date Last Operated: .................
Farm Name: %*'&.JD,7trJ.110.r .............................. ................. County: uAlfaxd............................................ W,SRQ........
OwnerName: 1.uAft................................. Kl:. C............................................................. Phone No: 33.G-(8S.-.4C64...........................................................
Facility Contact: ....................................................
Mailing Address: 2.41.6t.NC.,(Z,E........................
Onsite Representative: ..........................................
Certified Operator:l,,gCA............ .................
Location of farm:
.......................... Title:..........
Phone No:
.................................................I-Main..N.0................................................ I............. U.Z.3.... ..........
...... ......................I.................. Integrator: ......................................................................................
Ked.................................................. Operator Certification Number:21(QS..............................
Latitude 35 55 35 Longitude 79 • 37 45
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ® Dairy 200 134
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 200
Total SSLW 280,000
;Number of Lagoons 10 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ 1-agoon Area 10 Spray Field Arcs
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps I J ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Im�cis
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. lt' discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
-- ----h—"Ifditich_zir(�e is i)hserved, diii-it reach Water of"the"State'?"{II }es—niitify DWQ) � — ❑Yes— ❑'No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge hypass a lagoon system? (]f 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 Colleclion & 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 h
Identifier: Pond #1
Freeboard(inches)' 42............... ...................................................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc'.)
3/23/99 Continued on back
Printed on 12/14/99

Facility Number: 41-8 Date of Inspection 12/14/99
6. Are there structures on -site which are noperly addressed and/or managed through a 0 management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
N 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
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
elevation markings?
El 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
N No
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
N No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
N No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
Rec uired Records & Document.
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
N No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
N No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
N No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
N No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® 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?
0 Yes
N No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
N No
0; No-violatitins:or de#xciencies.Wtite;noted diitirt'g.this: visit.•'You-Will receive nti further
�� c�irresnnndence.ahoufthis.visit.�.•.�. .�. .�.�.�. .•.�.�.�.�.�.�.�. .�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�. .•.•.•.•.
I Reviewer/Inspector Name Tom Yo uip _
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 1k..- � Date: I
on 12/14/99

of DWO i
Facility Number
13 Registered © Certified 0 Applied for Permit 13 Permitted
FarmName: ........ kwc's................. :....... .......... ........ ............ I .............. ....... I....
[low -up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection
Time or Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
[] Not O erational Date Laastt Operated :................
county:.... U�.:L'�.x. ............
OwnerName:........................................................................................................................... Phone No:.........................
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:�....... O�i''� _....
MailingAddress: ................... ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
Onsite Representative: ... 4..ec .............1...... ...... ��..ir . .... Integrator:.....................I................. .............
Certified Operatort............................................................................................................... Operator Certification Number:.....................
Location of Farm:
CC
Latitude =• =' =" Longitude =• =' ="
4 'Des;Ign n Current" 4 0 Design Currents '���Deslgn�Currei;t,`r=,
s
�
$wme' k Capacity Papulati6ri gPoultcy& ;Capacity Papalatwon Cattle G,a aci Po elation
.. p .h'
❑Wean to Feeder
; ❑ Layer Dairy
❑Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer �] Non Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean`
❑ Others
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
t Total Design CapBCity
❑ Gilts
s
❑ Boars
w R E TOtal SSL*W<,
-
'
F
�
,Number of Lagoons / Haldtng Ponds ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ID Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancetimprovement?
❑ Yes
N No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
9140
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 gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
eE!rNo
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
ZNo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
P(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
P(No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
[140
7/25/97
Continued on back

Facility Number: • .
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes,,ffNo
Structures (La 'gQ-H nsolding Ponds, Flush Pits. etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑Yes �] No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier;
Freeboard(ft):....s..... 1 ..!6 ..................................................................................................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes XNo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes Zd No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes �lo
(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 �o
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .......J:: xXw............._e;..14L ..49-f—tz............ .......... ................. ............................................... .................... ....................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes ONO
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:vialationsor rleiicieitcies:werenotedduring this:v:isit: You:r�ill receive•nottiriher•. •
correspQddetce aliouf this;visit::.....:.
❑ Yes RfNo
❑ Yes P'Nlo
❑ Yes ( NO
❑ Yes [7NO
ElYes . ,r-I(No
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes 00
❑ Yes - ;]rNo
7/25/97

0 Division of SAW Water Conservation ❑ Other
Division of Water Quality
[O Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of.DSWC review O Other
�i ii urww rr
Facility Number Date of Inspection >< z 9B
Time of Inspection 900 24 hr. (hh:mm)
laRegistered ©Certified E3 Applied for Permit 0 Permitted JE3 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:.....
Varna Name. .............
Owner Name: .......... LLC........... wrc4................................................................................ Phone No:..5..31Ra .1:7> :.. `........................,.........
Facility Contact: ....�. ........ kctK.................................... Title: ............ 0 `l..t r................. I.............. Phone No:....................................
Mailing Address: .... a4mi. Me: ...... 16.a.c a3. ......................
Onsite Representative:.....1,.Gf13....«................................................................... Integrator: ...............
Certified Operator; ....... L,np..%7....yf�GK.................................................................... Operator Certification Number;.. &0.:C
.....................
Location of Farm:
..L.....1!!.f..........,1..A........a�a,,....5?ti. ....................................................................................................................
.. ............................................................................ ....
Latitude 0 ` 3S iL Longitude ®• 37 ` ©"
Design < CurrenE x.o- Design Current y Design Current IN)
Sivvme . Capacity, Population Poultry Capacity 'Population Cattle-7 Capacity. Popula tiara
❑ Wean to Feeder JE1 Layerp5lDairy Zpp rJ
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy T
❑ Farrow to Wean,
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other, €�-'a '::.
❑ Darrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts f.
Y ❑Boars ;'' Total SSLW------------
Number of Lagoons` alding Ponds I� ❑ Subsurface Drains Present (] Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
a z { ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System '
'
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes $4 No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes IN No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
e. 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
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 1A No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes V No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes P.No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes KNo
7/25/97 all—

Facility Number:
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes ®,No
Structures (Lagoons,11olding Ponds Flush Pits etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes O.No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ... Fdnj..... .........................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard(ft): ..........3 d..............................................................................................................................................................................I....................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures`? 1 ❑ Yes JRNo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes &No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes J, 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 0 No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? I4si- 010-CO I%L- t Z34-24 ❑ Yes UrNo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ... E.-S?.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes (.No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes fR 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?
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, Werc any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25, Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
No.violitions°or. deficiencies.were-noted-during' this:visit.-:You'Will ric've•no•ftirther
• correspondehi:e about this: visit:- :. • � . • � • . � • ..... � • , � , .. , .. • � , . , .. . • � � , '
❑ Yes ($ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes C9 No
❑ Yes] No
❑ Yes No
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: L Date:

I* Kouttne p Complaint p Follow-up of uwd inspection p l+c
Facility Number
Registered p Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted
up of uawi: review p vrner
Date of Inspection
Tine of lnspeciion ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: K=W.a.Daixy.iUr.............................................. ........................... County: Guilford WSRO
OwnerName: Lee ........................................... Keck ............................................................ Pltone No: 9.L6685-4664..........................................................
Facility Contact: Leray.Keels ......................................................Title: owacr................................................... Phone No:....................................................
Mailing Address: 24.16.NC.62E......................................................................................... Mian...XC ............................................................... 27283 ..............
Onsite Representative: LerDy-Keck ................................................................................. Integrator:........................................................................................
Certified. Operator: ...... ........................................... ......................................................... Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
A
m
Latitude ' ©44
estgn u
Capacity_ pop,
p Wean to Feeder
ims
-,113 Farrow to Wean
13 Farrow to Feeder
p arrow to Finish
. p Gilts
r:
p Boars
Longitude ®• ©� ®iL
esign • urren
- estgn, Curren ._..
Poultry E�
;Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity, To P
p
Layer
4;
,s p
Non -Layer
_
...
0
.
Other
-'
Total Design`capacify "00
TUA SSLW
,
7­1
s.<;
n Subsurface
Dranis reSen n La2oon Area
IF, nraV ie Fen
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? 0 Yes ® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? El Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes ® No
b. If discharge is observed, did it. reach SUrraee Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) p Yes ® No
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ) p 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?
0 Yes
® No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
p Yes
p No
7/25/97

aci i y Number: 4I _8 � •
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
® No
Structures (Lagoons,liolding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
E3 Yes
® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Stiaicture 5
Structure G
Identifier: l
Freeboard(ft):................3...........................................................................................................................................3.................
................3.................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
p Yes
® No
1. 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?
[3 Yes
® No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
p Yes
p No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
p Yes
® No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ....... Carn.4S J,agr..&.Crain.)....... �xtall.CarainL(WpJzeaL.l3arley.........................................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the' Anima! Waste Management Plan (A WMP)? p Yes ® No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? p Yes M No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
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 On1y
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
Q .oo`'>v�eioi�o�lnesri.oe ra ucreise•vs'ere•.nra uring thisvisit:. You will.receive nofurther .
.t::: .............................................
p Yes N No
p Yes ® No
Yes ® No
p Yes M No
[]Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
Reviewer/Inspector Name Ron Linville ; ��„" �#' `
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

m Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection rp-O 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: XRegistered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
❑ Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection includes travel andprocessing)
❑ Not/Operational Date Last Operated: . ....... ........ ........../....................................
FarmName: ............. .�.,.� .......f.. .... .... �!r�....... .......... County:..... �.!.... ........................ .........
Land Owner Name:�.... . ` .. ......................................... Phone No:. l!�,(.....;�8,r.�.. � .........
%
Facility Conctact:........ li'sl.. ........... ....... Title:....... Q..LJ..h.�r�....... Phone No:....................... ...................................
Mailing Address:.��t.. ��.... .. �Q.�,....4 ...`i.G�.. �. �5�... ...A/. � ..... .. ,... .. ........................
OnsiteRepresentative:......Lyv g ....../::r'r.................................. Integrator:....................................................................................
Certified Operator: ...... . .... . .......... . ....................... ... . ......................... . ................ . ........... Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude • �' ®" Longitude ®• 3 7 ` =11
Queral
I. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes WNo
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes Z No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes OrNo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water`? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes IR 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 9M
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes WNo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes Po
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes Klo
maintenance/improvement?
4/30/97 Continued on back

Facility Number:........... ...............
6. Is facility not in compliance with any Wable setback criteria in effect at the time of0ign? ❑ Yes )gNo
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? Al* ❑ Yes - ❑ No
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes ANo
Structures L.aZoons and/or Holding Ponds/
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes Pao
Freeboard (ft): Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
1
............................ ......................... ............................ .............. .._.......... ............................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes ONO
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes )IVo
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? A)A ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Applic-atlon
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes Wo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ,h.., .. ...........................................................
16. Do the receiving crops s differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes PP&O
IT Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes Mo
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes J�FNo
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ANo
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ,PTo
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes .'JEMo
For Cer_tifted3~acilit(es Only
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:`queshon #) Explain any YES answersand/or any reco'mmendat'i or any other comments
Use;drawmgs of facility to better explain sittiations.:(use addrtional pages as necessary) l q>
lop"
o�cYAzY Xt.o /. �-h. If
III
a,,j je,4_�, d"' ') `7 ele" -
ReviewerAnspector Name
ReviewerlInspector Signature: Date: 9 %Q?-Z-a
cc: Division of Water Quality, Wa r Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

Farm Status: Registered
Farm Name: Keck'.s..Qairy-lac...........................................................
Owner Name: Lee ............................................Keck....................
Mailing Address: 2416 NC 62E
Onsite representative: lee.Ray-Kerk......................................
Date of Inspection Time of Inspection
" 0_Use 24.hr. time_
p ou me p complaint p o ow -up
............. County: Gullfor.d ............................................... VI!SR!Q.........
........... Phone No: 685-.4.6b4....................................................................
Julian NC 27283
Integrator: .......................................................................................
Certified Operator Name: Lee.R................................................... Keck.....................................................
Location of Farm:
Latitude Longitude ®• ©' ®"
InNot Operational Date Last Operated:.................................................................................................................................................
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Was there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
13 Yes p No

6. Is facility not in compliance with any *able setback criteria?
p Yes
® No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge (if inspection after 1 /1 /97)?
13 Yes
p No
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
p Yes
p No
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding PbndA
9. Is structural freeboard less than adequate?
p Yes
p No
Freeboard (ft): Lagoon I Lagoon 2 Lagoon 3
lagoon 4
2
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
® 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?
Yes
p No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adquate markers to identify start and stop pumping levels?
p Yes
p No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
p Yes
p No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type
16. Do the active crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan?
p Yes
p No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
p No
18. Does the cover crop need improvement?
p Yes
p No
19. Is there a lack of available irrigation equipment?
0 Yes
p No
For Certified_ Facilities. Only
20. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
p Yes
p No
21. Does the facility fail to comply with the Animal Waste Management Plan in any way?
p Yes
p No
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
p Yes
p No
23. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes p No
24. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with owner or operator in charge? p Yes p No
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviwerllnspector Signature: Date.

JUL-14-1995 151-34 FROM DEM WATER QUALITY SECTION TO
W5Rp f'.10dor10d
0
Site Requires ftediate Attention:
Facility No.
DMSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS Sim visifATION REQORD .
DATE: 9'S'o Zd -C, 1995
Time:
Farm Name,/Own
Mailing Address:
County:
Integratw-
On Site Representative: 4 a-•-
Physical AddresslLocation• �,5 r�— ; _ — `
01�16
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: j '7- Number of Animals on Site:_3
DEM Cotifieatlon Number: ACE___^__ DEM Cenification Number: ACNEW—
Latitude: J S—' a . 5— k--" Longitude: 232_' _ `!1` ' Elevation: --Feet
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(appro)imately 1 Foot + 7 inches) Yes or No Actual Freeboard: fit. Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes Was any erosion observed? Yes 0AZ
Is adequate land available for spray or No Is the cover crop adequate? 4es or No
Crop(s) being utilized: r (L�k
Does the facility meet SCS minimum
206Fca(from Dwellings? es No
100 Feet from Wells? Yes or No 7
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or W
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Pea of a USGS Map Blue Line? Yes or�T'a�
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state by man-made ditc flu 'ng syste . ar other
` similar man-made devices? (&x No If Yes, Please Explain. 4i, 6-e-- r',z,�
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? es NoI-Vw
Additional Comments:
Inspector Name
cc: Facility Assessment Unit
Use Attachments if Needed.
TOTAL P.02

Sitc . = I7IIi^c:.nre AU=Uca
�Cc ✓_�23 rsc:lit� N���.
ST-2 VISITATION P-Scop 7
-AT—C! •, U ` �^ 1995
Owner: �-eE . &L EEC K 'N C
Y
C.cim%v: C' U/ L F'd Z O
Aga:it Visit::;g SitC am Ek�— _ ?,sonc: 4/o -33 3-S yo0
Cin--tor: _ LE E ROD K,EC-K,, Ftzane: 91 C1- ( 96- 4b
Ca Site Repr�ccntdtivo: 1'V1 CICG� 4 CA _ - P�oac• 9 1 D to "41 1
rstsyslc�l A dds�ss: to-Z. Near.
MLIiling Itiddl s �� i I r.--- I H W 2 (D Z,-
•,�Jt,1Arq 4 N.C., z_z"72S3
Tync of O rcrlion.- Swino Poultry Cattle L LIDpo R.y
r,csip capacity, I D Z Numlxr of Animn s on Sits: 1 12
Untitude• 35 a 5 5 ` _�' Loaxitudcc 2° 39 if
Type of Insccsrticn; Ground Aerial
Cirela Ycs or we
Does Ehe .s idival "Waste Lag= have auMment 8echms-4 of 1 Fact + ZS vest 1-4 h= store event
(appro irrmtely 1 Foot =7 inc.^.es) Yes or No er ?.=, off: Z i-te inc m
For facilities w1Lh =m thaw c^e 1auratr, pImse address the camIRgcnns' i'i koat undar the
cvsnuicItis Section.
Wns any sacpagc o$scNed i-am to lxgcoa(s)`2 Yes ors IN i.Lc,.. cmdon of d-z dam?: Yen , a
Is ad;�quatc lend av*Bable for land application? Yes or Ya Is ;fie Cava; crop adagaat✓? Yes or No
AddWonal Commenuc
Fat to (919) 7 i 5-3559
or Agent
� I
11 1 C � r y