760025_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: County: PAM,0,jPhRegion:
Farm Name: K1Q ;:�Q./-f1'3 Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phi I ILl ge- Phone: _3_36— q42— hg2_6
Mailing Address: 7-99) rjwa—ro P-4•, Par,dle, man , PVL A13 1
Physical Address: 35b z P;,xi o N �7 3 5'0
Facility Contact: fIj i �, { d,q Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: P �y �Q� Integrator:
Certified Operator: Q,! C. I[.,y_ i�i�'Akle.r Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Certification Number:
rr
Latitude: 390
y(p J�Q Longitude: 7 g
US H" 311 S •�-o a.nd nnon �� �-� 1 iZ
Design Current
Design
Current
Design
g'urrent
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle
Capacity
Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
iry Cow
00
Wean to Feeder
-Layer
Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
iry Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
,SQ
Farrow to Feeder
Dr, P.oultr,
Ca aci
P.o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
-Layers.
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turke sp
Qthe.r
Turkey Poults
T�
Other
Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made`?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
E] Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ONE'
❑ Yes �VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - 2 5 • Date of Inspection: 7 12
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No %NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: W "-+e—po
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): -hdo-r
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? [] Yes ❑ No WA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes fVNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes [:]No
�NA
FINE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5�51A
❑ 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 [XoNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10, Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes No
:;I
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals
(Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate
Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): Oor r
S 3
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
N
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes ❑ No
2�rNA
❑ NE
acres determination'?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes 52-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
0 Yes )MNA No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? Ifyes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. to
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. oes record keeping ne��eekly
vement? ❑ Yes J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
0 rainfall
e Applica 'on Freeboard ❑Waste Analysis 6;Soil Analysis G-V, � 'Fers ❑ Weather Code
- Stocking [/Crop Yield �120 Minute Inspections vlonthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes < ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: '1126Aa0f7l
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste appl�ion equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
[] No
NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [] Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
[] Yes
[] No
7❑�
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
;S�NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
iNo
[] NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
24. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
06o
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
[] Yes
P] No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes .NrNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
7
Use wings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Na�l
b ra_ *o n d ue- z o l !o GoL&p IeA-e c�. ? �� Co [-� &ne 6 a� i b rGA n
WQste- &.001ieA SincQ S or67 1, e5 Should beoV-
Rom, a5 Ghe.Gwer�®
4+4A*^J5 o,enoss road cdo nc- have,
w�dmmo t,,," -. AhVmlA5 a_c,rosS
V won IookS. qr �j
®n� o p a 5i4u re on S p ro R�d
13 ur i 0"j
Tod0.y5 i n spe_'hOn !S
5+r v& u r-,_ h a5 bin
n t arts 1-t rev u esf it
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatuz
Page 3 of 3
road S-4re- on a� s rr
h as so a+--Wi s -q rn e
3 44 ` 460- Po w i In
-he, 1 as + o n e- re, u i n
tee, w 4, Far m y.
y
s n�� 41,0- w rite
Sf a rno! tx ire{ 5 �.- -4 Air. Pet
rest'ind-ed .
Phone: �� •7 IP . 7 9
Date: /Z l
21412015

�1� 9L�ilBi{i
(Type of Visit: Q Compliance Inspection Q Op ration Review Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance I
(Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint Follow-up Review
0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access II
Date of Visit:( Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Q� Region: W 5
Farm Name: FA-.U' (!t/I Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phi 12 t nu --t Phone: L4 q Z Sfv�
Mailing Address: 02 q 9 S p o (� , d �P-rn i!� . f tic,
Physical Address: _�Jrin 2— j' IOL Fri a e. 1Qf Pd.,, !S I)p A 1 Ck NL oP 73 S
Facility Contact: - t Q� Title:
Onsite Representative: y Integrator:
Phone:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Sack -up Operator: D 03 Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
u 5 y 3 it s td r� m G>~-vl ' I` C g fain i e. ! 2
C
A D sign C'urrcut
.
Swtne Capacity Pop.
Design Current
� far.
W�et,PQuitry Capacity Pop.
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
airy Cow
_30
Wean to Feeder
i
Non -La er I
airy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Feeder to Finish
Design
Dt; �P,onitr, Ca .aci.
Current
P,o P.
Farrow to Wean
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
i '
Pullets
Beef Brood Co -
Others 1,
Other
:.n':rw;s caxsx�e. aa,2'ar�wa ,e�aa,
s�svx.znva.:a�ama�an
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
wuf�u
'�w.mw,
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge`?
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility plumber: - Date of Inspection: Z
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [] No A
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [] Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
CO E
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ANE
❑ Yes IXNo
[] NA ❑ NE
[] Yes t No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes M�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA C�(NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
IY1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
I1� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ,EL Yes C] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary),
`ro dat i 5 v i 51 f � ues+ P e r- rn tt�� +�-� h o w t5 h 5 (n
G Io5e_ -- C)o - 4- WA 5-t-e_ 5 4� Uc._*o re, nQu��t
'-i+oa4- e�p �v- �l I`k` b e- -5 C . L n de-d
1�) W t 5 a /�� 1 5 ` -1 r1 i�l . � � �—/1��q� w I`ll d� � Vyt t n t%) V1 o t) W o_-q—
iD t-� S h l�.t� -t Y`Dv4 t? v_-A 5+e~ 54-truc4u m U-A\ t le_
a uJ k 4. In �1c4o re- J ANS -� t ( vA _e_+v fie✓ P uvx t'l• r,� u.i re_rne.v_,
�b r t,�.?p +8_ Man ale, IIYI e Aql a
ro v� �1�� � 1c� l �'ir�s � �a�� �ov►�
o �-L'Wvw w ou-s+-e_ �� s ew v ej,
IJD CUA'i �
-J-&-t> v N\\)'� V W! A,
Pipe, 41b cow►- ea5+1From bay; n
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
C,4"e'-(4,,e,, 1 o-�
v�-46on
d
M0RV M
Page 3 of 3 (� f ., ^ p� �{ w V� ` -1 • n �� c �� i � ��� � � �j
r/ A _k n S t , r-;#, 4
Phone
Date:
�" War

Facilit Number: - Date of Inspection: (d
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? [] Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: VJ Ot5 Q
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): f
5. Are there any immediate threats totheintegrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 2�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ]� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ]� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA [] NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need D Yes ;5"No ❑ NA 0 NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA �VE
❑ 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 RAN)
❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): '-el RA ) 0,rkl V�
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes No
�A
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes PC No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes 1� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
JNE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available'? If yes, check
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
the appropriate box.
'5�,NE
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? 1
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
,N'"NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes No
WA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412015 Continued

Type of Visit: WC16ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation p Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: outine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: 4� County: �,Q,nCL0 ;jegion:,.,,o
Farm Name: Fairw i Ow`n'errEE -mail:
Owner Name: 12 il il
Qi Phone:
Mailing Address: F `�
Physical Address: 3 s�p aa- ' Q I Dt.,y
•, 2anoC,l�m awn,
Facility Contact: - (� Title:
Onsite Representative: , t*'i 2—
Certified Operator: OL Z4 Lr-
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator:
a731 7
-"A. Nc- a
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
u5 N w Y 3 I I S to hand t an —i S 'Pain 'el
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part ofthe operation'?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes i �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[] Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWPQ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ YesfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - a Cr I jDate of inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes 7Ej No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 0 No 0 NA 0 NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes 1�fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit'? ❑ Yes CSJ'lC'o ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes �rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes NKo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes X No [] NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): (!&ZAt:L1 GIAAAe
ox
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes b6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes ?*"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No 9 NA ❑ NE
acres determination? �`,('•
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes IXI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes -?' No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? 0 Yes eNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available'? If yes, check 0 Yes eNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. T�
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
YR
21. oes record keeping need provement`? o-�riate-�eirb Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ NE
waste Applic Weekly Freeboar Waste Analysis Soil Analysis s Weather Code
nfal Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? +112_ M "t le, 0 Yes �No ❑' NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No MNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste appl*n equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 0
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [-]No VNA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? [-]Yes O<No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other.
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes AEj'No
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes IX I No
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes I XI No
❑ Yes K No
DNA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
:omments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Ise drawings of facility to better explain situations (`,use a�d�ditional pages as necessary).
3 Leat-hec.-i' a, '-�•i1►� Sur -race, Uu.- ` ? /tib 5�V1 0
1. 50t 1 -Fes+5 d %j e, a o C
Ca..l i b row o n d u� a,o 14 .
1 ��ec�se re.n b eec tz pee rj mod,*t
j *,0,T1-QCV_ 0
Jvp »aster o�� i ti S c nc.e as- k n$ P ec3kr o n v
5vu P-7 cooks swf (�
u e red ,
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
ro
Phone: 1 -7f fQ q
Date:
2/4/20l

Type of Visit: P Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: +x5 f Arrival Time: ' _ Departure Time: County: 4_llde / h Region: 1 , t° Q
Farm Name _ tltp ro y-en Owner Email: in C',A-& � LokppI5 o Ala [1110 .
Owner Name: 2� Phone: N ,2 cam
Mailing Address: ''F a g g 1 5w-0 P_ , R"d If- marl, N a 3 7
Physical Address: 3 ,5 (a 1 P I A I rX{_ 1 d P d • , 5 Q yp !t t gk_ . A, I C--- ,a
Facility Contact: ebt, I o ij Q -e-- Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: E I Liu/ Frk Z t e-f Integrator:
Certified Operator: 1 LV—u FY'LZ, Ie-,I - Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
rti K t +
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
7
11-1 f ka-A(>41
Non -
Pullets
Other
Poults
Certification Number:
Longitude:
a s+o Pl Cu; /V 2 d 0
Discharaes and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
y Cow
Cy alf
y Heifer
Cow
Feeder
Brood Cow
❑ Yes Q(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes [ErNo
❑ Yes ICl No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: - • Date of Inspection: f
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
7 Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:�p Yl
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) 77
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes �d No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA [] NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift-, ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s): 'J
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No rvi NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[yNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
CS No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements []Other:
21, oes record keeping need ' provement? Bch ❑Yes No gXA
❑ NE
aste Applica on [Weekly Freeboard aste Analysis Soil Analysis f Weather Code
Rainfall Stacking �rop Yield Monthly and L" Rainfall Inspections D�r�.
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? Z ]l?�.1��, ❑ Yes 1ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No � NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

FacilityNumber: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No [�(NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure.a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(] Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes �No
[DNA
❑
NE
NE
❑
❑
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional .recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary)..
Zue
I So-t� tM4 a GI a'Per-Pea nhlecl, o S 1 d uevG_ au n ao
Som a -P1s w/ Co PPe-r :L;, i o 0
7 Ple.aSt✓ ►ono C,o► -v-o b+�oaa l t� Ste- to r i aA-s 6q 40jM_.
disco 0 ralc b M w tV� 0-,n t N"L>l-t ►1 �a-}e_ r w� s P .�i otn c
V\ Su
A&J l
r
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: _77 & ~ -f 4P 9 !
Date: I I1,'5! 1-
2/4/2014

,*'
Date of Visit: ,2 ab( Arrival Time: Departure Time: J County: Region: 5 (Zd
Farm Name: At (�Lj � Edrrn Owner Email:
Owner Name: T f1 I Q c p, Phone: I`� q-
Mailing Address: Q 4 f S p4_cQ a . a Y��. arm an , LJ C. , 23 ! -7
Physical Address: S r!p 2 P 0.1 y1 �j P f , Sb A h I at`. /V C✓ a 7 3 S o
Facility Contact: P k l R 1 c qpa- Title: Phone:
Ili Tama
Onsite Representative: I G v- u y- T&zf mY c Tf Q Z 12 (' Integrator:
Certified Operator: 2i Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Sophia_ EY-I-1- in
Certification Number:
Latitude: 3$- Longitude: i R S % a -$-
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wet Poultry
Layer
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
Cattle
Dairy Cow
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
0 0
Wean to Feeder
11
INon-Layer
I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Q
Farrow to Feeder
Ur. 1Pouitr,
Ca aci
Po ,
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turke s
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Imnacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
1� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
[]Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
ti
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: -7 1p - 2 Date of Inspection: O
Waste Collection & Treatment 0
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes JX No 0 NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
L
Identifier:
(� Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) r
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a 0 Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes rNo
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ' ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need [:]Yes 0jrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
0
12. Crop Type(s): �Vhh.b�.Q.l} rfLA A&_,
13. Soil Type(s): 0
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
0 NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
j� NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
7�+
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists [:]Design [—]Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. oes record keeping need i provement? Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
�aste ApRSb�inf
ion [Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis ❑�Ala�sfeFs ❑ Weather Code
[Rainfall [I!rCrop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and L" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 7❑� No (� NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

[Facility Number: - S Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below,
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? []Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
VW
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
�No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any -additional recommendations or any other -comments:
.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary): e
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
U
19/15-/a0L3 = D,S
f 2f 1g a013 = 1, 5LD q��g
j .RDrp Phone: -] -7 1- S a'9
Date: ,2 20
21412011

Type of Visit: QQ Compliance Inspection V Operation Review U Structure Evaluation V Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit:".
isit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint O Follow-up O Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: N11 Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:.�k Region: W 5 P-O
Farm Name:
Owner Name: Ph . I IGnn
LA /q -e— _
Mailing
Owner Email: q
Phong: ~ T q
a
Physical Address: 3 ;L P 1 cu ry i& l a P-A
Facility Contact: P tlI �i; �0 �� Title: ,1 <10 LK Phone:
Onsite Representative: gw �� -� d Integrator:^
Certified Operator: E:1 FrcLZ Wts Certification Number: Cr ltDi
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: R 6 V (5E
Latitude: 3S �6 _5 Longitude: -79 sl as
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from.any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [—]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes (X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - • jDate of inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
UYes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:Lit$��1"
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the'situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental
threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
[:]Yes
FrNo
❑ 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
J�rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
eNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes )9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): I
13, Soil T e s
YP ( ):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
Z NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
[gj No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
�21, ocs record keeping need i rovement? Irp. ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[aste Applic ion Weekly Freeboar Waste Analysis oil Analysis [�s ❑ Weather Code
Rainfall L Stockingop Yield i20 Minute Inspections [j�'�Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ��
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes CK No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applicia equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
[ZNA
❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
[:]Yes
CRNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
[�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
T�
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or,any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
. ab P so{ C f-"f- tokfifa -Fe4. ?
7 S"-a i emoved `Oom_ wa-ste- porn d
� {{ iQ� � Luc e� bra Lf1IL low GNU -o--cz I r� he-;r P o 5 +u re S .
0
.0
G1
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
'' i 11 r r� 1 • I ` i!! . �
f
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
(tv b 0 dqAjKP AD
hone:
Date: Jr
21412011

0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 760025 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC760025 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Complaint County: Randolph Region: Winston-,SalaCn _
Date of Visit: 10/25/2012 Entry Time: 12:10 PM Exit Time: 02:10 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Ridoe Ean Owner Email: D.ridoe(cbselpro.us
Owner: ehil Ridge Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: Randleman NC 27317
Physical Address: 35Q2 Plainfield Rd Sophia NC 27350
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant E Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 5§°46'59" Longitude: 79°51'25"
Farm Location: 3562 Plainfield Rd., 5 miles south of Sophia NC off at Hwy 311. Farm is leased to David Faulk. From WSRO: US Hwy
311 south to Sophia. Right onto Plainfield Rd. Farm on left.
Question Areas:
0 Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Records and Documents
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Phil Ridge Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Arlin Buttke Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebrock Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Date:
Page: 1

•
1-1
Permit: AWC760025 Owner - Facility: Phil Ridge Facility Number: 760025
Inspection Date: 10l2512012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Complaint
Inspection Summary:
1. Discharge of waste was actively occuring from end of a broken 6 inch PVC pipe. Discharge has traveled 250-300 yards downhill
and into waters of the State (WS-II and HQW). Based on length, depth, and width of discharge it is estimated that approximately 1,300
gallons of animal waste is on the ground. Puddles of waste were observed in the dry/semi-dry creek bed of Back Creek and UT to
Back Creek. Mr. Arlin Buttke, lessee, and Phil Ridge, owner, were instructed to repair the pipe and to distribute powdered lime over
the entire length of the sicharge and to install hay bales at several intervals to help control solids.
2. Visual observations indicate that the discharge has been on going for several weeks or months. The last DWQ inspection was in
February 2012 and no discharge was observed at that time.
5. Animal waste was flowing from an exposed, broken, and uncapped PVC pipe that was originally used to drain freshwater from a
catch basin located at the lower end of the concrete cattle lot. The cause of the leakage from the waste pond was the deterioration of
a concrete cap which had been placed over the other end of the abandoned drain pipe. Need to permanently repair pipe and backfill
with soil. Need to also permanently seal other end of pipe too.
7. Vegetation is 3-4 feet tall. Could not see discharge from end of concrete lot due to excessive vegetation. Need to mow ASAP. This
was also noted in the February 2012 Compliance Inspection as well.
21. There has not been an OIC to record 1" and monthly rainfall inspections since June 15, 2012.
26. Facility has not had an OIC since June 15, 2012. A designation form was finally completed November 6, 2012.
Page: 2

0
•
Permit: AWC760025
Owner - Facility: Phil Ridge
Facility Number: 760025
Inspection Date: 10/25/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Complaint
Waste Structures
Type
Identifier
Designed Observed
Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
aste Pond WASTE POND 84.00
Page: 3

0 0
Permit: AWC760025 Owner -Facility: Phil Ridge Facility Number: 760025
Inspection Date: 10/25/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Complaint
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ■
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
a What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
■
❑ ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
■
❑ ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
❑
■ ❑
❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes
No NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (i.e./ large trees, severe
■
U U
U
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
000.0
improvement?
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? ❑
Checklists? ❑
Design? Q
Maps? ❑
Page: 4

•
•
Permit: AWC760025 Owner -Facility. Phil Rldge Facility Number: 760025
Inspection Date: 10125/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspecllan Reason for Visit: Complaint
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Lease Agreements? ❑
Other? ❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement? 00110
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application? ❑
Weekly Freeboard? ❑
Waste Analysis? ❑
Soil analysis? ❑
Waste Transfers? ❑
Weather code? ❑
Rainfall? ❑
Stocking? ❑
Crop yields? ❑
120 Minute inspections? ❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
0
Sludge Survey
❑
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. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
❑
❑ ■ ❑
box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance;
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
■
❑ ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑ ■ ❑
Page: 5

Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1275 11 12_Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: jQ_dnd o i Region:
0
Farm Name: j Q� Far Owner Email: Qm {td q 2 °e Sel �ro . US
e . i r ociLeff
Owner Name: Q Phone:
t � �Crres
Physical Address: E P '4 6 , t (_1 12 7,3S0
Facility Contact: Ch r 'igo1 QP ir` Title:
Onsite Representative: (�I b r i 461 d eX
Certified Operator: C /'11'•1_S &ue4-
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phor 6S—
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: 35q (p Sc� Longitude: 7 a s-/ o2iS-
1 t-o 50 P h I OL%) P la i n-G e/o PLd• P-eL r-m a r
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pap.
Wean to Finish
Wet Poultry
Layer
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
El
Cattle
airy Cow
Design C*urgent
Capacity Pop.
360
Wean to Feeder
I INon-Layer
I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Dr. P,t►ult .
Design
Ca acit
Current
P,o
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turke s
Turke Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
C] Yes $No ❑ NA [] NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
\Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes teNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
1Vere there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the State other than from a discharge?
ge I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: w s Q
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? [:]Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes b�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? XYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �Ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
[—]Yes
No
[DNA
❑ 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 ❑ Application Outside of Approved
Area
`Drift
12. Crop Type(s): O � k t!silage
13. Soil Type(s): e-� [".0 A S tv--.
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
4NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
tgNo
7
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
�To
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑ Checklists [:]Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Other:
21. oes record keeping ne;Ceekly
ovement? ❑ YesXNo NQ ❑ NE
ste Applic on Freeboar Waste Analysis Soil Analysis eather Code
ainfall Stocking op Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No jV'NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number- Date of Inspection: 7..
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes D16No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey []Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes 04No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
�[
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes IX { No
�'"''L
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes )tNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes �No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes O No
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain.any.YES answers and/or ,any additlonal recommendations ;or, any other, comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as: necessary).
f�L)5+ 15Pr"/M6(D/ W6"CO-+
Cok.
q Cali br`a- ian A ue.
S-b.J-Ut.. hau r 51 u rr Y rv�oq a re.
S /a f l
�-- Q leases r`e- Go a-d
w4
1-7 j ;LO I I LS L) 'r, g. 3
11/ CX 9 V a 611 LSD = 5_' y
0
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
nckes I I
C-f a/'1 / ao I o'L-cu u P
�- 5 s D = 4.7 05 X ion
r
Phone: dC
V
Reviewer/Inspector S'iggnature: Date: p�
Page 3 j f J M u5�- re�nov�-�- &-4 Ply 600 +0i n c- -'e e. t� 2�4 p-e�s

Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit *Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: n3 ! s 1 I Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: OLAL1 +1 Region: W— 90
Farm Name: R dae_ Tp jam Owner Email:
Owner Name: 0-0 1 I\1c�Q� Phone:(-") q'L 2—$4,1! 2%
�
Mailing Add e�sY Y 1719 Rcjm Few w tJo I 'a m 1�� L3 � 6 Zr] Zj ff ---
Physical Address: 3rr6_G 2 t�l�rn �2 ��. f 04tlyc . 0C
Facility Contact: �`t' � �`� F n� Title: Phone Noo 7 �'iJ ' L1/
Onsite Representative: arf'_l r'g V Integrator:
Certified Operator: 1 Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator- oyb r'� Latitude: Longitude: % ya7- 0 Back-up Certification Number:
//
Location of Farm:
` 60 -1/997 g p $�,
3 � S 2
4w� 3!! Sou -iU � ��a� �Ir.�+�-� o�� ¢`7[a�,�►c�� 1`� �� tr+� or •
Design
Current Design Current Design Current
Swine
Capacity
Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
JEI Layer
VDairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
10 Non -Layer
I
I
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
El Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry Dry Cow GSb —4
ElNon-Dairy
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
El Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
Non -Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Pullets
El ❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Boars
El Turke s
Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑ Other Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 2 — 25` • Date of Inspection 03 S� 1 •
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 2-111
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes k4o ❑ 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? k-yes
ElNo ElNA ElNE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑lYes JVNo ❑ 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 XfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ANo ❑ 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 AcceptableCrop Window El Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) Cpfn 4— J' MR, }l� f
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes kNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes ❑ No �( NA ❑ NE
17, Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
`Comments (refer tosgaestion.#).-,'Explain any YES,answers and/or any:recommendattons or any oth`era eomments Ire
Use'drawio s of"facili to better,.ex lain situations. (use additional a es as necessar " :'
g tY p p g Y) 1:�
�¢.
]p p j f
7, G rows+ k. A ,6(rbaj* o,� pivb i?Rr�CM(M r iQe.No,r�, ' ro,NM (T `I,
�r+�, v
f-,,,
ko u,
i
7, 5 Pry+ (pro �3 ��T l•�e�� rn" �.ba..ic��- d� t�rq"3'�c
Reviewer/Inspector Name r 6( 1 a, :' t`�C
Phone: 7 - 52��
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: ZD f
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: *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.
Does record keeping need improvement? if yes,
❑ Yes kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
,--,� r-,�
Waste Application Weekly Freeboard E waste Analysis Ir waste Transfers
slaer�
,oil,,Analysis
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections 2 onthly and I"
Rain Inspections ©"Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes �No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes ❑ No
)�rNA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes ❑CELL No
WNA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes *No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes 9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes �No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes �No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes P�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes �No
❑ NA
❑ NE
32.
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes XNo
ElNA
ElNE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
ElYes �No
❑ NA
❑ NE
s
Add�tlonai Comments aandlor. Drawin s
21� ed7le-=7oi
-� rle dd !k IVY,i 1�C-3u A-"P �►r.K yai Wr1 -IT'
1pV+/l0' Pei ; S � =3,q
J13,f7Z
r�
11 Dp l!i 7V on6 : 9 o�/ 1000 AApr, pr, f � G.Z 1170/4oA
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number. 760025 Facility Status: Active__ Permit: AWC760025 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comoliance Inspection _ _ _ inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Referral _ County: Randolph Region: Winston-Salem _
Date of Visit: 12/15/2010 Entry Time:10:00 AM Exit Time: 12:30 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Ridge Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Phil Bioge Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 4105 Meredelz Farm Rderly NC 27298Z319 _
Physical Address: 3562 Plainfield Rd _ 5pohia NC 27350
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant 0 Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: No46'59" Longitude: 79°51'25"
Farm Location: 3562 Plainfield Rd., 5 miles south of Sophia NC off at Hwy 311. Farm is leased to David Faulk. From WSRO: US Hwy
311 south to Sophia. Right onto Plainfield Rd. Farm on left.
Question Areas:
Discharges & stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Other Issues
Certified Operator: Christopher Ryan Holder Operator Certification Number: 992743
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Henry Fuller Phone:
On -site representative Henry Fuller Phone:
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebrock
Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s)-
Page: 1

Permit: AWC760025 Owner • Facility: Phil Ridge Facility Number: 760025
Inspection bate: 12/1512010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Referral
Inspection Summary:
Today's unannounced inspection was at the request of Dave Wanucha with the SWP-WSRO EEP program. The Ridge Farm is the
recipient of a non -point source pollution control 319 grant for livestock exclusion and stream restoration administered by NCSU. Our
purpose was to investigate the "West Tributary" of the UT to Back Creek for possible sources of nutrient run-off or contamination.
Preliminary sampling by Dave indicated high levels of fecal coliform and nutrients.
Dave Wanucha, Patrick Mitchell (APS-WSRO), Melissa Rosebrock (APS-WSRO), and Henry Fuller (Farm manager) were present
during today's visit. We started our walk of the entire reach of the "West Trib" at 35.78Nl79.853W up to an area near 35.781 N and
79.857W.
3. and 28. Leachate from the trench silos had flowed into the concrete silage holding pit and was currently overflowing from the pit into
a draw that leads downhill to surface waters (UT to Back Creek), Mr. Fuller stated on 1/4/2011 that the pump for the silage retention
pit had been repaired and leachate was now going into the waste pond.
Until two months ago, cattle have had access to land inside the existing fenced buffer. Stream bank ersion was observed in several
sections. The manager was instructed to keep cattle out of these areas located near 35.783N179.854W.
We did not find one major source of pollutants, but rather, several small potential sources which were shown to Mr. Fuller. In general,
permanent cattle exclusion, increased buffer width, and the establishment of permanent vegetation should help reduce pollutant
run-off from the Ridge Farm (a.k.a Heath Dairy). A surface water sample was taken just a few yards upstream of the confluence of
the "West trib" with the UT to Back Creek. Results indicate that the fecal coliform concentration was 3,800 col.1100ml.
Page: 2

Permit: AWC760025 Owner • Facility: Phil Ridge
Facility Number : 760025
Inspection Data: 12115/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Referral
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
�,,t, Pond WASTE POND
Page: 3

Y
' 1
0 •
Permit: AWC760025 Owner - Facility: Phil Ridge Facility Number : 760025
Inspection Date: 1211512010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Referral
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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
• I
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
■
❑
❑ ❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
MOD
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑ ❑
improvement?
Otherissues
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.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
■
❑ ❑
32, Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑
■
❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■
❑ ❑
34. Are subsurface drains present on this farm?
❑
■
❑ ❑
Page: 4

•
0
Permit: AWC760025
Inspection Date: 12115/2010
Owner - Facility: Phil Ridge
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Other Issues
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Spray Field
Lagoon ! Storage Pond
Other
Facility Number : 760025
Reason for Visit: Referral
Yes No NA NE
Ina
Page: 5

Type of Visit Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ denied Access
Date of Visit: [2—� Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
n � r—
Farm Name:
Owner Name:
� 1 ,
MailQ `dd1ess:
-TU l t CLn
Region: 1: 5 2 0
Owner Email:
Phone: Le) v " I `7
a�
Physical Address: s�•a { ��'j� �'I �0�h10. 1 ,(Q
Facility Contact: �f' Y 'l l h k 1N 'rl Q R� Title: Phone No: t —
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: { `` 1} r�' Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: 5 401Q1t` l b Back-up Certification Number:
WOO-o <,
Location of Farm: �v�� Latitude:
Rwj 311 Souk }m Sophi-q rIA_14,'q
110
Wean to Finish
I
1 11111 Layer
1❑
Wean to Feeder
[_ _ _ _ I
JJJO
Non-Layet
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Longitude: ® ° l A I 1
lu8 F�-01 on k-r-�'
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste'management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE.
❑ Yes
❑ No
�No
❑NA
❑ NE
kYes
es
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

I
Facility Number: `�� — _ Date of Inspection .
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural frceboard? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 St r eture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ENo ❑ 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 4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ElNE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ElFrozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12.
Crop type(s) /
13.
Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑Yes No
ElNA
ElNE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ A
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
[:]No
NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
MINo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations-.. (use additional pages as necessary):
7
Reviewer/Inspector Name [,/ Phone:
PDate:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur
I2128104 rontinued

C�
Facility Number: — a *of Inspection oZ 0 •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NEr
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 El Other
21. Does record keeping need i rovement? if gns peek R jp ']ow. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ \Taste Application Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis Soil A lysis 0 Waste Transfers
Rainfall Ly"Stocking ❑ Crop Yield 020 Minute Inspections Monthly and l" Rain Inspections EfW/ eather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes /P(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No [�(NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit'?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
V%NA
[:3 NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes 1 ] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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
)XNc
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes��No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
>(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
I N
❑ NA
ElNE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
dd
1
C
7
Page 3 of 3
1 12128104

- Division of Water Quality
Facility Number "j�� Divisian of Sail and Water Co a,rvation
Type of Visit ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit � Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: �] `n Arrival Time: Departure Time: Q County: Region: 166U
Farm Name: �7- - ' t�/1TT/i� 13 r inOwner Email:
Owner Name: V 14�Q'i. Phone:
Mailing Address: �� lYl V i J ) l 1 G`��(1 VY— R i x
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
4ocation of Farm:
�
Latitude: 1. �a l
eZAL_—"g4:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Poult
Swine C*apacity Population Wet ry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity PopulatioA.
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
Dairy Cow7407)
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -La er
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
airy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
Dai Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
Q
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑El
Turkeys
Beef Brood Cow
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes L]l No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection •
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): � 7 ;L-
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 06 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 5(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13.
Soil type(s)y -
W.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No ElNA ❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
Yes
ElXC3
No X NA ❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
X. El NA El NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
El Yes
'VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
eaDyi't,',+t3
Comments (refer to'question #}: Explain any YES ansrve"rs and/or,any recommendationsior any other comments.
��
Use dra'wingsoffacility to situattans.(useaddtt�onal`pages;asrnecessary)a�
A,
--.
Reviewer/Inspector Name -
-
- `�`�," ' i"sue �` ��` Phone: —
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur
Date:
IV " - 12128/04` Continued

•
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection U
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 NIo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Do record keeping need imp vement? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste AppIic "on Week Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis Waste'Transfers
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield 9HONfirratchzlinfions Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
P<NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
o
tN
to
❑ NA
ElNE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
ElYeso
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
AMditional Comments and/ror Drawings:
I Ate UA
U00 p C�{ �. t oZ
e
i
�J
12128104

Type of Visit ffi Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visitl" Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: f S Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: 1d v Owner Email:
Owner Name: e -arhi
j] Phone: y
Mailing Address: L41i<d Ra*V1:5f_-urjUN0L✓1' �d .,_ _Li b�0�+Li
Physical Address: 5 a_ lQ �. Y, le f � � ���s�� 1 N C
\ (04 O q
Facility Contact: i Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
o
Location of Farm: Latitude: MIc'� -t- —`PLI " Longitude: °
L4-a59P_ - -DOW13 F-a'jt 4�
HtA-)1 3 11 5 v v", Ax!, So h c q. R -P 0. i vZ qf-) d Clod l r rn am
�esigrrent
Design Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Population
Wct Poultry Capacity Population
C►attle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer I I
I JEI Non -Layer I I
Dairy Cow Q
El Dairy Calf.
Cl Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
El Farrow to Feeder
ElNon-Dairy
El Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
El Stocker
Gilts
❑Non -La ers
El
ElBeef Feeder
F1:3 Boars
ElPullets
Turke s
❑
El Beef Brood Co
Other
❑ Turkey Poults
I IEI Other
Number of Structures:
4
❑ 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)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
ElNE
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
AYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: -- • Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
` X Struct�urllee 1 Xucture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: &__-)Q 7s�r,
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 71t
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes $No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA El NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes NIo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes] 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 NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes K
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
.� _ n
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? Yes
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
7o ❑ NA El
No ❑ NA El NE
No [I NA [I NE
o ❑ NA El NE
o [I NA El NE
ITII
E
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): .
-3
Reviewer/Inspector Name v Phone: —
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu Iloilo 11A.;A Date: IL
- A, w_,O_

4,
Facility Number: — oZj 40 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 9(No ElNA [INE
the appropriate box. El❑ Design ❑Maps WUP 0 Checklists Other
21. Doe record keeping needim ovement? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
aste Applic ion L�{Vcroypl
reeboard Waste Analysis S�Zontbly
ysis Waste Transfers ❑
Rainfall [I Stockin Yield 120 Minute Ins ections and 1" Rain Ins ections Weather Codeg p p
4p- earh e.~ t dNo22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ElYes Y ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes ❑ No
L NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes KNO
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
P(NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes tNo
o [INA ElNE
ElYes ❑ NA ❑ NE
Wyes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
�❑
Yes
o
to
ElNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Kwo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�lo
❑ NA
❑ NE
,Additional r and/or Drawings: cy
folio
JF
i i
r
i
Page 3 of 3 41aalag7 I�r v N
/ '
= ' . 11
12128104 O 7

Division of Water Qualit�w
Facility Number oZs Division of Soil and Water Ci,nservati
0 Other Agency
3orm
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit V Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1 5 f i
Farm Name:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Lease. IS
Pt aA' d
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Munty:
--O---Owner Email:
Region: i�w
_ Phone: _qq 2 7a q ;1'
• �Ji VW -
o h N�) Cam" o
Phone No: AW d �'
Integrator: !^�
Operator Certification Number: (34 U 3 3
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: I
vid a61l, . HwY 3l sou
N , nL on k\ec+ .
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Laver
i ❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑
La ers
❑
Non -Layers
❑
Pullets
❑
Turkeys
❑
Turkey Poults
❑
Other
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Longitude:
c 1
- 5cPhia on+a
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
11
Dai ry Cow
Oa
El
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cowl
I
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
n from a discharge?
15(� tprwo�r h�1 t�21'S
❑ Yes qNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes tNo
o ElNA [INE
ElYes ❑ NA ❑ NE
0 42/ �M4 Continued

Facility Number: • 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?
Structu I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
❑ Yes �No
[INA ElNE
❑ Yes El No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental) 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
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside ofAccepta];le Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12.
Crop type(s)'
13,
Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
El Yes
�K'
El NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
❑ No
kA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
LAZ
11 3• Lie�ha_ e_ ?
3 4crt55 rtar
- bann s eed oI ?
4 ts) 0-&41e, o L)
©�
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Sej'
Phone: — of
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur
Date:
1 i lay e lal e. a�bhV hf cV�%J�;i'T0."8104,Continued
YJ

Facility Number: — as *ate of Inspection
0
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ �p ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑ Other
21. Do record keeping need i provement?�I ❑ Yes LiVAnn
❑ NA ❑ NE
aste A gStocking
ion Wee Freeboard aste Ana! sis � Soil at sis �rzusfexs 'Certification
PY Y Y
7Rainfall ' Crop Yield Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections Bather 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
3 I. 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 P(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No �NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes *kNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No VNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA [:IN E
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
'pQ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Ad ' ional Comments and/or Drawings:
e.ve15 7 tA& of41
vi �-H, �1'Cd_+ioq CA Ue MO-T.
Annuo_t c&tlbrc�+©]n tir RW(o,4 zc�o-7
�KS -, c1.�c� �o V_ OLSS'IS Ce .k Y\ �&)Cle 10 N
4V
V
Lktv tn�\
3��,
12128104

1i e
Technical
❑Denied Access
Date of Visit: M24 Arrival Time: W-1/0 Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: — ----- Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: PLA_-tqb_E_, -..----Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No: _414�0
12128104 Continued
Integrator: ........
Operator Certification Number: .....
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35 O WL[Egl Longitude: a] 0 rT/ I j FlsJ
*1311 Sp"'f4 16 !W14'114 - 34W 00 hANFf" 61- ;rh& AA1 1XFr
6f 6#Sj_a fa ,j f (X It fi#VS * LL
Design g C 11
urrent:Current
DesignCurrent
7
OP tt 9p Poultry U.Lt �p Population 0ru
e
,§1 El Wean to Finish
10 Layer
Dairy Cow
El Wean to Feeder
['10 Nan -Layet
El Dairy Calf
El Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
El Dry Cow e>
0 Farrow to Feeder
rX.: Poultry
El Non -Dairy
,p El Farrow to Finish
�­E] Layers
Be
El f Stocker
Gilts
El Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
Pullets
El Beef Brood C: ot
El TurkEys
hot
Other
Turku Pou
Ui;bir t
Other
77.7
❑
❑
❑
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0
Assistance
Reason for Visit & Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other
I
❑ ❑ ❑
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
OYes.
10 No
El NA
[I NE
Discharge originated at: El Structure 0 Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
El Yes
El No
0 NA
[I NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
E]Yes
0 No
El NA
El NE
What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
0 Yes
D No
El NA
El NE
2., Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
El Yes
No
[-I NA
0 NE
---3.-We_r_e_ffi-ere any adverse -i-m—pa-crs-dr--p-ole-nTi-ir verse im—pa-c&to,ffe-WdFer-s-oTWc-Sffte---o-Ye-s-
P-,,;;ro----
I . other than from a discharge?

r
.
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
UPNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[DNA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier: L0 S0
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWQ
7. ' Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require .
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes N No El NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload .❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 1 Q% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?❑`
Yes
[X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination i ❑ Yes
0@ No
QQ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
O] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
to No
❑ NA
❑ NE
g
Reviewer/Inspector Si nature: Date:
12128/

Facility Number: -- *ate 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 [J Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes N' No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute'Inspections ❑ Monthly 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. Doesfacility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El Yes
�No
El NA.
❑NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
50 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Jq Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
OpNo
❑NA
El NE
' D Yes
X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12,28104

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

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 760025 Facility Status: Active Permit: NCA376025 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: QgWphance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Randolph Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 05/23/2006 Entry TIme:01:40 PM Exit Time: 03130 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Ridge Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Phil Ri gp_ _
Phone: 5,3Q A28-7242
Mailing Address: 579Q ffilker Mill Rd Randleman NC 273177319 -
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:35°46'59" Longitude:79"51'25"
Farm Location: 3562 Plainfield Rd., 5 miles south of Sophia NC off at Hwy 311. Farm is leased to Arlin Buttke: 5796 Walker Mill Rd.,
Sohia, NC 27350, From WSRO: US Hwy 311 south to Sophia. Right onto Plainfield Rd. Farm on left,
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Certified Operator: Wayne L Buttke
Secondary OIC(s):
Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Otherlssues
Operator Certification Number: 22101
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Phillip Wright Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebrock Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
3. Concentrated silage leachate is about 30' from Creek. Need to address ASAP.
7. Dam has been backflled. Still needs to be seeded this Fall.
21. Copper levels are 2000-3000. Check next year.
14. & 28. Some fields that were in corn are now in grass. Need to change WUP to reflect this change.
Phil Ridge is owner, but he leases the farm to David Faulk.Operator has changed from Wayne Buttke to Phillip Wright.
Page: 1

0
•
Permit: NCA376026
Inspection Date: 05/23/2006
Owner -Facility. Phil Ridge
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 760025
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
© Cattle - Milk Cow 300 83
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLM 420,000
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Deslaned Freeboard Observed Freeboard
kaste Pond WASTE POND] 90.00
Page: 2

I%
•
•
Permit: NCA376025 Owner -Facility: Phil Rldge
Facility Number: 760025
Inspection Date: 05/23/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Via It. Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No
NA NE
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑ 0011
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ ■
❑ ❑
a Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ ■
❑ ❑
1 Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other
than from a ■ ❑
❑ ❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No
NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Led 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 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: NCA376025 Owner -Facility: Phil Ridge
Inspection Data: 05J23/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 760025
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Ap Rgation
Yes No
NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
Q
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Small Grain Cover
Crop Type 2
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
■ ❑
❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■
❑ Cl
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? Cl ■
❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
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?
Q
Page: 4

0 •
Permit: NCA376025 Owner - Facility: Phil Ridge
Facility Number: 760025
Inspection Date: OW312006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Via It Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
Cl
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
Cl
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after a 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES
only)? ❑
❑ ■
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑ ■
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑ ■
❑
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: NCA376025 Owner- Facility: Phil Ridge
Facility Number:.760025
Inspection Date: 05/23/2006 Inspection Type: Complianoe Inspection
Reason for Vlslt: Routine
Other Issues
Yes No
NA
NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑ ■
❑
❑
32. Did Reviewertinspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ ■
❑
❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ■
❑
❑
Page: 6

Dwane Lapactty. ropuiation
❑ Wean to Finish
ElWean to Feeder
ElFeeder to Finish
ElFarrow to Wean
ElFarrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
ElGilts
ElBoars
Other .
❑ Other �
d �f -
Division of Water Quality
Facility Number.Division of Soil and -Water Conservation
Other. Agency
Type of visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit X Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ElDenied Access
Date of Visit: IjoU
Farm Name:
Owner Name:
_ Phi
Mailing Address:
Physicaddvre
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
rrival Time: e Q Departure Time: � County: Region: 1625—v
Owner Email: ' r/ Phone: 4j 4 + Q
� — 7 oZ Y
r d u r u AInvt D-4 . , L1 � .
Phone N+L._L
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude:
311 South. ►�h� onto P ain el
Longitude: [jj ° © [0-"
`,Design Current' Dcsi�n Current
Wet Poultry ;Capacity Population Cattle
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
ElNon-Layers
ElPullets
ElTurke s
El Turk Poults
ElOther
Design;- Current
Capacity Populati6iEl
[&Dairy
Cow
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
r ,
Number of Structures
Discharges &Stream Impacts .
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: El Structure ❑Application Field ❑Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No ,
❑ NA
❑ NE
[]Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
L.-
❑ NA
❑ NE
Oyes
❑ No
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Yes �❑` No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: -7(0 -- a 5 0 Date of Inspection oZ3
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
❑NA
[INE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑-YestNo
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
aStructure i Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier: NN-S S P
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
enviro ental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
Yes
[I No ❑ NA
❑ NE
S. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
lit 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
LJ Yes
�No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11.
Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ElEvidence of Wind Drift ElApplication Outside of Area
12.
ta
Crop type(s) V fl
13.
Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? Yes
No
❑ NA
El NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? 1-1Yes❑
No
NA ❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations, (use additional pages as necessary):.
1 D am b &-e Y, e.d ?k&t,
AL
I
Reviewer/Inspector Name t� T Phone: ,-7 -rJ—
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date:5
Page 2 of 3 _ 12128104 ' Continued

Facility Number: — as Ite 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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. iWaste
cord keeping need i rovement? If yes, the the appropriate box Clow. ❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
Application Weekl Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil An lysis �ste Transfers Ann 1 Certification
ainfall �/Stocking rop Yield onthly and 1" Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ElYes ❑ No tNA
A I --]NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑Yes �No ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No �(NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No >(NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by ❑ Yes �(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ff
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ElLa Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
aoo s s o i Is ? �- . .-�ave.G4� Rom- 3�• C�-�
y� f
70--d CA a_d-a� Asfi P
Page 3 of 3 t % / 11 12128104

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 760025 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC760025 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compfiance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Randolph Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 07/21/2005 Entry Time: 01 30 EM _ Exit Time: 04:00 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Ridge_Farm� Owner Email:
Owner: Phil Ridgj Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 5Z96 Walker Mill Rd _ Randleman NC 273177319
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 55-46'59" Longitude: 79*51'25"
Farm Location: 3562 Plainfield Rd., 5 miles south of Sophia NC off at Hwy 311. Farm is leased to Arlin Buttke: 5796 Walker Mill
Rd., Sohla, NC 27350. From WSRO: US Hwy 311 south to Sophia. Right onto Plainfield Rd. Farm on left.
Question Areas:
0 Discharges & Stream Impacts 0 Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Wayne L Buttke Operator Certification Number: 22101
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Wayne Buttke Phone:
24 hour contact name Wayne Buttke Phone:
Primary Inspector: NWI§sa M Rosebroc Phone: [phone]
Ext.383
Inspector Signature: gLkDate:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
inspection Summary:
3. Creek areas across the road and below the siolos looks great.
7. Continue to backfill waste pond embankment and seed this Fall.
21. Don't forget to record corn yields this Fall.
28. Don't forget to update Soulhers regarding change in PAN on small grain cover from 100 to 25.
7/11l05 waste analysis=6.3 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Wayne's address is 1878 Meadowlake Lane, Sophia, NC 27350
Physical address of farm is 3562 Plainfield Rd., Sophia, NC 27350
Page: 1

® •
Permit: AWC760025 Owner • Facility: Phil Ridge Facility Number: 760025
Inspection Date: 07/21/2005 inspection Type. Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
® Cattle -Milk Cow 300 284
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 420,000
Type Identlffer Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Waste Pond WASTE STORAGE POND 36.00
Page: 2

f
Permit: AWC760025 Owner - Facility: Phil Ridge Facility Number: 760025
Inspection Date: 07/21/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
OischargV5 $ Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Yes
❑
No NA
M ❑
NE
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
O
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
moo
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)
❑
0 ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse Impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑
Yes
0 ❑
No NA
❑
NE
Waste _C ollprtinn. Storage & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le.1 large trees, severe erosion,
❑
0 ❑
❑
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑
❑
❑
closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or Improvement?
0
❑ ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑
M ❑
❑
and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
❑
❑
improvement?
Xua
No NA
NE
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or Improvement?
❑
n ❑
❑
11. is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
Frozen Ground?
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludgo into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

•
Permit: AWC760025
Owner -Facility: Phil Ridge
Facility Number: 760025
Inspection Date: 07/21/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Yom No NA NE
Waste Anoliratinn
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 property operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
■ ❑
No NA
❑
NF
Records ;god „Q,0Suments
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
N ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
■
❑ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
■
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > i inch rainfall R monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop ylelds7
■
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 fall to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
26. Did the facility fall to have an actively certified operator In charge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (Pi -AT) certification?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Page: 4

• •
Penult: AWC760025 Owner -Facility: Phil Ridge Facility Number: 760025
Inspection Date: 07/21/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
other Issues Yes No NA NF
26. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ■ ❑ 0
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those mortality ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the Inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality ❑ ❑ ❑
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
32. Did Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative? ❑ E ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Ma
Page: 5

Ill
Type of Visit (XCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: , Q Arrival Time: c�arture Time: � ( County: QjP_J0 Region: W 5
Farm Name: _ I�j rr {�� Farm Owner Email: 'I 'y
Owner Name: Ph l l I`- 1 9 Phone: 4qj -7�`l' dL_
u air E ri5 5�96 0.��� I
Mailing Address: � �' 6` �� l`—�_ C\]Ct Z-'i 3 11
I K.e- "- S60ktict a'7 36-0
Physical Address:
3 Z_
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative: I(1K-- D
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
uS wv 3
Phone No: 0 5 ` 1 3g.3
Operator Certification Number: a10
-
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ! JAI W , ®" Longitude:
500-41 +b 50phta_ idh+ OVita plajVjOel
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other -- -- --- —
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑
Layers
❑
Non -Layers
❑
Pullets
❑
Turkeys
❑
Turkey Poults
❑
Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Capacity Population
WDairy Cow
10-Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:Mi
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number:, —
0 Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier: P
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): to
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No ElNA ❑ NE
X
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
/
lJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
! _
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
[Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
ly1 No ElNA El NE
maintenance/improvement?
�����``",
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) 5 Ma.v 1 2rn«1
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination,[--]
Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
*o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
bf,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
T V .-n y
ReviewerlInspe for Name (`� . �, Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature AVDate: �[
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: , — Def Inspection
Re wired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ,,,,(No ElIll 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. ❑ WOP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Doe record keeping need�im�provement? If yes, chec he appropriate box ow. [ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Ltd Waste plicati ' L1dWeekly Freeboard L71 Waste Analysis Soii Analysis
L1'Rainfa Crop Yield DMonthly and i" Rain Inspections Weather Co e
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No El NA El NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? El Yes ,,❑ No �NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit. DOI, El Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes KNo //❑__NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes ❑ No 'KfA ❑ NE
Other Issues
//__
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
1
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yeso ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
IIN
31. Did the facility fai l to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes No ElNA ElNE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Coniments`andlor Drawings:
Ir.
RODS Sol is
3 Fv\CA V\ O� Ara-�
l Fail ye "
llc"O Q
D1_ nowt e;F� a� e'�- �• 4Jp'
1��1►�os— �.3 I bs. N� I000�.Q.
lai3lo�i — 0.3�6 lb5• N�I�cu-Q,
PlaN oI.-) 9
a
12128104

chnical Assistance Site Visit Repo
• Di on of Soil and Water ConservatiorW
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 76 -
25
Date: 12/14/04
Time: 1 13:00
Time On Farm: 90 WSRO
Farm Name Ridge Farm
County Randol h
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 5796 Walker Mill Road Randleman NC
Onsite
Representative Wage Buttke Integrator
Tyge Of Visit
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
Purpose Of Visit
utine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
p Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Capacity Population
El
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
❑
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
® Dairy 300 280
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
27317
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier WSP
Level (Inches) 22
CROP TYPES lCorn, Silage ISmall graincover
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
® Dairy 300 280
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
27317
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier WSP
Level (Inches) 22
CROP TYPES lCorn, Silage ISmall graincover
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

a
F-I
Faacility Number 76 - 25 Date:
12/14/04
ARAMETER
0 No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
El❑
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm Storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
[112. Waste structure integrity compromised
®13. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
El
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
El❑
15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30.2H.0200 re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33.Organ izelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level retards
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Latelmissing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removaltclosure 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 Callbratlon
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
design/installation
El
El
43. Irrigation system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluatlonlrecommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiiing, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
®
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
El
❑
5'
56.Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
Cl
59. Soil andlor waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

•
I Facility Number 76 - 2s Date: 1 12/14/04
MENTS:
The waste application records have not changed since the Spring. Records will be completed when the
pplications to the Rye has been completed.
Mr. Buttke has sent in his soil samples for 2004, but the results have not come back.
# 13. Mr. Buttke has stockpiled soil to backfill the waste pond embankment, but has not been able to
lace the backfill yet, due to weather.
# 52. The drainage ditch below the silo still needs to be fenced out.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 12/16/04
Entered By: lRocky Durham
03/10/03

I�
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0• Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 25 Date of Visit: 9/2/2004 Time: 1430
O Not O erational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Fidga.farim................... .... County: ftadttlph......................................... WS&O........
OwnerName:1phal......... .................................. Rid= ........................................................... Phone No:Q3.Q.49.8.-724.2 ........................................................
Mailing Address: l �altic!<, ?a1xy..lF)Iuk Kari .e..�S.7.2.f..�3',�Ilclrx..lYIAtA.�iaad........... RARdIcia ill.. K.............................
Facility Contact: 1?NaY[teur.Arliul..l >Att1c .............................Title:................................................................ Phone No: 4_95,.134................................
Onsite Representative: ftyj5i_U.jLtt1jf: ............................................................. ...... Integrator:
.....................................................................
Certified Operator:.WAyAlp.L ............................... Elmithc ............................................... Operator Certification Number:22J,01 .............................
Location of Farm:
Farm Location: 3562 Plainfield Rd., 5 miles south of Sophia NC off at Hwy 311. Farm is leased to Arlin Buttke: 5796 LA,
Walker Mill Rd., Sohia, NC 27350. From WSRO: US Hwy 311 south to Sophia. Right onto Plainfield Rd. Farm on left.
❑ Swine ❑Poultry ®Cattle El Horse Latitude 35 • 46 59 Longitude 79 • 51 25 «
Design Current Design Current Design Current'
Swine 'CaPaCity Po ulation Poultry. Capacity.Pa ulation Cattle Ca acit .. Po ulation .
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer IN Dairy 300
ff Feeder to Finish 10 Nan -Layer 10 Non -Dairy 50
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder Other
❑ Farrow to Finish TotalDesign Capacity 300
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total'SSLW 420,000
Number of LagoonsHol�%jij Ponds /'5olod Trans
0
1
Dischar es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ® Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® 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.P.omd............................................................................................... ......................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 72
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 76-25 0 Date of Inspection 9/2/2004 •
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
1
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes ® No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or :Zinc
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes % No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ®No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes IN 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 OR No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Comments (refer to question #) ,,,I,xplain any,YES answers and/or any recommendations or'anyotherfcommen
mts i
Use:draws ofsfaet Ety to,better explaidisituations O.se,additiopal pages as n`ecessat'y) ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes f
Observed some sludge worms in creek at the June 2004 discharge site. No odor, sludge mats, or foam observed, however.
+
3. Ditch below the silos has not been fenced to exclude cattle yet. No cattle are in lot, though.
3. Culvert and diversion next to the waste pond is being repaired currently. Looks good so far.
7. WSP embankment to be backfilled before 2004 operation review, Operaror was remined of this in Dec. 2003 also.
1. Could not locate most recent permit. Facility will be getting new permit in October 2004 anyway.
3. Don't forget to obtain soil samples for 2004.
3. 516104 waste anlyses: RI=1.3 libs. N/1000 gal. and RI-DM=14.0 lbs. N/ton
1
6. Not since June 17, 2004 discharge.
I
Reviewer/Inspector Name Meli s Rosebroc
Reviewer/Inspector Signature Date: o?54
1211210.3 1 Continued

Facility Number: 76-25 1*f Inspection 9/2/Z404 0
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 I" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
12112103

Type of Visit f) Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit
Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: �� . Tune:
(3 Not Operational C Below Threshold
Permitted © Certified 13 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .......
Farm Name: ...... _..... W_W..._.W_... County:
Owner Name: ..__` ... 1_.1.... Gk J __ »_ __ »» ... Phone No:
-NLw ing Address: .. ZG .. � i _I.
Facility Contact: .. Vie— GrLdi 11 v` 1 l' I'itie:................. _...... ....................... _... Phone No: _ . �:3q :,?.. W......
Onsite Representative:...... _. _._..... _... ...... Integrator: .._... _... .._.......................
Certified Operator:.._..�� ._ U ._. »_. _ »„..... Operator Certification Number:.,, M ____ _.
Location of Farm:
3Sf� � !n i n I •
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry )b Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®' ®4 A& Longitude 0 4 ©d4
' «Desilga`� ,k ` :Current
Swirls Ca d ,':Po ulatiic
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
:T Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
;U isoars
Other ,
: Total D1BW Capac><tyF
J
E
Total SSLW t
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?
a
P�) r Cod
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm, storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structur� 1� S cture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: _ 8
Freeboard (inches): —7 2_�
❑ Yes ' No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
>Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes o
Structure 6
IL5
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: '7(0— Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ treed, 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?
(I£ 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? Xyes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes „WNNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes To
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes fN
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
❑ Excessive Ponding AN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
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?
Odor Lssues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or Iagoon fail to discharge attor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional
Air Quality representative immediately.
D
3
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes No
Field Cow ❑ Final Notes
no�v.
►` J3om �-mea+ bare, < ked
r
nd Cp lqj0(
i m �r-�v le,t✓J
�r'nE,'L V °ce-) lots? opd i'10 C4#.2Q%-
_"
�3
Reviewer/inspector Name i
Reviewer/Lispector Signature:LILL Date:
12112103 OI I
AY� A�Awuj yov
•GUW0a
UK�C'_-a&'r.

Facility Number: Df Inspection
, 1 0 0
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes *0
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes XNo
23. Does :rd keeping need ' 4provement? IfZ
s, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ANo
Application Freeboard steAnalysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes Klo
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No
26. Fai gional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(i discharge freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes o
27. Did enewer/fnspector fail to discussreview/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes !`�No
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AW'1TP? ❑ Yes ❑ No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) ❑ Yes gNo
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? ❑ Yes ❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After I " Rain
❑ 120 Minute inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
J-d�-evoGd�Asm�y-a�'��n�u�t�O
�m-t EQr a�.8v ID? t'b addil ov
flu dqo /hCBfi OL - *J a�ida-wad, /6+<,e�
0
17,am�{�liae0ie-�P
N/16COT13 loq
(��.n�w �ada�/ne�c4l� WSPsa

K
Facility Number 7G 25 Date of Visit: 6/17/2004 'rime: 1500
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [j Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold, .........................
FarmName: Wdu..k:ufm .................................................................. .................................. County: RAW.Wph ......................................... WSRO........
Owner Name: ]PWI.....................
Mailing Address: 5.7.9A.A..Wher.Miliftad.............
Phone No: (3.3.61.4-95.:7.2.4.2.........
RAi7l41Ie1)Iliul...N.0................................................... 2..7317.
Facility Contact: A.lOn ar. aye e.ftlthc............................. Title:................................................................ Pbone No: 336A9.5,139.3..ulffur..........
Onsite Representative:.W.Ay10!~..gLAd l UAQ.mLt ttfie....................................................... Integrator:.......................................................................
Certified Operator:..WAyipg.l................................ BMUke ............................................... Operator Certification Number:22101..............
Location of Farm:
+arm Location: 3562 Plainfield Rd., 5 miles south of Sophia NC off at Hwy 311. Farm is leased to Arlin Buttke: 5796 +
Nalker Mill Rd., Sohia, NC 27350. From WSRO: US Hwy 311 south to Sophia. Right onto Plainfield Rd. Farm on left.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry M Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude F 35 • 46 59 Longitude 79 • 51 25
Design Current
Swine Conacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 0
I
Design Current Design Current
Poultry' Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I 1 119 Dairy 300
❑ Non -Layer I I JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 420,000
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field M Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (.If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
M Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes M No
M Yes ❑ No
M Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes M No
M Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes M No
Stricture 6
Identifier :............................................................................................................................................. ...............
....................
Freeboard (inches):
12112103
Continued

Facility Number: 76-25 Date of Inspection 6/17/2004 .
5. Are there any immediate threats to the Aty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, El Yes 0 No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ® No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes
® No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
I t . Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
14, a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16, Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Odor .Issues
17, Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18, Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
® No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional
❑ Yes
® No
Air Quality representative immediately.
omments refer to uestion # ,Ex lainian YES answels and/or, an Irecomm o
IC ( q. ) p y y endahons or any other comments f`
€ �°, � , Ertl ��. I I ,,, +i13 'i � , €; 1 I ;-�-E.E € ,. € t, , , i r,.; E . 3„ , �:,., �I# I., ]h I. I�MI :€" i i�N ,:,' k� € I:€.,...7uw..,.,a.k€u:a,.,.:.,.c.,�;.€+i.,,in:�. � ,.W�:�1,1.,.;3.rrr J»w.,..:; s ',-
Use�llla r.
g Y 1? p g essary):11a� ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes I (j
drawin s of facilit to..be ` ttec,ex lam s�tuahon additional a e sa(uses as nec
f-17,
w�
-� -
1. and 8. Today's inspection is a result of a complaint received today by the DWQ-WSRO alleging dairy waste, sludge, and foam in +
Back Creek (Class WS II; HQW). Caller also stated that there was a very strong odor in the creek. Derek Denard and myself responded
to the call.
Sludge, foam, waste and a very strong odor were observed in the stream at the complaintant's residence. Sludge worms were also present
in the solid matter in the creek. Additionally, the surface water was a "brownish" color.
Staff tracked the source of the discharge to the Ridge Farm Specifically, a discharge of silage leachate and solid/liquid manure was
observed flowing from one of the in -ground silos at the time of the investigation. According to staff observations and statements by Mr.
Wayne Buttke, the silos had been filled within the last two weeks, then covered with plastic. Solid waste from the pack barn was placed
on top of the plastic to "push the air out from under the plastic." Several tires were also placed on top of the silage/plastic/manure.
The discharge was observed flowing from the silo and downhill into a collection box, where it was then discharged from a 16" black
F'"
ticpipe and into a freshwater drainage ditch. The discharge continued downhill through the drainage ditch where it entered an
amed tributary to Back Creek (approximately 720 feet from the silo). Several photos were taken of the discharge source and receiving
er. Staff also obtained pH, temperature and dissolved oxygen readings upstream of the discharge point, (Continued on Page 3)
€
Yt a�H. Ei 3 I ! •Yi r 4 rb i""3,}
Reviewer/Inspector Name €Mali Roserock u
Reviewer/Inspector Signature Date:
11II 11n2 Vy /'nafiu and

Facility Number: 76-25 D 6 f Inspection 6/17/2004
Required
Records & Documents
21.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
® Yes
❑ No
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
®No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33.
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
35.
Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
ddltlonal COTTIllleniS and/or DraWingS:
1. and S. (Continued)
at the discharge, and downstream from the discharge. DWQ staff also took samples of the receiving stream to be analyzed for fecal
coliform, nutrients, biochemical oxygen demand, and turbidity.
After determining the source of the unpermitted discharge, Buttke Dairy Enterprises was notified of the discharge by DWQ and the
certified operator (Wayne Buttke) and his son (Auto) were on site within the hour. Wood shavings were piled at the low end of the silo
to absorb the leachate and to cease the discharge from the silo. The operator obtained a pump and began removing the liquid waste
from the collection box and transferred the waste into a spreader tank while DWQ was onsite. The reclaimed waste was then to be
transferred into the facility's waste storage pond. The discharge had ceased prior to DWQ leaving the site.
There is a drainage ditch that runs through a partially denuded cattle lot below the silos. Suggest excluding cattle from the ditch to
nce further sediment and manure run-off into the freshwater drainage ditch.
. Still need to backfill waste pond embankment. Check next visit.
Facility did not notify DWQ of discharge from the silo into the drainage ditch. Mr. Buttke stated that he had recently observed a
11 trickle from the silo, but did not realize that it was entering surface waters.
DWQ will be performing this facility's annual compliance inspection within the next two months. Will check conditions again at
time.
blank were not applicable to today s visit or this facility at this time.
12112103

vision of Water Quality .
vision of Soil and Water Conservation �
1 Q Other Agency
Type of Visit 4 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
F_ Facility Number 76 25 Date 4)1' Visit: t2l0912003 'Time: 0930
0 Nut Operationai 0 BelowThreshold
Permitted 0 Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Ahuvc 'Threshold : ... .. .... ....
Farm Name:EAg1e5.pxiDgx........................................................... ......... Connly: lbadWA.11t ............................... W,%Q.
Owner Name: �l►il-------------------------------------------------- Phone NO: { 3S 4R 1'l V 'well.
Mailing Address: MAIP1a.h ACURd.............................................................................. $QvhjA,..N..........� � ........... q. rb273.50..............
ja
Facility Contact: ...ayne.ox. AR u e......................Title Phone No: .649$ 74
Onsite Representative:'DtwD1�d1�z11u1Rtlttkt:-------------------- ------ Integrator: -------------------------------------------.
Certified Operator: '. qy.Ike.L,.............................. Awal e............................................... Operator Certification Number:22.101.............................
Location of Farm:
Farm Location: 3562 Plainfield Rd., 5 miles south of Sophia NC off at Hwy 311. Farm is leased to Arlin Buttke: 5796
Walker Mill Rd., Sohia, NC 27350. From WSRO: US Hwy 311 south to Sophia. Right onto Plainfield Rd. Farm on left.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ' A6 ' S91, Longitude 79 • 51 25
Design Current
Swine Canaelty Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current °
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Po ulation
❑ Layer I I ® Dairy 300 260
❑ Non -Layer I 1 ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 420,000
Number of Lagoons 10 Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps I ❑ 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? 0 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 f
Identifier: W_astt:.PxM&._........ .................... ............. _.--------------------------------- '.... ........................... .................._........
Freeboard (inches): 54
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 76-25 Date of inspection 12/09/2003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity 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
®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
KA No
12. Crop type Corn (Sie & Grain) Small Grain (W , Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Managen4t Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
h) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
® Yes
❑ No
i
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
o e t refe to que x lain an a d an. eco a dat vns or any other o me
a gs of facili t to e p sin ituations. u a e a eG ssa ❑ Field Copy ®Final Notes
3. Need extensive fencing on heifer lots across the road since several hundred feet of stream has been impacted with sediment and anima
waste.
Spoke with Wayne Buttke on 1114104 and he stated that about 88 cattle had been moved from the farthest pasture (by creek) and that
Barton (Randolph SWCDINRCS) had been contacted about fencing options and is scheduled to come out to the farm.
3. Need to fence out the draw, at minimum, at the lower end of the dry cow pasture and fence out the drainage ditch by 2/1104. Check
next visit. Operator may add a culvert if needed for cattle crossing.
When 1 s oke with Wayne again on 1/14104 he stated that someone was coming out to the farm today to start installing new fencing.
I :rj
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melissa Rosebrock
Reviewer/inspector Signature Date:
05103101
t J r
4
Continued

Facility Number: 76-25 1)) )f Inspection 12/09/2003
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Loading pipe in dam of waste storage pond has already been repaired due to an earlier leak. Need to backfill on back side of the 1`61
n with clay soil and seed with fescue. Operator to have grading completed by 2/l/04.
Need to repair the culvert pipe on the lane behind the barn to keep the waste from washing off of the lane.
119. Don't forget to use the PAN aount for the crop that will be using the nutrients (example: Spring -corn and Fall -small grain).
Need to add T-2327 F-2 to farm's WUP since waste was applied here in Fall 2003. The tract by "Eddie's house" needs to be
A also.
J
O5103101

n S .aC wesll-lp�r
. Division of Water Quality
• Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Vislt �6 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of visit:
0 Permitted 0 Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered
Farm Name:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:yti7 SO oL
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: _
Location of Farm: t{
v6 311 5ou
r<
COP,
tJ U T-r ic t—
OcJ IOLKe L �
Ta 9 h+ on-fo
Time.
Date Last Operated or A qoVj Threshold:
County: /I
Phone No: iz.7.2 ` 2
Phone No: _331p ,49g ,
Integrator: �f1
Operator Certification Number: 0
.--�' hta,AIC�?-7350
IIri 'he k1 )Ed - Fa-rrrn oh 1411.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 1 �" Longitude [ b ® LL
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity. Poulation
Poultry
Capacity Po uladon the
Capacity Po ulatiof `
El Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
Dairy.
gNon-Daia
El Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
:
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
oc)
❑ Gilts
Total SSLVIW
�O�}
❑ Boars
o . ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oon Area
.. Numberof Lagoons " ❑ Sprav Field Area t :,
s1 �Ioldrng`i'onds 1'Solid TrapsF fT,:
Imo- ❑ No Li q uid Waste Management System_M v ,t.,. ':
Discharges !& tre m Im act
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes KNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. I f discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (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
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 o
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes RNo
S ruct 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 /`
ldentifier;
Freeboard (inches): sit
05103101 Continued
.�a

•
Facilit}• Number: 5 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes >rNo
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 �lo
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notif}• DWQ)
7. Do anv of the structures need maintenancelimprovemcnt? 9Yes ❑ No
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
9. Do anv stuctures lack adequate. gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes No
10'aste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maihteranceiimprovement? ❑ Yes No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes IANo
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in a 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?
BjUuired Rec2rds & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Crrtif ed Ant a] Waste Management Plan .readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design. maps, etc.) // �// VI/ 4 ///
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 notif}• regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ief 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
ElYes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
El Yes No
❑ Yes 2<o
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
El Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes A XNo
❑ Yes No
Yes ❑ No
L� No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about tliis visit
..'I'�4 •-..: � �i � ♦Z :✓ I {'�......
GoIIiments'{refer• to iloestaon #).:Eitplain an EYES ataswer`s and/or as recoauaendatretts'af an �. ctimaa%ats :' i d"M1�n }
Usie'drawjngs,jf,facllity to better explain situation (use oina! pages as n e a y)<. " Field Copy
Final Notes-IAA-AJ
+. _
'
�L1J%
0& T
k � 1
.D fRt:viewernnspector ame
w:,
« ,;,,a:�,
EM
Reviewer/Inspector SignaturDate: to
F
05103101 t d V .. v - Continued

Facility Number.
Date of inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below --{�-INV
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 am- evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes No
roads, buiiding 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.)���d
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? MIT —9-t4o
32. Do the bush tanks lack a submersed fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? *es-�o
a�
MFj
I
Fff
• / i E
�/, -7 /n 3 c,?, <3 lb-6. N / 166b 7oX.
lall"1 /0-3
101136z,1-7/03 tJ
�. - a 3 a F-05103101
a
4JOP

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 25 irate ul' Visit: 10/1/2002 '1'inie: 1400
0 Not Operational C Below Threshold
Permitted S Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold; .........................
Farm Name: Ridge-F:sirot7s...................................................... ............................................. County: Wtadmigh ......................................... WSRO........
Owner Name: i'WI.......................................... RWgc ........................................................... Phone No: Q3Q..49$.:Z2.4,2.. 3.&6$.7..#44!?.. ayaP..LQ.
Mailing Address: 3562.FLU#INJUELI1MAI)........................................................... SS?PIU&NORTRICAROLINA................. 2.7259.........I...
Facility Contact: Y. AY.11e.ar.Miar.kutitkC..............................Title:................................................................ Phone No: 33.&49.$j2.7.4..(Hj...............
Onsite Representative: AAYj59.ARdAj•Jup .t tjkC....................................................... Integrator: ......................................................................
Certified Operator:.WAIXjuc.L............................... lAu ttke .............
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number: 222191.............................
Farm Location: 3562 Plainfield Rd., 5 miles south of Sophia NC off at Hwy 311. Farm is leased to Arlin Buttke: 5796
Walker Mill Rd., Sohia, NC 27350. From WSRO: US Hwy 311 south to Sophia. Right onto Plainfield Rd. Farm on lets.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse . Latitude 35 • 46 { 59 44 Longitude 79 • 51 6 25 64
K,!I�,�kA
Desi
Ca ach
��ti ,- '�s5 �nv4 .� c�rr��e:.� H;
rent Design Current Destgn� Current ,
11,6ulation Poultry . Ga acit nu ulation' Cattle Ca aci P,o ulation ;
I
.•tea.--.
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean'
❑ Farrow to Feeder
[] Layer ®Dairy 300 2137
❑Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
❑Other
Total Desi n @a ito 300
g pY
`t Total SSLW 420,000 gt"
_ F"
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 0❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
' Holding Ponds /Solid Traps1 No Liquid Waste Management System
Ascharees Kc Stream Impacts
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
'Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ®Yes ❑ No
aste Collection & Treatment
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: ...... W.aste.F.and.................................................................................................
eboard (inches): 72
75103101 1- Continued
3 0.5 Ut-,

Facility Number: 76-25 1 Date of Inspection 10/1/2002 •
5. Are there an immediate threats to the ttegrityof an of the structures observed? ie/ trees severe erosionY Y { � [3 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
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 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?
Rewired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20, Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No
[] No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
® Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
3. About 200 feet of creek in the pasture is impacted from erosion due to cattle traffic. Need to fence lower end. Received a call from
operator last week that they had begun installing the fence.
3. Are starting to get a small amount of run-off from the main lot, through buffer, and into creek during rain events. Suggest
re -vegetating this low area.
B. Need to scrape lots soon. Waste will spill over berm during next rain.
B. Suggest higher berm near hoof trim area. Need to keep waste out of surface water drain.
17. Facility did not have COC or permit on site again this year. Send NOD. Received call from operator last week that they now had a
V
Reviewer/Inspector Name lMeli sa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: j} pZ-
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 76-25 17 0
f Inspection 1011I2002
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31, Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
" rtiona +omrnen ari or raw rigs:
19. Solid manure was applied with a spreader on 8/8/02. Need to take waste sample!! About 95 tons was given to Larry
Hollingsworth for application onto hay and beans and millet.
12/18/01 Waste Analysis: 5.8 lbs. NI1000 gal.
05103101

T q M✓ 4 h 7 A 4 IDivisioa of Water Q128llty
i S d f
Q -
d Divfsio' of 961l and Water Conservativtt ` ' t l e;f
CiOtherAgency�`.
t ,
' F
- .. _, BiP f'yd, i- .r'_a .-c: ... ,. ...... r,. - ;;n -.. 1-.:..7'•. f :. y„_^c^ f},:-�: .,..
3
v
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine 0 complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
IDate of Visit: Q 'ime:
Facility Number
10 Not O erat'onal 0 Below Threshold
P(Permitted of rtifed [3 Conditionall Certified E3 Registered Date Last Operated r Abov Threshold -
Farm
Name: County: do
Owner Name: Phone No:
Mailing Address: 5- a1 Qlj
p (f
Facility Contact: /0� ne Ol WaZ Phone No: �' O ` `� a 1
7-
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: [iCJ L ' �e Operator Certification Number: 3a
r
�AMQNIIIIA M6
ATO
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®+ �u Longitude 0
:Design " Ctirrent - >: " .. Design ,'x,':current., I)esrgn Current t
` Ca aaitw� °Po ulation' . , ; ,:`Poultry -.... ICa acity Po ulaiibn
Swine � r� �;C e . Ca city, Po uEation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
[] Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
IF]Layer Da'
f ' ❑Non -Layer Non -Dal
❑ Other P
' Total Design Capac�tyl trf
Tottsl IS tw'
_
Number of Lagoons
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area
S rav Field Area ,,
/
.
v.H ding Ponds�l Solid Traps '"
, I mo;,
❑ No Liquid Waste Management S stem
f
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
El Yes )(No
3, Were there any adverse impacts or o� t l adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? Ayes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment , `
4, is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes �No
Stru tune Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: )�212d_
Freeboard (inches):
05/03/ I Continued

Facility Number: — s
Date of Inspection Vt23—P
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Aonlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence
f over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
I A .. w_ A A . 40 1
12. Crop type
❑ Yes J No
❑ Yes WO
❑ Yes ;<No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes NNo
❑ Yes >rNo
❑ Yes X<O
13. Do the receiving crops differ with thou designated in the Certified Knimal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
No
A
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
R9,LNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
o
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
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 ima] Wa I Management Ian readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
I
❑ YestNo
o
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, free oard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yeso
20. is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yeso
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
o
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
o
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
ElYes
jPN0
© No violations or were notedduringthis visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
/�deficiencies
- ) .,i...p y
Comments refer to uestion`;0 tEx lain an YE5 answers and/or ae recommendations er an o er comments. t
/ �f.. ni ii E �
.\ .q ,..✓F
Use°drawtitgs of facility to better explain situations. (use additto€ial,pages a§ necessary) ` r ! Field Conv Final Notes
d
�
kJ
p
�
,,.. ...,. „ ,, v....y._., ..,... _.. � r.
Reviewer/Inspector Name �� °P" ° ",�+,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
O5103101 Continued

Facility Number: -7— Ote of Inspecsimi
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below E-TeS`E'QO
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ]10
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? •4�i* r—'5-190
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 N
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes o
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a pennanent/temporary cover? E--i 3,--
T4 V MW
r C
WAI
�I �a► �,
r
07. Ad-t oz-, eOC
05103101
1
It
P
a

L
f Visit Q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
n for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 25 Date of Visit: 121t312001 Tine: 1330
0 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
e Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [] Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:... ......................
Farm Name: Rldgelaxw.................................................................................................. County: i,9ltxdQittbl......................................... W.SRA........
OwnerName: I'WL.......................................... Rift ........................................................... Phone No:(.33.61.493::.7242 .......................................................
Mailing Address: 35.62.PLAINDUI? ROA D........................................................... 50FRI&NOLi.TREARi,?LINA................. 2.7.35.0 .............
FacilityContact:.............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: WAyme.Auttlie......................................................... ... Integrator•
Certified Operator:N'.ayKtU............................... autt]ke ............................................... Operator Certification Number: 22J.Q1.............................
Location of Farm:
Farm Location: 3562 Plainfield Rd., 5 miles south of Sophia NC off at Hwy 311. Farm is leased to Arlin Buttke: 5796
Walker Mill Rd., Sohia, NC 27350
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Morse Latitude 35 • 46 59 {i Longitude 79 • 516 F 25
-146
-��.,� ,.�-,.�. t ,. �,,
y Designt� Current * ; Design j Current �DesignCurrent
a Swine C w' tP ulation Poult'
tY' Ca acit Po ulation Cattle Ca acit \ Po ulation
b
a r4
t:
T
$.., fix.. - -
Number of Lagoons 0� Subsurface Drains Present 0 Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
H olo /Solid Traps �1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System { .
v.
$
Wean to Feeder
(] Layer
®Dairy
3{}0 134
❑ Feeder to Finish
on -Layer
"
Non -Dairy
❑Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
� Other
300
•F � Y. � � '�r �+�+7, n n
�7�71+►'1 ; 42V�V00
❑Farrow to FinishTotalrDesIgnnnnnCapaclty-
❑Gilts
❑ Boars
Discharges.& Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier. ....... asle.Rand....................................................................................................................... I ................... I.—... ...................................
Freeboard (inches): 66
05/03101 � � � f Continued

Facility Number: 76--25 Date of inspection 12/13/2001 .
4,
5. Are there any immediate threats to the ,in egrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? Yes ®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste
Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12.
Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain Overseed
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a Iack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
ReQuir_ed_Records
&_Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
® Yes
❑ No
l8.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
S. Guttering at corner of loafing area is broken. To be repaired when barn is cleaned out.
11. No overapplication this time, but any nitrogen applied to the rye cover crop that is not harvested needs to be deducted from corn
silage in the Spring.
14. Waste application is all pump and haul.
16. All waste applications and sampling is done by Southers.
17. Need to request copy of permit from Sue Homewood 919.733.5083 or anyone in the Non -discharge Permitting Unit.
19. Waste application records were not yet available for review. Southers is waiting on waste sample results to complete records and
Reviewer/Inspector Name ;Meli R prock
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date: �
05103101 / Continued

Facility Number: 76-25 ) )f Inspection 12/i3/2001
-QAU 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
i Iona ►ommen an or aw n
05103101
05103101

(Type of Vislt Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 6 Routine Q Complaint. O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time:
Q Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Opera ed or Above Threshold; ........................
Farm Name: ..r 4..... rM .. s ... .... ............. County: .,d.o1 .h............................................
Owner Name: .... . .......... .... .
... ...``:... ....::✓".:......... I ........ . .................................. Phone
a..'..l��..l. ...... _ .......N....o..:............a.............P.....................
FacilityContact: L. . ........ ......
Titl Phone No:
Alf-Relh 3340? z�.�
l,
....�...... Mailingddre ...................................
`1
C
..........................
Onsite .Representative•.. .......... "
............................................. integrator:....................................................................................
Certified Operator:....�.......sU.�............................................ Operator Certification Number:.....:.. .f.o/.........
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry
Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®• EM`
Longitude
e WJ' ®«
Design Current `.' Design
Current' Design -Current,
Cill1aft Po ulatwh ,' PoultryCapacity,
, Population i Cade„ , .
, Capacity ,:.Population . ,.
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons
,' Holdiug Ponds.l 5olfd''Traps`:
;;�❑ Subsurface Drains Present
;:, ❑ No Liquid Waste Managen
DischaEges & 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?
Area 10 Spray Field Area F
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. It discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
.� Identifier: #l•t.7:.........
Freeboard (inches):
5/00
r«
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ,�No
❑ Yes ,jq,No
❑ Yes ®'No
Structure 6
Continued on back

Facility N mber: — a Date of Inspection
5."Are there any immediate threats to the in eegrity of any of the structures o`b�ed7treed, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence ofAver application? ❑ Excessive Ponding PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
i
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with thosAcsignated in 4ie 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?
Reauired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Q�ertified Animal Waste Management P an readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) J /
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste anal sis & soil sample reports)
P$ F g Y F Po
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?
I' +*iolhtiogs'or. dgilciendiaN *re h0te4, i 05fig 011s;v}s}t; • Y00 wil1•�ee�iye 0e futthor
correspondence about this visit.
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes J!(No
❑ Yes 4<0
❑ Yes )ZNo
❑ Yes �No
Yes *o
Yes XNo
❑ Yes
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 100
❑ Yes N No
Yes. ❑ No
❑ Yes XNo
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes IV No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Cb&6ents (refer to gnestion`#):,rExplain'a tyiYES answ s and/or any r comuieridations or any,othee,co.mments # ''
Use drawingsnof,facility p j*tter explain.sityations., (use additional, pages as aecessairy) ; H I ,r' � .F f ' „fix „r;{
1�. pit v had ham.
P .
b. Alt wao
IT 4 iV4#&W�
Sb D� a&l&q T4_j A101V- rS�
Reviewer/Inspector Name 1..
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: qjj h I Date: g/pp

FacpitmNumber. — of Lvspection
Y
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 too
❑ Yes .19No
❑ Yes ,'No
AddiOr1A Oirltll@rt at1 Or rarVtrlps . • . :. , Pt a z.
p�

Date of Visit.: sQ t 'time: %', J lJ Printed on. 10/26/2000
Facility Number
O Not Operational O Below 'Threshold
0 Permitted © Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
r �/ I
Farm Name:........1?,IW9.r..............f�.,14.g.f*.'4-.................................................. County:.. ! .N.. ..r .`............................................
OwnerName:.........(... n..!..1......'..............1..r................................................... Phone No:.....6^`..Q.�'.....:1...Z...............
�... G
Facility Contact: ..I(LiJ.............!.C......Title:...................... Phone No:...................................................
.........................................
Mailing Address:.... .5 ,�.............. . .............. ....... Q .?.!............................... l/...L.......
OnsiteRepresentative:... ji�.L........ �.O 71An... ... Integra tor:ZAfdV,,;�.�ldt,�f�'
Certified Operator: .... ,�1A,( �Ayt_ ............ATI-1 ................................ Operator Certification Number:........ .,lQ.�..........
Location of Farm:
Fi4R� �.S Lac*T .41r 41ter-lse,c. jb..1 0A ;V/04in! is d Ad A*kt /44&45 Ro* S I.A,
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Ja6attle ❑ Horse Latitude ®0 ®` �" Longitude ®' ®� ®«
Design Current
swine
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
ED$airy
❑ Non -Dairy
Total Design Capacity -,300
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid 'Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impact;
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes MI O
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ElSpray Field ElOther
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? El Yes ❑ No
h, if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If' yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. II'dischargo is observed. what is the estitnatcd flow in gal/min?
d, Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes &Ko
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes iK 6
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the Flate other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes [5eo
Waste Collectit)n & Treatment
4. ': storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than ade ,...ric? ❑ Spillway
Struc;wrc I SiruCtarc 2 :.'tructure 3 Structure -!
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
k'rcch<�aa•d (inches}
5100
....................... ....... ........... .............. I ......... ......
..............
60 `{
Continued on back

! Facility Number: •-- 2,51 Date of Inspection d • printed on: 10/26/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the l egrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes EK
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ag.<
(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? Erl es ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes 2*90
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes
Waste Application
10, Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes R14o
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes Erf:iv
12. Crop type C'prA J
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes 11t o
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® _
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes 94110
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 ReviewerAnspector 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?
• ;'IN', oies •vtre pte• dr;inY;au ;i•1; ee�iye �o; i'u�t�t+gr • • ,
corresporic[ence:abaut this visit::::.. . .
g3.. y4o. p (
Jse djawua 's of facil�t to Better ex lain`situations ase,addihoaa1;
Al S l� r u c f �% �o Grp nl I-W Al
`IVA rd C.
e vim. A0h1 ; aa4 P,j < L'A_n4, afl-S'i��i
❑ Yes MN-6'
❑ Yes
❑ Yes ED,<
❑ Yes tK
❑ Yes RVo [
❑ Yes +�No
❑ Yes 21Vo
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes 9?�o
si,145•0 SOY
/do4y
1"V1
Reviewer/Inspector Name 2r` f " 1 /f . r
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ` �C� Date: �� :.. 5'.: ��_ 5/00

Facility Number: )ate of Inspection Printed on: 10/26/2000
Odor Issues i
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes M46
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes M—W
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29, 1s the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? Allli- ❑ 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.) //11 ❑ Yes ❑ No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? Allh ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanentltemporary cover? /�/�/� ❑ Yes ❑ No
5100

t
Facility Number Dale or visit; t1/6/20U0 't'inie; 125o Printed on; 11/6/2000
76 25
rO Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
e Permitted N Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ..........................
Farm Name: Ridge.Eatrtms................................................................................................... County:>.ietndaltzht......................................... ;WSRO..e:eil y0hen�
.... •(�3bX.498..7,2.4.2...33.b..491,5210..
Owner Name: kt111.......................................... 11dgg...................................................... Phone No:
Facility Contact: Wayt e—Dj 11tkS............................................... Title: ... ... ... Phone No: 33.{,,49#,.2.7.4.w 4 Q
Mailing Address: 35.61PLAINFI.ELD-ROAD........................................................... ................. U.35.0 .............
Onsite Representative: )?.Ayjarj$.mftkr..........................................
Certified Operator:.yyAY11C................................... MIURR..............
Location of Farm:
........ Integrator: ......................... .............................................................
Operator Certification Number:2,2101...
Farm Location: 3562 Plainfield Rd., 5 miles south of Sophia NC off at Hwy 311. A
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 3S •F 467, 59 46 Longitude 79 • Si 25
1ischarges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes IN No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 2 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 8& Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: ......Waste.Pand.......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 65
5100
❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
..............................................................................................................
//I-/ vim/
Continued on back

Facility Number: 76-25 Date of Inspection 11/6/2000 Printed on: 11/6/2000
+ 5. Are there any immediate threats to the itority of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tree , 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,
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 & n9cuments
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
® Yes
❑ No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20, Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(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 yiolatiotis.. . . . . .n. P . we ....ed during this; visit. ;You:rvill irecei.. no iftir. . .
corre'suoridence:aboutithis:visit::':'_:':'::'::':'::'::::::::::'.:':'::':':':':':':':':':':
7. Loading pipe is leaking some waste from damaged pipe. Needs to be repaired as soon as possible. Need to also check holes around
loading pipe. These need to also be repaired.
S. Silage juice/waste is getting into surface drain that discharges near creek. Needs to be addressed as soon as possible.
9. Will need gauged marker per permit.
19. Waste applications in April did not have a sample that was dated within 60 days.
[Need to keep cows out of fenced buffer area by creek. Some of the creek bank is denuded. I I
Reviewer/Inspector Name IMelissa Rosebrock I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 1A j j',j„1 A i A AP J7 Date: Q:::_) 5/00

Facility Number: 76-25 10d Inspection r 1116120007 � Printed on: 11/6/2000
Odor lssucs
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 IN No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes IN No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® 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
(r,d i onia i•ommenb A .dryMarvtngsAL
5100 +
5100 +

10Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection 1Q01
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Kpermitted Certified © Conditionally Certified [3 Registered © Not Operational I Date Last Operated: .............
FarmName: ....... fir....... 50W.Mfj ...................................................... County:..... ................................................
OwnerName: ......... hlr...... ...l� .i.-.....................d.......................................... Phone No:.:.hP.......�i •4. :..�7.¢. ....................
Facility Contact: ...r........ �a.�.�' Title :................... ........ Phone No: 3V....��......],.-..}..-.�..
Mailing Address:..... �`a. .l,Q...4�...... �.�1 i.ln.. :�.. ....... f4 .......Pj.` . . .......................................... ..........................
Onsite Representative: ,W& Ltpc ...� '... ,1... Int!3rator: �r ......................
Certified Operator:. .1-le......... 6; UL\................................ Operator Certification Number:..... .............
Location of Farm:
r......... . . ......... ........... ..... ..1 — I
Latitude [ _ p i a E EZ
T, Longitude ®• ®° �«
i' �' f Design `;'Current ",
"Design Current: ';;Design Current
twine Ca 'aci : Po'ulation
' Poultry,
Ca "aci.Po ulatioti Cattle , ;, f`Ca acsl t Fopulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
i ❑Feeder to Finish
El Non -Layer y,' ❑ Non -Dairy,',
�.; [I Farrow to Wean
17°�
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
4tl
�1 t �� i �; ! ,r
`I l'3
Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity„ 3b0
❑ Gilts
Ltd 1 �`' �I
t l�l kl. IIa�7ll
❑ Boars
lE 1sE.
° E kE ,°Total SSL ♦� 1
i h�
t 1 t.
t Number of La sons ' '' '
;� ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area ,�
r ' 1
�Hnldin Ponds / Solid Tra sly
`` gp ;� E+ °' " ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System ',�ti'�i�i ,i °lti3�
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
St�ruc-turr4 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: l0
Freeboard(inches) ....................................................................... .............................................................................................................................................. ..
❑ Yes �No
Continued on back
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
3123/99
seepage, etc.)
�1
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Structure 6

Facility Number: — * of Inspection
A
. 6: Are there structures on -site which are n roperly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Al mlication
❑ Yes 9No
\./ es
t
❑ Yes
No
)(Yes
❑ No
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes *o
11. Is there evidence of over application? L❑ Bxce sive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes %No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops dif4r with those designated i the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes %No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes N6No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes &
No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes �(No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes [XNo
Required Records & Documents
'2(No
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
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
o
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
0Yes
❑ 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
WN 0
22.
rail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
o
tN
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yeso
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
VN0
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
J No
-*'1ka*6QRS.0 Orlckndle 401u% Wed. Alt; 069 Olis'visit! • yoo ;wilh.te:eo ye do;1100gr ...
�corresnorideirce.a�sout.this:visit:.•........•.•.•.....•.•.•.•.•..-...•.•.•.•.•.-.•.•.•.•.. .
a H ,§L ��c
Comments {refer to question 4) 'Explainany ,YES answers and/or any.,recoriumendations or any other comments •; 1"3l
� E �:..:i'. t - ;..�-..�.i. Ir � >, }
Use drawings'of facility to better, xplam.situahonsf (use additional pages as necessary) G �t t' ' r! I s,stT
. ,f { a . .r.•s q e u nr tk ^ i, - i E
9 - Wl 11 I���l. �"� maw � � �' �1���'► � .
See' n� r-, ,�e,I,L- . ui" le' n t�dej CX VP �`rk�c�7 a �+
.bath n PQQ1
45 +e -Coin a dk = s Sooyk a s e
ec ReviewerlInsptor NameY-'�I1J• 1���' L � y
Reviewer/Inspector Signaturesa Jl f _ 1 a« t. tbA Date: I

Facility Number: — a � at' Inspection
6dor .Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ''ffh`es^�O
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? r a6co . 27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ 1
Yes ko
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
YNO
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
fff
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? ® m j
Additional,Cqmmonts'andlor DrAwin9s
19 0 as+e ,p1 i d ', �l i o i d ��a h aO�
sov+% awv-C� k3 j i n 6 a a ~.
'4 Pne- V-
s I a e. J U t Ce/ (U) K +°
J
4m
Ot,S �oss t � le,
Mob
3/23199

Htii#M"MIXPt'.'RM M lips !IIiRw'1:
IDMoutine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other -
Facility Number
Date o€Inspection
Time
of Inspection
21��(IhnNiO�
E3 Permitted OCertified ©
Conditionally Certified © Registered
113 Not O erational
Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: .......r.......�Q/i�.
.........
J /
.... County: j fj .
Q !!
Owner Name :......1...P..tf......................
....a.d....er...........................................
Phone No: ,.. ;33(..'..:a9g... �4�?.4�........................
Facility Contact: i
t✓
u Title:
Phone No: ...................................................
Mailing Address:... 45�.........Plial..l�ti.t
1..........f�!Q'.........................
.......................................... �..
Onsite Representative: .°°' N..�........ d h��................................................
iniegrator:....... .�t"':.���P.1.�►(�4.��...........................
Lerttfted Operator: /} Q Ll L
.....N .. 7.1. ^r?� �" ........................... ..................
Operator Certification Number: s� �y
P e. I1�?_. �L.................
Location of Farm:
// Jii
1 /] / // /jfJ
ice, �,c d jr, A .i ,� ;w1 �t rSt [/Dill w f illy/kl Y/\U!/ /t l�! !L L1/,
....5 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.... ..
Latitude ©� ®�� Longitude
`
Desk iaCurrent '� ,'s�',Des�gn� 'tCurrent
`'n
r Swtne Ca atci 'Y Po ulatnoi
:,.
Pou)try
Ca 'ac 't Po' elation ' ,ICattle '
Ca ace `rPo 'elation•:
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
.,; , ..
"' ❑ Dairy 13oo
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Nan -Layer
1' ❑ Non Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
::f:= ; = • 3 = r r i i , C ] F �J stl
=
❑ Farrow to Feeder-
❑ Other
r`
d
Farrow to Finish
TOM DeSign° Capacity
❑ Gilts
r
❑ Boars
�, TbU SSQ
ali s
umber of La ` ❑ Subsurface Drains Present I ❑ Lagoon Area I0 Spray Field Area 7k
Xoons
l Holding Ponds / Solid,Traps f
' wd Waste Management S
I ❑ Nv L� •q g System
.:.,T...-_;�1,i,'..al.i.. '-.:..i..�.R}:i...'.'t:. r'S—...-i ..« 162.. ........�. .. .. _.. . ......
... ..: '..
TS 1 ? l f ,3 iA•
Dischar;ees & Stream imp
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
L PKO
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? (Il' yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
UK0
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes
00-
a No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway '
❑ Yes
O'No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: of A%1!h
Structure 6
Freeboard (inches): .... '.4:.9...r........ ....... .......
...... ...........................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
E3'4es
❑ No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
Continued on back

Facilit Number:
y At
Ote ofInspection6. Are there structures on -site which properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes 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 21<0
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes MIKOO
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? @<s ❑ No
Waste Al2plication
V'
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
It.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
&K01
12.
Crop type
13,
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑-Wo�
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
h.Ko
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
lad't`to
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
M,Lid-`10
[; - o
16,
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
941O
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
Cl Yes U410
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
es
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
®K
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
Ll No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
Yes
o
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑
(2'l
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
k
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
L -Kol
�'No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
•YiolatiQgs:o dfciencies vre Qtec1• . °ftig �hjs'visit! • :Y:©>j� :witl•reegiye �o i uipt��r • •
I".
•
CO' rreSDOn' Bence: ]Out: this Visit.. • .
g MA4ke,( k4t, 6tcr) te_a+ro)ce� . i�7A�ot ghi d k W', It "t rc #
q w4, AIb iplo %'(, �i a .✓ /'c-�c.o /, s A vh r rA ��t /�-f 1f C r �l ; �j , N� Fic c 6 c rw
re co ✓crs , Brr` Win/ S� 4��� trs : s 1 `eeP; �✓� G��9Ss7`r i4o� l c.t'�: a� j'.'c c a f arS - lar+/�
Reviewer/Inspector Name
;a
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
r.
Date: (-old --dQ
3/23/99

Facility Number: — a e of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below LKeS ❑ 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 UN6'�
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes fro
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 i o
❑ Yes 941ro
❑ Yes l.Ko
❑ Yes ❑ No /l/A

Facility Number 76 25 Date of Inspection 11-09-1999
Time of Inspection 1100 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered JE3 Not O erational Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm Name: >Midge.fA raps.............................................................................................. ..... County: RA11dolph ......................................... W,SRA........
Owner Name:PWI..........................................JR1499 ........................................................... Phone No:03.61.49.8.-7242 ........................................................
Facility Contact:Way.ap.OatIMP................................................ Title: Lmm ................................................. Phone No: .......................
Mailing Address: 35.61PLAtI!1UELD.ROAt?........................................................... 80PR[tiA,,.NORT.H.C.At3,OLINA................. 2.7.35.0 ............
Onsite Representative: j'.4 Ayjat~..13ltijkr............................................................................ Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:.yyAyjar.L ............................... buttkc..........
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number: 22101...............
Latitude 35 ' 46 { 484t Longitude 79 * 51 & 36
Design Current
Swine Capacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Soars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Cap acity Population
❑ Layer I ® Dairy 300 148
❑ Non -Layer 1 ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 420,000
Number of. Lagoons
Holding Ponds "t,Solid Traps
Subsurface Drains Present 11❑ Lagoon Area 1❑ Spray Field Area
No Liquid Waste
Dischar.es & Stream Ij t OcM
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?
® No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 . Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure b
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches)...............3.6..........................
.......................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ....................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes IN No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back
Printed on 1119/99

Facility Number: 76-25 D f Inspection 11-09-1999
6. Are there structures on -site which are nooperly addressed and/or managed through a w�management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes ® No
12, Crop type 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
IN No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(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
Nb yiolatioris;or defcienc es•were:nbted:duting this vi'it::You:will rece ve•no•fu:rthet•;
cor:resn"de" abbui this:visit. "::::::: ::: :::::: ::::::::: :::: :
Reviewer/Inspector Name JW. Corey Basinger
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
IV
on 11 /9/99

Facility Number (o 25 Date of Inspection I!
Time of Inspection /-�d 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted Certified [3 Conditionally Certified Megistered JE3 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ............. 91060.....rZM.S............................ County:.....4...i7...........................
Owner Name: /� lL /� D C Phone No (3 `-d 8 7Z4 Z
..}........................................1................................................................ •.....................................................................................
Facility Contact: /. tl .� ti! . Title:... ................................... Phone No• tr�n/3`7
Mailing Address: 3GZ l�ilu,T�.e.�d...T�l..................... !1?:cY..,............................................ ...��.357a
......... ....................... .....
Onsite Representative:...... :�.Y? ......... at.4,7k ............................................ Integrator: ......................................................................................
.......
Certified Operator:.... ... Operator Certification Number:,:�f1:2La !
Location of Farm:
AL
..........................................................I.................... ..... .......................................
Latitude 0 ®° ®'• Longitude = .
Design Current ' �'+' 5. �Desagii CurrentDesign Curre"tit,'
Swine i, Ca acit Po ulation , ,Poultry Y. , = ,Capacity , Population Cattle , Capacity . Population ,
r
i
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts,
❑ soars
' ❑ Layer
❑ Non-'
❑ Other
,t
er ❑ Non-Dai
i,
3777d0v
Discharges & Stream Impacts °
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? [:]Yes )!�No
Discharge originated at: El Lagoon El Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ZINO
h. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If ycs, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ;KNo
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/ruin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ;E(No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes VNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes U�No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes o
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 1
Identifier. `
Freeboard (inches); ..................to...............
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
................... I....................
❑ Yes P9"No
Continued on back

" Facility Number: �ol' Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are no properly addressed and/or managed through a waste 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
NNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
�No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes
�No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10, Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
1!!�No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
[:]Yes
4!�No
12. Crop type Yrt 651
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in t e Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes"%C�No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
'M`No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
;Eff No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
ENo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
A�'No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
G-No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
J! 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
E%No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
E�No
20, Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
;RNo
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
El"No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
kNo
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
QNo
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
J�'No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
9 No
P.
�Vo yiolatigr. .. deficiencipN were . Of. d daring •t)tls'vasat: Y:oii will receive ijo f tthte. :
_CO
rresnnndence: ah'Ui tfiis visit.... . ' . ...... ................... .
40

. Facility Number: —ZS Dill' Inspection •
Oder Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes V'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 WNo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes 'P'Iqo
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 1R-No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes 'f No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes &NO
AdditionaLComments and/or. rawinpps a }
a�.?�ft�.'-P... 31r3 �;��s`
1
3/23/99

p Dtvtstoin of Sotl`ander Conservati�
Urvtslon of•Soillantl' ier Conservati+
i . ; � "' �'"' '''s+', ■, Division Eof Water Quelttys , C,omplia;
:E ,d a p,Uttter Agency,:,- Openitton•aReview€n
outine 0 Lumplalnt 0 F'otlow-up of uwy inspection
Facility Number
0 Registered p Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted
mpltancelInspcctlont
io
�r.
ow -up of DSWC review 0
ler
Other
I)oIe of Inspvoionl
'I"ime of Inspecfioli
® 24 hr. (hh.mm)
in Not Operational IDate
Last Operafed:
Farm Name: Ridge.Fa.rms................ ................................................................... County: Randolph WSRO
(honer Name: Phil .......................................... Rid:E;e........................................................... Phone No: 33.614921- 242..........................................................
Facility Contact: Arlin.&.lN.ayme..Hattke...............................1'itie: Leasee .................................................. Phone No; Dfi-,495nla9a .......................
Mailing Address: 3562.P.la.intfAcURd.............................................................................. Sopbixi.NC.............................................................. . 27350 ..............
OnsiteRepresentative:..ayFm.flMtthe............................................................................ Integrator: ............................................................................ ...........
Certified Operator: Wayne.L,.............................. Ruittim ............................................... Operator Certification Number:221111.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ©0 ®L ®1� Longitude ®0 ©C ®•.
Swine Capacity Population
13 Wean to Feeder
p Feeder to Finish
13 Farrow to Wean
p Farrow to ee er
p Farrow to Finish
p GIIts
p Boars
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
p Layer — ri airyp on- ayer Non -Dairy
p Other
Total'Design Capacity 275
Total SSLW L 395,090
`; Number of Lagoons '/ HoldingTonds'0 .0
u
sur ace
rains
Present 1JEEM-00n
Area
[3pray le rea
0
1 ul
q
as a
ana emen
g
Y s em
General
I. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
0 No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
p Yes
® No
Discharge originated at: [3 Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. I I'd ischar-c is observed, was the conveyance man-niade?
p Yes
® No
b. Ifdischarge is observed, did it reach Surface Wmer? (!ryes, notify DWQ)
p Yes
®No
c. II'discharge is observed. what is the estimated flaw in gal/min?
d. Does discltargc bypass a lagoon system`? (If yes, no. DWQ)
I7 Yes
®No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
p Yes
®No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
p Yes
®No
5, Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
p Yes
®No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes
®No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
p Yes
®No
7/25/97

Facility Number: 76_ 5 1);Ite f�5'ped 011
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on sit� 'lich need to be properly closed? � p Yes N No
Structures (Lagoons,14oldina Ponds, Flush Pils, etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Yes N No
Structure I SIruCTUrc 2 Structure 3 Structure d Structure 5 StRIClUre 6
Idem i l ter:
Frechoard(11):...............5.................................................................................................................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? Cl Yes N No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? p Yes N No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? p Yes M No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? p Yes ® No
Waste A 1 >lication
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 ....... lwam..(Silag,a.&,.GXAin.)....... .Snaall.Grain.[:WheaL.B.arley, ...............................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated N[tke',4nimal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? p Yes N No
17, Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
IS, Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Onh,
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
.. o.via tons. or crenczes•were.no a anng is visit:. You ww .receive na further.* . - .
,co't'e6odnk0c� 'pWtit :t lis visit:: • . • . • . • :... . :::. . . . ....::.:. .
p Yes ® No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
Comments ,(refer,to'question #) ; Explain anyiYES;answers'and 6r anyrecommendations or�any,other comments
�
n `:� ;'�q'€aa i
Useyilhgwmgsiol facility; to better,,explamfsttuattons r(use,fatldjtionaf pages as necessary) t1f r
=.f:
( `(
..� I tS�. € �I $ i fYi BE 9.}� i�' ;� r
iI ' I iv`F..3 i
FACILITY SHOULD BE CERTIFIED BY DEADLINE.
RECORDS WELL KEPT.
FACILITY IN GOOD SHAPE AT TIME OF INSPECTION.
Reviewer/inspector Name W ope Basm er I '_ r ' 'i' �< " - 3 ' I -
1 Y S ��,,
3
� (
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:

0 Division of Soil Water Conservation 0 Other A
['$'Division of Water Quality
Routine O Coni faint O Follow-u of I)W ins action O Follow-u of I)SWC review O Other
Facility Number ZS Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection / S' 24 hr. (hh:mm)
12tiegistered ©Certified 0 Applied for Permit O Permitted JDMA22eraional ,QDate Last Operated: ..........................
PtD[mE ��1S County: kA,(V&1_P V -WS f"o
Farm Name: .... .......................................................................... ...1...................
Owner Name: Pk` + �r p�L .............. .. Phone No: C 36) 4fg 9z4-z-
.......................................................... ............................................................... ....... . ................
Facility Contact: u:J Lt�A�/!u� &u`7 Title:... See Phone No: ( rru..4.fe..: z ....
3�J �15 - i 3-13
Mailing Address: � .4, t, e G 2.,...,..3' .
............z..........!................�....k'.�.....................................................':�........................................................... �.
Onsite Representative: ..... !�'� ' n e l� Integrator;
..................1...................................................... ...........................
Certified Operator; ..... .....Q `j ................................. L..................... ... ... . Operator Certification Number;.......Z z,i O
..... .............. ...... ......................
i.nn�atinn nFFs�rm�
Latitude Longitude
Desrgn Current Design Current ro
Swine $ Capacrfy"'Noulatiori Poultry . Catiacity Population C
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
. T1
l.M)airy I2 GGo
❑ Non -Dairy
rj z
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes 3� No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes b—No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes E�No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes Dj-i'Qo
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 t!�No
3. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes L*No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes J�' o
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes )M-No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes allo
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes 1�xNo
7/25/97

Facility Number: —
9. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on Which need to be properly closed?
i
structures (Laaoons.Holding Ponds, Flush fits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft): .................. .................... .......... ...................... .......... ......................... ....................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes gNo
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes SkWO
❑ Yes J&-No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes �i-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 JNo
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes ANo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type................. .��?.":`�............................................J�..":t. ..���r� !!....................................................................................................................
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes 'i'Ho
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes eNo
19.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes 4No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes -ETNo
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes f'No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes �U No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes J,�3'No
For Certified or Permitted Faciliti"nly
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No
No.vitilations-or deficiencies were-ntited-during this:visit:• You.4ill r&e' ive•n6ldrther• ;
cofO pi)WOO 6hoijt this:visif.• : ; ...::.: .
1.
&CA-Z I
�d
-- 4
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
I Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: G'

'4
O xourme O t ompiaint O ronow-up or owy inspection O rc
Facility Number
Registered p Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted
Farm Name: Ridge.IFarms.................................................................................
Owner Name: Phil..........................................Ridge ..........................................
Facility Contact: Arlia.BiuUke.......
Title: Leasee.......
Mailing Address: 3:5tii2..P.lainfaeld..[ d................................................
Onsite Representative: 1?l'.ayneffuttlm..............................................
CertifiedOperator: .................................................. ................................
Location of Farm:
O
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
IA Not pera Iona Date Last Operated:
........ County: Randolph WSRO
....... Phone No: 9.Ift 498-.7.242.............................................�... `I'
... Phone No: 9.0 4954.191.�.........S.?.'.j_1
.................. Sophia.].l c-............................................................ 2,73.5it............ -
.. Integrator: .........................................................................
............... Operator Certification Number:.........................................
Latitude ©•®' ®66 Longitude ®• ©6 ®66
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? 0 Yes N No
r
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes R No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes N No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) p Yes ® No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) p Yes ® No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p Yes Ig No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? p Yes ® No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require p Yes ® No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? p Yes ® No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? p Yes p No
7/25/97

Facility Number: 76_25
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on sit hich need to be properly closed? Yes 0 No
Structures (Lagoons,Holding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (Freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft): ............ .l.Q. L............................................................................................................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? p 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? p Yes ® No
(if any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? N Yes p No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? p Yes M No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type.......C.arn.4Silage.A.Ctraia)....... 5malLQraia.(Whca1,.Baracy.......................................................................................................................
Mifo, �als)
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in e nimal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? p Yes p No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities 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?
. , ..o.via iions.or iciencies•were.no e . uring is visit.. You. will.reeeive n� further . • .
goxte$odn erie� aWtit :tiffs v�s1t: ; ..:... .
p Yes p No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes M No
p Yes p No
0 Yes [3 No
p Yes p No
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �� u__V Z_7"I15� Date:

&15 W
' DSC Am Feedlot Operation Review r
[DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection y
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number eta Z
Time of Inspection �4 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Registered O Certified Cl Applied for Permit. O Permitted C] Not Operational" Date Last Operated:..........
Fartlt Name: �/17G� ��M5 County: I nit�d�oi� kcloo
.................................................................................................................................................................................
Owner Name ............ y9k.o.4......................... Facility Contact:Title
IMailing Address:...... ..., Z,.......,
Onsite Representative: .... ..�..-t..-.!5...8.!.[-E............................................
Certified Operator; .............
Location of Farm:
.......... I......... Phone No: ..... `rl,P2..�8..r.,�4?.............................
PhoneNo:...................................................
................... ...ifs./...�C...............................,.......... ..� ..
Integrator: ......................................................................
7FiyPa�4Ry
Operator Certification Ntttttber,.................... .................. ..
�-Rn� utT�d�%
..................................................................................................................... ................
Latitude • ®1®44 Longitude ®• ©° 3(o ii
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
Z
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity.
Total SSLW
3g4-
Number of Lagoons 1 Holding Ponds JE1 Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maitile nance/improve ment? ❑ Yes &No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes -J;� No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ONO
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If ves. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes 45Vo
c. If d.ischar,-t is observed, what is the estimated now in .;al/min?
d. Does disch:u•ce bypass a lagoon systetn'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes tTNo
3. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes tTNo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes IWNo
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes ;9No
maintenance/improvement?
6. is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of desiDn? ❑ Yes 'ET'No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
7/25/97 Continued on back

Facility Number: — 2�
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes MNo
Structures (Lagoons,flolding Ponds, Flush Pits etc.1
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'? ❑ Yes fiRNo
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure. 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(tt):............ i.. ..... ........... ..:.,............ ..................... ................................... ...................... .................................... ....................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes Aldo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes _O�No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
PNo
(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?
VYes
❑ No
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application'?
❑ Yes
/)EQV,No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop
type .................. !...................................... ................... ...........
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
';K-No
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
E�No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
(TNo
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
'S No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes ®-No
22. Does record keeping need improvement'? Cl Yes No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No
No.violations'or. deficiencies were note'd-during this:visit.-:You4111 receive ago further
correspondence about this:visit:
Comutents(refer tv,411 uestion #).:Explain any YES answers'nnd/or any'recon iticndations Oran other comments
Use dt=awings of faciil ty to' better explain'sttuatttns. (ase additional pages as neecssary) y
CiJ C1`101 a _�f,C- r� 'I !aL -{e 4
ViN
�'� -4,
1,3 • 1`�R�S�iSr.+JG Wt I� 5�-r" �l�d�a�-5 �v ►�t,lC.ac.d'
lG - 106 f7H a - r-r_
l ase v 4y Bra -� �� ' 10►',
!h Dd � S dtG � e ���L-� � �i�a r e- . w PIS cat �`cR � 7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name..:.~ ^3,4�jil��y
�<
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date30 OeT-17ri vZ