850001_INSPECTIONS_20171231

- - 0 Division of Water Resources El Division Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
850001 Facility Status:
Inpsectlon Type:
Compliance Inspection
Reason for visit:
Routine
Date of Visit:
07/10/2017 Entry Time: 10:40 am
Farm Name:
Edsel Bennett Feeder Pig Farm
Owner:
Edsel Bennett
Melling Address:
1255 Andrew Bennett Rd
Physical Address:
1255 Andrew Bennett Rd
F it Stat
Active
_ Permit: AWS850001 ❑ Denied Access
Inactive Or Closed Date:
County: Stokes Region: Winston-Salem
Exit Time: 11:45 am Incident #
Owner Email:
Phone: 336-593
Danbury NC 27016 A 463 —7106
Danbury NC 27016 ( e- g Q 3_ 9 2/ 2_
ue.
ac Ity Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator.
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36' 28' 01" Longitude: 80° 10' 03"
5 miles north from Danbury on Hwy. # 8, right onto Andrew Bennett Rd. to farm on the left at the end of road.
Ouestlon Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Henry Eddie Bennett Operator Certification Number: 16789
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representadve(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Eddie Bennett Phone
On -site representative Eddie Bennett Phone
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebrock Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
7. Some ruts have been replaced on the dam, much betterl Thanks. Please continue efforts.
7. Control of vegetation and burrowing animals is much betterl Please continue efforts.
9. Continue to plug holes around base of houses to exclude freshwater.
17. & 32. Part of field 4 has salvage cars parked on it. Will need to remove these, reduce available acreage in waste plan, or
reduce permitted swine numbers.
21, 2016 soil tests were not completed. Complete within 30 days or NOV.
IllpdateCSoil samplles,received.by.lab on 8/8/2017. MMR
24. Calibration due in 2018.
25. Sludge survey due 12/21/2019.
�J/o� zo
za�]

•
Permit: AWS850001
Owner - Facility :
Edsel Bennett
Facility Number: 850001
Inspection Date: 07/10/17
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Feeder 800 300
Total Design Capacity: 800
Total SSLW: 417,600
Waste Structures
Dlsignated Observed
Type IdentiRer Closed Date Stan Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon LAGOON 24.00 1 29.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS850001 Owner - Facility : Edsel Bennett Facility Number: 850001
Inspection Date: 07/10/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection -Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yea
No No No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
0 ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0 ❑
❑
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 observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yea
No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑'
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
M
❑ ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
0
❑ ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yea No Na No
10. Are there any required butlers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS850001 Owner- Facility : Edsel Bennett Facility Number:
850001
Inspection Date: 07/10/17-•-- Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
-Routine
-
Waste Application
Yes
No Na No
Crop Type 1
Fescue (Hey)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No No 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?
❑
No
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
M
❑ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS850001 Owner - Facility : Edsel Bennett Facility Number. 850001
Inspection Date: 07/10/17 - - -- _ Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine --
Records and Documents
Yee
No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
MCI
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑ 0
❑
(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
❑
moo
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge surrey
❑
Failure to develop a PDA 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?
❑
M ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yee
No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
11013
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
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 regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
0
❑ ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
M ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
M ❑
❑
page: 5

for Visit: U Routine O Complaint Q Follow-up 0 Referral Q Emergency 0 Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Timed 1Q () Departure Time: County: 54Q5 Region: WS—R—Z
i'.� �'.• 'L' i c
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
^Facility Contact: E p1,(,{ t,Q_, 6My\e�+ Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Phone: S'q 3 9 1 � 7-
Integrator: SY1a2. &A3t 4-
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: e
36°a�'o I t r Longitude: Q, I Id 0 3 t t
N I♦wy '? A rein Penn
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean [o Finish
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dai Calf
Feeder to sh
Farrow [o Wean
Design Current
, Dr, P,oultr, C:a aci P,o ,
La ers
Dai Heifer
D Cow
Farrow [o Feeder
Farrow to Finish
60
0
Non-Dai
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes O
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a
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 oNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - O • I Date of Inspection: 0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
l� Identifier:
j� Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
Structure I Structure 2
I
Structure 3 Structure 4
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
❑ Yes
0No ❑NA ❑NE
❑No ❑NA ❑NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes PC No ❑ NA ❑ NE
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan? T
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
w
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? I Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? 7❑"' 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 ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? �,//
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes I yfl No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN> 10%or 101bs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s) v e.5 c V e— (
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes N ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes .rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes YNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes P�rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes VNo
o ❑ 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 ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. oes record keeping need provemen[? If yes, check a appropriate bo ow. Yes 2PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
ste Applic ion eekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil AWeather Code
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly andl?'Rainfall Inspections Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes Z No ,�❑,,��N""A ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No A ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - Q f 70 1 Date of Inspection: 0 )
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 P"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?
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.
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes J�(No
❑ Yes XNo
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes ONO
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �No
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? Yes ❑ No
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes No
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? [:]Yes ONO
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other cor
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
V�e to t to c► borrow inl an i moa15 Con {rowed c Nq V* be,Wer { P leAse.
. b1 1(� So i l tes+5 co I�+ec9 ? NO - 30� � 0►1,°l'1 n u e, e-S'-,�o ►�+�
Ci.o..l�ibu-a.q-ion dveir� aotFSo � 2et;e��e.i� 6v� �o.b �s{�/�-►.
Stuct e.5urve_y Ave, 12-13112019,
P-L>+5 " AD-M te�airp� ? BQ{ ! I 1 fl[iXltC.s, Y�2Q52 �dnl�InUe
14
holes turour\d baste of hOuse5 tm e 1
6' -field 4 has 57Q1v CO-4-5 p Lox 1C.6s n ri-.
I �J1 { l ►'1 Pao) � rem o v �-N�Le-S�e l '
1nuJa5t� 9�oto of r&aua2 ptrvy\t4eA 5twi n2. ►nuaxbe-03•
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatm
Page 3 of 3
Phone: —716 —969 9
Date: 1% 101 ZO17
21412015

? 9 7 e
for Visit: (W Routine 0
Referral
Other p Denied Access
Date of Visit:
ij 7/ rrivaf Time:
�7�
Departure Time: ®O
County: ��
Farm Name:
46 F;0,P AQ.r
{�
Y t r� Fp�It—M
Owner Email:
Owner Name:
EcM
1e pew e,�E
Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
E al oil 2 e) e)A'n f.4 Title:
A -
Onsite Representative: I 1 -r
Certified Operator: ?
Region: JL359,()
a%
Phone: Sq 3 — 7 1 & a
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: A Latitude: X%1 61 t. Longitude: le 1 Q f d 3 1/
Swine
Wean [o Finish
Design Current
CLpLcjtm Pop.
Wet Poultry
I jLaycr
Design
Capacity
I
Current
Pop.
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
I)r. P,oulta
La ers
Design
Ca racit 9
Current
P.o P.
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
4X60
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turke s
Turke Poults
Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 2(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes CPO
O
❑ � Yes 40
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: LO
Date of Inspection: Q
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 7777❑'���� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: (.29OOn
Spillway?:
T
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):_
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental
threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
r❑� Yes
5No
❑ 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
1z Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
W 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 Pending ❑ 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): pe-srUo— 40.V
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ICJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
jNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
2L D s record keeping need i provement? ❑ Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
rite Applicati n '� 'ekly Freeboar ❑ Waste Analysis �il Analysis [j'utlaste4iarrsfees �eather Code
1 tainfall 014ocking 9crop Yield 12620 Minute Inspections ❑Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
s/ �dge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes I XI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [3 Yes 7❑' No JSrNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: S - t7 f Date of Inspection: t7
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes tKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a PDA 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
Other Issues 7777ii
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
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?
q.
:fer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any addi
of facilitv to better exolain situations (use additional oases as
❑ Yes
®'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
�[ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
ons or any other comments.
s�p�-. �oc+.' 15 o.Qp 1 i cation records 2 Q�
)'burro Lo holes/ +alb ve�e.�a �-iov� oh clam 2 Need +0 5 rct ,,�/;n y
�*Burro(,} holp,5 ►n bui 14 in 4 S ? be,ge�}ir� CV q o brK
J f-0.� t.u4#�
�Sotl t�s�s dutn aa4�./�er� �tw/b(Q
�alibro��%ion due- P.oli. L:69��� ,��lg� . aolbeo"k�_+ed,dve.aom
Pu t�vtpp(,, �� u i p rm�n-V- i n S� i l w 2 Pu uwP is a ofe: a=
So survey dut✓ 1a �3�Iaolge "o)'_ts O-S sltrd e� +�e�
nS `to be rev,� ,oA since��sur�aee" S(vd�� u�as obser�rec)
-t e qqv* r5 (i re 06 uo vL OI'L 6v i (J I nj5 fe l S �O �S o f IVo VI
Ple�s� c e � rvi 5 �n d CAU&-d by ha-4"l
5 Sc a l�ea,�1� -hra C*o ✓-
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3of3 '1t-J0
ose for
Phone: -17 to
Date: 01 to
21412014

LE J
(Type of Visit: (I Compliance Inspection U Operation Review U Structure Evaluation Q) Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit:( 4 dRoutine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emereencv O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: (.a Departure Time: County: s l0 K-P Region: W j 2Q
Farm Name: Ken ry Fp-AAeff Pto F4rM
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Owner Email:
Phone:
,,�a7o14
Phone:
Integrator:t:�`Q�d'eJVI�
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
o I u 0° 1 03 "'
� Latitude: 36 ;%� � � Longitude: � IQ
Swine
Wean to Finish
Design
Capacity
-urrentj
Pop.
gn
Wet Poultry Capacity
La er
Current
Pop.
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
W 00
1260
Design
Dr, P,pultr. Ca U
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Current
POP.
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
❑ Yes NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
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
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
L\f
21412014 Continued

Facility Number: C) jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ YesNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Ye
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
it -o W`Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: t)Otrl
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):�S
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
NalNo
❑ 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
❑ Yeso
❑ 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?
XYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
;R"'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
gYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
M'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
JVNo
❑ Excessive Pending ❑ 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): FV450ue'
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
5 'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
DjlFlo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Oyes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes Dff No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. oes record keeping need i provement? If yes, check the appropriate box belo ❑ Yes IXNo [:]NA []NE
aste Applic tion eekly Freeboar Waste Analysis oil Analysis �afers ❑ other Code
Rainfall 1/ Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections onthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections lodge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes Y No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No R "'A ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection: eZ
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
NKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
,WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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 PKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes CSriQo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, Freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes CR'No [:]NA [:]NE
❑ Yes CR<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes to ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes gNo ❑ 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).
% • NoIP /*Y_1641 on on Jo-r4 eVi6r+5 {A sera_kj VY\00 o
a t tests d ue ao16.
C&A i b ra-41 on due a o 1 S, C6*t fit -W 1 t Q a O 11
5(u&3e, Survej d u e- aol5
5Pri ng Sfe &_na_l \{ 51_5 y)
SP.�fQl Jo I holes 'Ih Psur�io-�Fbr� alb' ®r Ip�'Ip� rouv�d le v�� t Ue. A-6
burIOLOIq tfnal5. Coot& CAose- 6:15ho�e h� uSh Pl� (ri hou
YSeQ� � �neCcMe, (�\oc�ce�j `
i$, Punt'ln� 291u,�mR��' loert ec1i11 sp�tl needs A-& be- woued� 5
SU�OVY� �tce.5 kada� e �(� 1Z Qnt� ne.Ce56GX3 r"rs.
U-� UAkf5� U_M� OT kP17 St&$01
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
ReviewerQnsp ctor ignature: `�1/
Page
biros
Phone: 1-76 - Q 0 9
Date: oZ rZ
2/4/2014

11 ►f 4 2 ?7
91 'A ON
r-
121
boy
n
A

(Type of Visit: /' Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: Routine O Comolaint O Follow-on O Referral O Emergencv O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: j ' Arrival Time: Departure Time: �5� �ountyi 9.�
Farm Name: �,ylMA FP.Pj14e4 ' P iQ Fa rM Owner Email:
��
Owner Name: FAA6 i L /Q� n!JP e Phone:
Mailing Address: Id SS A nd � eu� Aen yi # Fa.rn L R of "han 6 L)
Physical Address: W
Region:
Facility Contact /�At711 _�1V12'C+ Title: Phone: ff
Onsite Representative: Integrator: Sf 1(�Q�f►p�Ji�
Certified Operator: Certification Number-*:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
70
G Hvil 7
Nor+h
n reu)
ne
Swine
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
Wet Poultry
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dai Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
50
Design Current
�Du P,oultr. Ca aci P,o
D Cow
Non-Dai
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
•
Layers
Non -La ers
Pullets
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turke s
!TurkeyPoults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 21412014Condnued

Facility Number: ;s - Date of Inspection O�
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus stone storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes Q� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? El Yes /❑' No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: tactoon
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
/
I � 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?
0Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑"""""" Yes
j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
T
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
[Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
ONo
``''``
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
A 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)7
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
2rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
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 rovement? If yes, check the appropriate box belo ❑ Yes No ,{ NA/ ❑ NE
r�tll L...�.. T...«.. C- ' ,yam
[e Applica ' n Weekly Freeboard ❑Waste Analysis oil Analysis Ly�.�..-1.�....Frs LL..00 �' �. Bather Code
Rainfall Stocking ❑ Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections onthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections [ge Suwe�
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes O�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 21412014 Continued

Facilf Number: - O . 1 Date of Inspection: j
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
G§ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
ENo
❑ 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
XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
% No
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
tYl 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:
�/No
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes WeNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
IComments (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).
7, burroo hole_. rgoureA Please- Conj-v%ud_ z'p'
15. Uelm-i&�Jov1 )n agpl'l a"on old o(de,$ �
I. Soi( test-S dye dots
(90LAibra*�on d.�e dots,
W ve�k.+ia v� o to dam
Y25� LooK,S �c ooc�
) ao3 5e S
t1Vagurve�.1 Cl.onp16te-d, Surve t� Ao f "Ulre
AS4
0 (k,n Vvl+�I d tSo 1
vJaie-r- belou) -be, of
t„
LjajjK_. No Wash o 6st7r-veA. Mo
VJ(%t p Io..r tS or- e)C. Czs s t tr e_l j jr
ee-41,
wet- we .Seep or S P i-J _ i d
v! je_c a Grn noked, Could Ve
'>'ee,a -b tv� r- Okf plu� wa &tom 4.5 we' odl e r
-thC' w a r\ a e-&
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
rl / f)oLSfe- ow�a.l
allatls tosNAAwovih
11 )d( Q 4�
1s5a R65e,,broc Y__ Phone: 9 �t%6 7µ-%gj
_j►p.C/V (.(Irsy Date: I yl I 1
21412014

Reason for Visit: ,) Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral
Assistance
Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: ; 00 County:573K. Region: LOsP13
Farm Name: is/! it//% :.♦ Owner
,
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
r' t
Physical Address: �
Facility Contact: G&Ld Jjp`Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: E(� d Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design
Swine Capacity
Wean to Finish
Current
Pop.
Design, Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Cattle
Dai Cow
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
(Q
Design Current
Dr, P,oultr, Ca acif PoIn
La ers
Dai Heifer
D Cow
Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
jBeefBroodCow
Other
Other
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ 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?
Pagel of 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: / Date of Inspection:
p ation equipment
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste apas required by the permit? ❑ Yes I/u No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes �Vo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28, Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes 4 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.
TT
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
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
K 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 vases as necessary).
o2013 Sa 1 lc,
0,oJi bra* on due ,�b1S�1 Cg 1� r� a,O 1 Z'
gal a'Br aol3 .s(udje 5v, vQy
\t)Urt`01-0 �rke5
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature,
Page 3 of 3
i s 3 L: " v<__ o. a11,)
2
1 %i3l�aa�Stl •
alAt_ 'At
Phone: 77 1 -5 a V
Date: 1'
1/412011

Facili Number: jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes MNo ❑ 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: V
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 I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan? ;1
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? 4 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? 0 Yes CSrNo ❑ 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 tNo ❑ 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? "J
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [-]Yes I )Q. 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 App rued Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
In
❑ Yes
C�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
IlQ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑WUP El Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need m ' proveent? ❑ Yes 14 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application [Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis [5"ft iste-TTat"fers Weather Code
Rainfall 021stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ;K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No rX NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

for Visit: (Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied
Date of Visit: j 'I(- rrival ,Tlime: O Departure Time: ► / ry 9 i County: S -p Region: •0$ (2U
Farm Name: F—d'tSPj J�C"IP.nne4 � r� m Owner Email:
Owner Name: F d (� i e. 13 -e-n nzA Phone:
Mailing Address: laSS 14ndre0 P"sie_* 2d.u r y , NG a ,fo
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Sam e-
- p J1, e— Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified ODerator.
Integrator: �—
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: 7e/a [�� Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
- f / (o a --
na r-41 i
�? kid re -) Yt? h ne 4Ijjjjjjj
Design
Swine Capacity
h
Current Design Current
Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
DairyCow
er
Non -Layer
DairyCalf.
ish
an
der
WFarrowto
Farrow to Finish
'
a Upp SeJw�,e, 5 Design Current
"2 °D , j$op fr. Ca aci Pao
Layers
DairyHeifer
D Cow
Non -Dairy
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. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)? _
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 1�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 1❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes IY I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 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 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: Oq 0 00 r)
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes IX I 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 oNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes [@ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes CZNo ❑ 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 Jy No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? %
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes NN0 ❑ 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): v
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes [Q ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes to ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes �' o ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
❑ Yes 06 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes CRrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check [:]Yes 113'1�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
�2l. oes record keeping need i provement?1 es✓ No ❑ N ❑ NE
Lh ste Applica ion Weekly Freeboard - [1�Waste Analysis Soil AnalysisasEe�nnsfers Weather Code
Rainfall 12(stocking [Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and l" Rainfall Inspections lodge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes I'&lo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No P NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: D • 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 ErNo ❑ 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 ;d No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes CRNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes [gNo ❑ 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 Io ❑ 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 Cj�TIo ❑ 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
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes
01-Ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
[el
❑NA
❑NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional., recommendations or any other comments..
se ; I
Use drawines of facility to better explain situations (use additional oas ns necessarvl
1 M a0I( ofn? aj ao It . ao 1 D Go
. do1 � Cal i bra.l-i tin Con1.Q le-hecl �
i v201a2 SIuCl9t� SUrtf2tt % NDA- � I
ov) rov�h
n kk
;PPOlI = 1,5 lbs.NIt000�,
719/aoti = I.9 Ib5. NI loon os
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3of3 S$5'(,Ja hFo'St' I L"5 / a7I0
7
Phone:
Date:
21412011

Reason for Visit: G Routine 0
0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergenev 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: �� Departure Time: S County: s+o jte,5
Farm Name: c—z z J 5 ejJ 5 eIj 6 ,e p n e-4 EQ rm Owner Email:
Region: L05 t2.8
Owner Name: `, dd 12 laepm nG Phone: 534— 23 -G V /�d�
/
Mailing Address: ja, SS A nJ reo -P_!/l ne� Rd.,,l l, t`1 C '2 7 110
Physical Address: O_tn 2
Facility Contact. G(I �i Q- ul p_{f - Title: Phone: 09 3
Onsite Representative: G— d l-e— Integrator:
Certified Operator: U— M 1 Q Bey, Certification Number: 6 Hr e. b U
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
t and U onto ArA reLJ 3-e.A ne
aoia
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Discharges and Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes to 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)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - Q • 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: Q Q 66
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):3 ,..�
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
lye I 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 [ 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 IQI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? j
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 ;3 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
i No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[t No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes a'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes F(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑Lease Agreements ❑Ot r:
�21. oes record keeping need i rovement? I
�as[e Applica 'on ekly Freeboa d Q Waste Analysis Soil
ainfall Stocking dCrop Yield a120 Minute Inspections tonthly
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
Yes [:]No
❑
rLv _ T-,,.. r......
Analysis i ....���-�,�..�.��
and V Rainfall Inspections Sit
❑ Yes P No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NE
IVA Lj NE
NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - 0 Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste appliL`Rfon equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ��Z((( No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check Yes No
e 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?
Otherlssues
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?
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ,�/�, No [DNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ryP No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[-]Yes [5�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes CKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes jjj"No
❑ Yes (INo
i
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ Yes to No ❑ NA
Use drawings of facility to`better explain situations (use Additional 'pnges as'necessary)"i,'' (a ,t° +;`i3t`ri ^(;"s )'i Wjk4
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
V,2-'
brt4-�on eont(�le+ed i' n aa►o— -0ue, a�Qin by 0CA- . 201a,
01a 51UCIS surv�c�?No� Cor le{e�ls a2ol�olone I -Tr+.at. 7.-►'
al
rt—
al al � ► wa.a�
s11�/ll li
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of
.- ►.S lbs.
Phone: -7 -1 1 — SotO�
Date:
21412011

5-
of Visit jXdoTpliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit XR6utine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 05 1'2- 0 Arrival Time:
Departure Time:
I _7 I,J
—Owner
County:
�Email:
�f�es
Region: WSRO
Farm Name: ESL I F"V e+' 17afm
Owner Name: Enid j e �eti 41
1 I
e. 4-4- Phone:
\
Mailing Address: Z✓rS AAttW
RJ,
p0.�
G
2101
Physical Address: SgMe-
Facility Contact: cAe- j3e.4,1e.4 Title:
Onsite Representative: II64Ai QJ II
Certified Operator: �d JI e, I�yAA e,4
Back-up Operator. e-dId�,
Location of Farm:
Phone NZ722 3 — 8l G Z
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: 00 28 �" Longitude: $0 o �. 03
8
War A� o AAdrt j BeA-4-_-4 'Rd,
•
Design Current Design Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
10 Layer I
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
1 10 Non -Layer I
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
ig QO Ela Layers
L
El Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
El Pullets
❑Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes I$ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes /❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
0
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
12128104
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Continued

F.
Facility Number: g j — 0 � • Date of Inspection 7s !Z 8 •
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA El NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: I—o16O o tt
Spillway?: ye5
Designed Freeboard (in): / $-F .i
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes )No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes �(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
ir
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? MY\/❑,,es ��� No NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? /❑Yes I(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 �IYes ❑ 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 PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window [] Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
���❑///YesNo
Qr�Yes
❑.,(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination9
0 Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
ttL��blrr
yy No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
,
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (`refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or, any other°comments;
Use drawings of facility to better,explain situations (use addtGonal page`s as necessary)
; Sa
k;
—i.^iS
Slwdjz an -41 remoeJ 7 � t
caaLtsi05 Lor'iiin��J{.51 y C e��'YoL�jt'�
^�
7 DqM wte,�ed d-sP�7eo.
n�,'•-rata.
tht7r►ezds -� ►�
avo d �jv>1�=I vu� l kI 11 �� v�Q
�%►orn
n
a-X)
eviewer/Inspector Name . _ "`
i. J.
"°T ' t '•) ' t `"1°�g ''.
[n -;a .^U: .: '*' Phone:
7
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
OS Z n
Page 2 of 7e&
� r � a.)—"*
, — * (d = /a %Z/28�#4 Continued

Facility Number. Ql *of Inspection OS /Z /0 •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 0Tlo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need im rovement. ❑ Yes X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
NPp65gnl
�asi Appli��ion Wee ly Freeboard aste Analysis Soil AA alysis Ru�rasie nartsfzr� n�A
1]Q Rainfall E Stocking u Crop Yield 120 Minute Ins ections �Z( nthl and V Rain Inspections ®'Weather Code
P Y P
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes VNco
*A [I NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? El Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes QQNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? El 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 El NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal? At
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? El Yes j�,No [I 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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes NVNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
-_a
Additional Comments.and/or Dratvnls:, ,, ,tr;', a ��.,„�, - , , ,
tom/ r1j 1d-oll :� kple-) -(br 200'7 ? �
OLmkrA
gtt//C�i
V / Soto
11140.
�wa,#tz a4ui -L o =
).;I-1h-S-N/I000Tq.
Page 3 of 3 11/28104

II Division of Water Quality
Facility Number l v II
�J 1-1 v 1 I� �� Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit 1h Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit A Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1 IX11 I V'�f Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region: LA�Ab
Farm Name: wner Emai
Owner Name: A1 e. Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: � 6k j uie:
Onsite Representative: FA le— 1 ((�� ein Y1 e l l ,
•'Certified Operator: E to 1 t
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
NCB l�w�
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feedei
Farrow to Finish
Other
❑ Other
rnuue ivu: 1 -r S' b
Integrator:
4
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: [�u Longitude: F�5e f O Eg
i th+ on+a Andre o nevi
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La ei
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: I ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
EJDairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Helfer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
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)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
0
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number:Q� • 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: '&-otoon
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): a(
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 ICJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan? C�
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes )No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? I
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
[:]Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes RgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �fNo, ❑ NA ❑ NE
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?
❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 50 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
IComments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or another comments. I
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): n'o
EMU
I �
Reviewer/InsDector Si ontoCIII_ _I .�_�INj!jr/ Date:
le
R

Facility Number: — t7 D• of Inspection •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ((No ❑ NA El NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available'? If yes, check ❑ Yes pQ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑
the appropriate box. WUP ❑ ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other Checklists r
21. Does ecord keeping need imprpvement? heapp,upriatebux below. ❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
-- /Waste Applic/aSion ee y Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis n 1Naste T f Hep
634ainfall Ey Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and V Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
WNA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑'NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
P6 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes I]A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
�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
El Yes
,�,(
I� No
[I NA
El NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
)d No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
16No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
N,5t�e_ � dui ta-`3
cool C! 1 loro�lo11 c_o"te- e'
Nl(000
q3
AAW_te�.
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Quail +
Facility Number F 0 Division of Soil. and Water . nservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit y Routine 0 Complaint Q Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time y� r- Departure Time: 01 a� County: �5t- i�f_5 Region:
Farm Name: E d se ( N {eA Y) e- ll, 1 Farm Owner Email: /7�� �
Owner Name: E 1 e- fJ � tt Phone: 5q .3 — i S� (�J�-�C Is
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
bury , N<_. 6?701V
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No: MJ
Onsite Representative: ] � e :F I,.a'IT —Integra tor:
Shde��Yld�4l�
Certified Operator: t % Ul� 1 e "Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: 2
Location of Farm:
C
Swine
Other
❑ Other
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Laver
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design . Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dar -Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE'
0
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
gNo
No
ElNA
ElNE
ElYes
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: S • Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 4 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: 1j
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes �61slo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) -
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes 9No ❑ 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? T 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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Auplication
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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes tNo
o❑ NA ElNE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ YesElNA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ YesNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0No ❑ 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):
IYla.rKer. K)0+ ye.4:, e 5
beerl ro6d on 'ir\5pec.�Ioff 5 nee
/� dao05: (
Cof1T1�tU� C f 4o
`�'s vast V10'shtt. shee.*-
o r '-LQ 1w moon e
br®4d-
T
(�
mOu_. ls{� � �jt?ge��ov�
v
�eo wee 8 r� � 0 00n
�j a rr� e �1
Reviewer/Inspector Name
e fb C _. Phone: — So28
Reviewer/Inspector Signature.
Date: 02
Page 2 of 3 . ' � . v — 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — 0 •Date of Inspection 1 —r 6
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 4WNo
❑ 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 [I Maps El Other �,(
21.JRanfir
s recod keeping need improvement? df;_s, �r ( " 4ew ❑ Yes �J,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
WasteApplication Weekly Freeboard L� Waste Analysis S�oi��l,, /Analysis fifers—/ Q ^ r� • ^^
l %Stocking, ❑ Crop Yield p6L 120 Minute Inspections LyAVlonthly and I" Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? /7/ ` /` ❑Yes � N��/ o"` ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No [INA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues /
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? El Yes LNNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes XNo ❑ 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 Ij� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately I
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by ElYes LlNo ❑ NA [I NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) X
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
rAonal Comments and/or Drawings:
CO . zA
� u2 J /3 1/0 / a e>L! visi �.
a4z' aoo-6
DZ4a)K
0
� a� a���� = a�s I Ins• .
d'y wa5�e c�ra\ V S � S
Page 3 of 3 c 12128104

/0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 850001 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS850001 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comoliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Stokes Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 01/23/2007 Entry Time: 01:00 PM Exit Time: 02,50 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Fdsel Bennett Feeder Pia Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Fdsel Bennett
Mailing Address: 1 ?55 Andrew -nn-Danbury r
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Phone: [phone]
Latitude: 36"28'01" Longitude: 80°10'03"
5 miles north from Danbury on Hwy. # 8, right onto Andrew Bennett Rd. to farm on the left at the end of road.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Henry Eddie Bennett Operator Certification Number: 19789
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Eddie Bennett Phone:
24 hour contact name Eddie Bennett Phone:
Primary Inspector: Mf:Jj aR oste�brrock Q - Phone:
Inspector Signature: ///plAy„/^ry c Date: a" 3 O
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
B. Marker has not been re -set. Stokes SWCD/NRCS to assist per operator.
16. Due to difficulty in finding assistance (per r­ -rator), Mr. Bennett has until July 1, 2007 to submit calibration to DWQ.
21. 2006 soil lest results ok. Fields limed at 2' kre.
21. Must take waste sample by Feb. 1, 2007 fo.-oec. 2006 applications. Check next visit.
24. Irrigation calibration not completed. Operator needs assistance. Contact tech specicialist, irrigation specialist, or cooperative
extension.
25. Completed Sept. 2006
Page: 1

Permit: AWS850001 Owner • Facility: Edsel Bennett
Inspection Date: 01/23/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Regulated Operations
Facility Number: 850001
Reason for Visit: Routine
Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Q Swine - Farrow to Feeder 800 750
Total Design Capacity: 800
Total SSLW: 417,600
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon LAGOON 24.00 30.00
Page: 2

l
Permit: AWS850001 Owner -Facility: Edsel Bennett Facility Number: 850001
Inspection Date: 01/23/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
Application Field
Other
a. Was conveyance man-made?
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
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
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑■❑❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe ❑ ■ ❑ D
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
improvement?
Waste Application
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)?
❑■DD
❑■❑D
Page: 3

Permit: AWS850001 Owner - Facility: Edsel Bennett
Facility Number: 850001
Inspection Date: 0112312007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
If yes, check the! appropriate box below.
WUP?
Fescue (Hay)
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
C
Page: 4

Permit: AWS850001 Owner- Facility: Edsel Bennett Facility Number:
850001
Inspection Date: 01/23/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
'
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
■
❑
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
Cl
■
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑
❑
Otherlssues
._..............................................
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: AWS850001 Owner - Facility: Edsel Bennett
Inspection Data: 01/23/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Other Issues
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 850001
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes
No
NA
NE
❑■❑❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
Page:6

Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Q 1 0 0 Departure Time: _ w s P-0
Date of Visit: � Arrival Time: �oZ � County: Region:
Farm Name:`. a�_� hel+ Far, Owner Email:
Owner Name: � � I
C 1 loP� tne_- Phone:�5"-;'543-d3� 0_
Mailing Address: 1 aSS Uit rel. i I'1wyy±E 94 h k t, r
Physical Address: J , L
Facility Contact: t Ate, -Neyt vie rf `Title: Phone No .179 3— ? 1 b.1—
Onsite Representative: G da l e- le-xN ne i i- Integrator:
Certified Operator: t—M v i'e- Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Tedd�
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number: _I R 19 0
Latitude: M° ® O Longitude: ®° a]
u5 $
norih
5 M i �eS i10 o
�Qn bur4, torV) ri, b 6nfo
U
-
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Population
Wet Poultry
I K@apacity
Population
Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
10 Layer I
I❑Dai
Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
ILI Non -Layer I
I❑Dai
Calf
❑ Feeder [o Finish
❑ Dais Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Layers ❑
❑Non-Dai
Farrow to Finish❑Beef
❑ Non -Layers
Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Pullets
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Turkey Pouets
Number of Structures: 4
❑ Other
❑ 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 I of 3
❑ Yes
No
//❑
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
0
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ElNE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Q1 • Date of Inspection aZ 0 •
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 freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
$gtrucmre 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: l , r/
Spillway?: T
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 1� 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 *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? Yes ❑ No ElNA El NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) 10
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ yes Po ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? .
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Pending ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
L^4No
❑ 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
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
0No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
%o
❑ 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):
� • vrro�.J �'�O1e5 ?
�
VY`CeX 1Lie tr set ?
0 0V
• �reSS u r� av
7 t�� '
Reviewer/InspectorName
Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu
Date: i es
Page 2 of 3 . IT— — 4 1 — 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Q ate of Inspection "'t�-'"1� •
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 CA WMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other ,�(
21. Does ecord keeping need impr vement? I propriate W� ' ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
�f W to Application Weekly Freeboard aste Analysis Soil Analysis [3'tivaste Yr3ilsf�ts 06 ,
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections �4onthly and I" Rain Inspections eather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
*A
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
0 Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
P(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
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
KNo
❑ 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
�4No
❑ 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
IXNo
ElNA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
*o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
1
ci
a I. a o o io s o i l s ? a T/�Q
--4# . a oo (0.
�a� Rl b �o � = a • 0 1 i� � I�f�/000 �,�p
ar
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 850001 Facility Status: Alive Permit: AWS850001 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Stokes Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 0411812006 Entry Time:12,50 PM Exit Time: 02:15 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Fdcel Bennett Feeder Pia Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Eckel Bennett - Phone: [phone]
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
Latitude:36.28'01" Longitude:80.10'03"
5 miles north from Danbury on Hwy. # 8, right onto Andrew Bennett Rd. to farm on the left at the end of road.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents - Other Issues
Certified Operator: Henry Eddie Bennett
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 19789
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Eddie Bennett Phone:
24 hour contact name Eddie Bennett Phone:
Primary Inspector: M i sa osebro 1, [qnt Phone:
Inspector Signature.1, ��tLcul� Date:
If VA.
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
7. Just one burrow hole observed in the dam. Need to re -seed bare spots with fescue or orchardgrass.
8. Marker has not yet been set. SWCD/NRCS to assist this summer.
15. There are still a couple of areas that need to be re -seeded.
16. Checked irrigation hydrants in the field --looked ok.
18. Need to install pressure gauge prior to next use and calibration.
21. Per 2005 soil test results, lime was applied to fields last Fall. Operator is awaiting 2006 soil test results that were sent April'06.
Check next visit.
Page: 1

• .o
Permit: AWS850001 Owner -Facility: Edsel Bennett
Inspection Date: 04/18/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 850001
Reason for %neit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Q Swine - Farrow to Feeder 800 750
Total Design Capacity: 800
Total SSLW: 417,600
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Lagoon I LAGOON 1 1 24.00 36.00
Page: 2

•
permit: AWS850001 Owner - Facility: Edsel Bennett Facility Number: 850001
Inspection Date: 04/18/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Vlelt: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yee
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWO)
❑
■
❑
❑
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?
❑
■
❑
❑
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 ❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
■
❑
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
■
❑
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yea
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: AWS850001 Owner - Facility: Edsel Bennett
Inspection Date: 04/18/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 850001
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
PAN?
Cl
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
■.
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
IN
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
■
❑
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yee
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS850001 Owner -Facility: Edsel Bennett Facility Number: 850001
Inspection Data: 04/18/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? 1101111
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after> 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑
■
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27, Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
■
❑
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.
Page: 5

Permit: AWS850001 Owner - Facility: Edsel Bennett
Facility Number: 850001
Inspection [late: 04/18/2006 Inspection Typo: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
OtherISsues . Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
■ ■ ■
1■r7■i■1
Page:6

Alk
�7 Division of Water Quality IP
Facility Number 3 Division of Soil and Water Conservation 1
---- — --- O Other Agency
Type of Visit ACompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: S (i Departure Time: County: Region: (e 5?—Q,
Farm Name: d1 /t el nref 6 Lm Owner Emt�ail: I
Owner Name: �idf ! RenaJ� p� Phone-*w �-.; � S
Mailing Address: I f t2t. 1 e nl 2 R11_�ihl. g f NCI C/ � 701 b
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: `,� I e ben h c& Title: PhonekV 0.3 ' S 162—
OnsiteRepresentative: EJAQ f OF Integrator:
-771 Certified Operator: Maw Pf hl_- Operator Certification Number: J 2
Back-up Operator: G� 1 Back-up Certification Number: I q 1 n1 O
Location of Farm: Latitude: ®e ®, W Longitude: �o
Design Current
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -Layer I I I
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Cattle
Design' ` Current
Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
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)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
J
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
0
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes No ❑ NA [INE
El Yes Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: .g — • 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 l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):��
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes )�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes KNo ❑ 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? KYes [INo ElNA ❑ 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 ElNA ElNE
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 L1Y No El NA El NE
El Excessive Ponding El Hydraulic Overload El Frozen Ground El 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
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?
El
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
fes
IYI Yes
�6o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
9 No ElNA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #):. Explain any YES answers and/or any,recommendafinns or. any other comments: Z
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use, additional pa'ges�as necessary)
C
�
�5wcbJ �
? N �vIS�dI� Prot' 9i-C It t a
it5 ��
-
Reviewer/InspectorName --- ' } flwJ4ro'-, _ —" Phone: CA
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date: {L�
Page 2 of 1 1 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: S — � +mate of Inspection 0
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes �(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. DoeZter'Alliplication
keeping need improve ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ ❑ N�Gkly Freeboard ZOMinute
e Analysis oil Analysis. 'err
❑ R mfall ❑ St in ❑ Crop Yield ❑ Ins ections ❑ M6ffthl and V Rain Ins ectionsB PP Y P ❑
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
I❑ No
KNA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?Q(� b(p
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? 6C-A Ao (0
❑ Yes
o
❑ 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
K4 NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CA WMP?
❑ 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
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
ElNA
[3NE
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
Drawings:33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? El Yes P
kilditional Comments and/or
Page 3 of 3 12128104

❑ 'Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 850001 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS850001 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine
County: Stokes Reglon: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 02/10/2005 Entry Time:01,05 PM
Exit Time: 03:00 PM
Farm Name: Edsei Bennett Feeder Pia Farm
Owner Email:
Owner: Edsel Bennett
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 1255 Andrew Bennett Rd
Danbury NC 27016
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Integrator: purina Mills Inc
Location of Farts:
Latitude: 36.47__�_— Longitude: -80.17
5 miles north from Danbury on Hwy. # 8, right onto Andrew Bennett
Rd. to farm on the left at the end of road.
Question Areas:
Q Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
0 Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Henry Eddie Bennett
Operator Certification Number: 19789
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
Title Phone
On -site representative Eddie Bennett
Phone:
24 hour contact name Eddie Bennett
Phone:
Primary Inspector: Mary M Rosebrock
Phone:[phone]
Ext.383
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
4. Cannot determine if marker is correct. May not be over maximum liquid mark.
7. Operator has repaired main line coming from the lagoon this week.
8. Operator still needs to contact Stokes NRCS/SWCD to set marker (see DSWC operation review).
10. Still need to lime.
15. Crop did not look healthy today (very sparse). Check next visit for improvement. Operator plans to re -seed if irrigation is installed
for grass (across the road and up from the corn).
18. Operator has equipment but it is being repaired at this time. Must install/obtain pressure gauge for gun.
21. 2005 soil test samples have been sent. Check next visit.
Page: 1

III
Permit: AWS850001 Owner -Facility: Edsel Bennett Facility Number: 850001
Inspection Date: 02/10/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspectlon - Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
® Swine - Farrow to Feeder 800 750
Total Design Capacity: 800
TotalSSLW: 417,600
Page: 2

Permit: AWS850001
Owner -Facility:
Edsel
Bennett
Facility
Number:
850001
Inspection Date: 02/10/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Nunn Desc
Close Dt Start Dt Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Page: 3

• 0
Permit: AWS850001 Owner -Facility: Edsel Bennett Facility Number: 850001
Inspection Data: 02/10/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Dram c & Sew trr� -am Imnactc
Vpc No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ M ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
0
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWO)
❑
❑
❑
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 pan of the operation?
❑
M
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse Impacts or potential adverse Impacts to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑
Vea
0
No
❑
NA
❑
NF
Wnqtp. Cnllprtion_ Storage & Treatment
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 (l.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?
❑
M
❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑
❑
❑
and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
0
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste ApplicAlion
Vac
No
NA
NF
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compllance alternatives that need maintenance or Improvement?
❑
0
❑
❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
0
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Pending?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/l0lbs.?
❑
Total P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area? ❑
Crop Type 1 Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 4

Peril: AWS850001 Owner -Facility: Edsel Bennett
Facility Number:
850001
Inspection Dale: 02/10/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Routine
Yon No
NA NE
Waste Aonlination
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)? C-In
❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
N
❑
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
0
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
N
No
❑
NA
❑
NE
Rennrds and Documents
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?
❑
0
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
0011
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
Weather code?
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
Inspections after> 1 Inch rainfall & monthly?
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
0
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑
0
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the peril?
❑
0
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
❑
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS850001 Owner • Facility: Edsel Bennett Facility Number: 850001
Inspection Data: 02/10/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Vpe No NA NF
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ N ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those mortality 0000
rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concem? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

Type of Visit (XCympliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 9� Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: U 0_ Arrival Time: O Departure Time: %SOO County: SIo !LeS .Region: ty (w
Farm Name: I'fILSki[&jaae :L EQ r Owner Email: 2 p '2
J Owner Name: �� h�Tf Phone: S �1 p 3 — D S
Mailing Address: aSS A h d mtA6.) jje_ )ne f {_ MA h b 1) N C-- 1 01-7 00
Physical Address: S 0.M e—
rr •
Facility Contact: G 1 2 ��� Q Title:
Onsite Representative: v t Q.7�1J-fA'1 n e
Certified Operator: EA i ff-
Back-up Operator: TP A aed��i1��.'�'�
0 Location of Farm: Latitude: 0
Swine
Other
❑ Other
iC' _6rM5 AfIiA
Phone No: S Q $ I �(1q)
Integrator: Tnde�eaa
i
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number: l t7
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Longitude:
m
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: M
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 X<0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes ElNo❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
0
❑ Yes ❑' No El NA El NE
El"�Yes `�' V ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ENO ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: � — • Date of Inspection I oNl • /1
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? XYes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ;kNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: �t _
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): t /
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
,t.,//
) 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
*o
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
AYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
' t li bl to roofed its d stacks and/or wet stacks)
(No app ca e p ry
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 gNo ❑ NA ElNE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect 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 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop types)
13. Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop 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
1
El 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
C(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
0. Cme�? heed 4plo 50,
$ Operxor Sh 11 VWA5 4b .6601O�+ �o Nle, e-SVSu)C-6I& 5,-+ IYq" k
CSeeDSwC opevcttlona( Ke�tZ) �t
D r&f0r r>uS Ce�QQi► J MOLl✓1 llt1e- aU+c7T l0.4Oov1 ��Tlu
ei15 Weey--
Reviewer/Inspector Name 3
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: QiA(�
12128104 Continued
r 9 ' �
� ,t�`P'n.,�.
j
Phone:
Date:
6 `�

Facility Number: — Def Inspection 0 O •
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 co ponents of the CAWMP read' y available? If yes, check ❑ Yes L�,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the approprrate box. ❑ ❑ Chec sis ❑ Des1 ❑ My�s ❑ Otw,
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis r i "'
—
❑
❑ 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?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
t*A
❑ 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
IXI No
❑ NA
❑ NE
T/No
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
�(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
X
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
El Yes
._/No
1/
D0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
Al the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
p(1 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
No
ElNA
ElNE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
�(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
e$ u' pm eh , I S be.r --N'1 re -'Pat red 4x+
-1lme. { �vt5i"oL�l�obtatt� Vice-ssure_ taut' Fot- �vY1m
C 6°V5•IJ
I5 Fescue crop d®d,noi looV- �\eci.WA�`{sdo-4Cvext s{fars
C6�e_e.lk— v�e�-t- s i � for '.�',�iP � Ue im-e..il t • � pe-a' ct �'r hc� � kiy�5
cv+-�
46 re- Se2A `I t 1 `rr��a�ioY� 15 lYlS}t�112ci. �'af ra55 ��{1
g cA1 lk nieed -F® li me 4eetc�s o
M v at &O n+Ok_Ci- -Ve&h . 5ptoc . 41
I. coos SO( i -fesA- results hie bezn Seta{ • ('.meet!•-V\v+ vt5•t
(n/I11o14 wa5fe_ 0.ria.17s(5 = a I �s N/1000
(��!��LV�u c��p c� ✓,l�t,Qfh.�EQ� (ill �a
ihp al�t_u
eorn)
n')G1k li�.level
94v -
, :5.4' 12128104

I�
rchnical Assistance Site Visit Repo
0 D on of Soil and Water ConservatiotW
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number $5 - �1 Date: 7/26/04 Time: 13:30 Time On Farm: 90 WSRO
Farm Name Edsel Bennett Feeder Pio Farm
County Stokes Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 1255 Andrew Bennett Rd Danbury NC 27016
Onsite
Representative Eddie Bennett Integrator Inde endent
Operation Review
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
Operating below
(o Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
® Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
eoo
75o
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
Response to DWQ/DENR referral,
Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
Response to complaint/local referral
Requested by producer/integrator
Follow-up
Emergency
Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes Ono
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes Ono
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes Ono
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes Ono
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 Ono
Structural Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Lagoon
Level (Inches) 24
CROP TYPES Fescue -ha
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES PcC2
WK0
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes Ono
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes Ono
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes Ono
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes Ono
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 Ono
Structural Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Lagoon
Level (Inches) 24
CROP TYPES Fescue -ha
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES PcC2
WK0
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
❑ Other
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes Ono
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes Ono
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes Ono
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes Ono
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 Ono
Structural Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Lagoon
Level (Inches) 24
CROP TYPES Fescue -ha
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES PcC2
WK0
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 85 1 Date:
7/26/04
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8.
Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9.
Waste spill contained on site
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 10.
Level in structural freeboard
Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11.
Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
❑ 12.
Waste structure integrity compromised
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
El
❑ 13.
Waste structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
[114.
Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
[115.
Over application < 10% or < 10 Ibs.
30. 21-1.0200 re -certification
❑ 16.
Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
❑ 17.
Deficient irrigation records
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 18.
Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19.
Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21.
Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22.
Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
® 24.
Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
El
El
El Other...
43. Irrigation system design/installation
Date:
44. Secure Irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45.Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsolling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5'
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6.
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 85 0 Date: 7/26/04
COMMENTS:
Waste analysis: 5-21-04 ALS 2.8 Ibs.N/1000 gals. I
# 24. Soil Samples dated 4-05-04 had several fields calling for more than one ton of lime per acre.
The facility and records look good overall.
# 40. The maximum liquid elevation marker was, checked with a level. The spillway was read at 8.30 and
he current waste level was read at 10.26, which equals a 1.96 difference. The existing maximum liquid
narker is at approx. 9.93. The lagoon design states that the maximum liquid elevation should be at 0.5 f
>elow the spillway.
instructed Mr. Bennett to contact his technical specialist before adjusting the marker.
G�
_-----`53 3
3 9
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 7/30/04 Entered By: lRocky Durham
3 03/10/03

Facility Number 85 1 Date of Visit: 2/ti/2004 Time: 1300
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
M Permitted E Certified 13 Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold :.............
Farm Name: l dsel &epaett.F.eeder.Pig.F.artn............................................ County: Stukes..................................... W5R-Q......
Owner Name: EdselReMetl-_----------•-------------- Phone No: 33b 543:$3$9.---------------------------..
Mailing Address: I.ZS.S.AXtdr.e.tv.Beoneti.lid................................................................ f)aiaktAt7l...N.C.......................................................... VAN ..............
Facility Contact: EddirBeMett....................................Title: ............................................... Phone No: ......................................
Onsite Representative: FSld1e.BE7lDedt-----------------------------.-.-.-.-. Integrator: PJtfIOa.MlllS,.hOc.-•-----•---.-.-•-.-.----
Certified Operator: Rmy..EddAe....................... &II.O.VU ............................................. Operator Certification Number: 1,9.70.9.............................
Location of Farm:
5 miles north from Danbury on Hwy. # 8, right onto Andrew Bennett Rd. to farm on the left at the end of road.
®Swine []Poultry []Cattle []Horse Latitude 36 • 28 01 " Longitude 80 • 10 03
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field []Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes []No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? [:]Yes ®No
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:--.--.....-2..................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches):
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 85-1 • Date of Inspection 2/6/2004 .
5.
Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
OR No
seepage, etc.)
6.
Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑ Yes
® No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
8.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes
® No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12.
Crop type Fescue (Hay)
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAW MP)?
❑ 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.
mments (refer to 10Ion # : Explain any YES ans a and/or any recommendations or an, other comments.
d awings of facit etter explain situations. ms add'tional pages as necessary : ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
4. Waste level is two inches above the maximum liquid mark today. Operator to try to irrigate the end of next week if soil conditions
allow.
3. No soil analyses for 2003 - NOV.
26. Operator noticed that the waste level had gone over the maximum liquid mark four days ago. Was the only time, per records, that
max. was exceeded. He did not call DWQ since the inspection was scheduled the same week. Operator was instructed to contact DWQ
in the future should there be another time when the waste level rises above the max. liquid mark.
9/11/03 waste analysis=2.1 tbs. N/1000 gal.
4. Received call from ,4Ir. Bennett on 2116104. He had lowered lagoon level to below maximum liquid level by last Friday (2113104).
R
T
Reviewer/Inspector Name jMelissa Rosebrock j
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12112103 Continued

Facility,Number. 85-1 Dae of Inspection 2/6/2004 •
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?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
® Yes
❑ No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ® Soil Sampling
24.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
® Yes
❑ No
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
®No
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AW MP?
❑ 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 I" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
12112103

vision of Water Quality
vision of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
(Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
for Visit O• Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number $5 1 Date of Visit: 2/6/2004 Time: 1300
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
O Permitted M Certified [3 Conditionally Certified I] Registered Date Last Operated or Above "Threshold:
Farm Name: t dael euttett F¢edar. Pig.F.arm............................................ County: 'Stphea ..................................... 3YS.ltQ.....
Owner Name: Eds¢l ................... B¢a►tett._._._.___._-_•-.-•-•------ Phone No: 33dS43:8159.-.-•---.-.-.-.-.-----.-.-.---
Mailing Address:. 1.2S.S.Andr.¢h:.B.enu.11.Itd................................................................ 1?ilO.tlt]'... INC ......................................................... 1701.6 ..............
Facility Contact: Eddia Bennett....................................Title: ............................................... Phone No: ......................................
Onsite Representative: F,ddi¢.lfPJla¢IL-------------------------•-•-.---.---- Integrator:PA[IDEL�11t4.1Af._•_._._._-_•_•_•_._._._-.
Certified Operator: RCRU..laddle....................... B.Cuktj ............................................. Operator Certification Number: 197.fl9.............................
Location of Farm:
5 miles north from Danbury on Hwy. # 8, right onto Andrew Bennett Rd. to farm on the left at the end of road.
® Swine [I Poultry [I Cattle [I Horse Latitude 36 • 28 01 Longitude 80 • 10 03 .<
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑
Wean to Feeder
❑
Feeder to Finish
❑
Farrow to Wean
®
Farrow to Feeder
800
750
❑
Farrow to Finish
❑
Gilts
❑
Boars
Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Papal tion
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
Total Design Capacity 800
Total SSLW 417,600
I Number of Lagoons L 1 ! 1 11 I 1 I
Hnldino Pnnds / Cnlid Tram 0
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ®No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ® Yes ❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:--------...22..................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches):
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 85-1 1 • Date of Inspection 1 2/6/2004 .. .
is
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ® No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes
® No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
®No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12.
Crop type Fescue (Hay)
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
®No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
®No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
®No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
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.
o ment!ve
tion # : Explain any a e a d/o an. ec mendations or en. o co me t .
d swito better explain situation . d itional pages as necessary : ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
Waste linches above the maximum liquid mark today. Operator to try to irrigate the end of next week if soil conditionsallow.23. No soifor 2003 - NOV.
6. Operator noticed that the waste level had gone over the maximum liquid mark four days ago. Was the only time, per records, that
max. was exceeded. He did not call DWQ since the inspection was scheduled the same week. Operator was instructed to contact DWQ
in the future should there be another time when the waste level rises above the max. liquid mark.
9/11/03 waste analysis=2.1 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Reviewer/Inspector Name IMeli sa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu gwa 7747 Date: 02

Facility Number: 85-1 1]ytr of Inspection 2/6/2004
r •
Required
Records & Documents
21.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below.
® Yes
❑ No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ® Soil Sampling
24.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
®No
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
® Yes
❑ No
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
®No
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
®No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AW MP?
❑ 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
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
8ifionaRCom—in ents anWoo OMET Mes:
12112103
12112103

•
IType of Visit it Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit: Time:
Permitted q Certified E3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: (% YYVI County:__Sf net
Owner Name: Z Sy'
�1 ailing Address: Cd d i e— F1P nnQ:d
Facility Contact: cadle— e -P)e lne {-= Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Integrator: MAf4 &.A.
Operator Certification Number:
NC�Ph�'y I 5 M1lt'S Yl t`tVl of vlbur , It{�ht- onto Nndre D rbe.,gi�-►
d, c, ni P.---1 .o nn nn le -L. �1 - _
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®* E:M` I— 11 Longitude ®• FTj5j` „
Swine
Design
Capacity
-, Current
'Population
Design Current
Poultr Capacity Population Cattle.
❑ Wean to Feeder
10 La er
1
10 Dairy
❑ Feedei to Finish
JLJ Non -Layer
I
1
10 Non -Da
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Farrow to Feeder
OO
Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
fl Boars
bsurface Drains
Discharees & 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?
Design Current
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3/ Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): 2
05103101 I
❑ Yes ,(No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes �❑ No
N ❑ Yes No
�.❑,�( Yes' No
p[J Yes ❑ No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility N:unber: S— j 1 1)ate of Inspection I L/fn lOri' I Printed on: 7/21/20(4�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the tority of any of the structures observed? (i(iic/ 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 qr
closure plan'? V [I Yes XNo
(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 G[�( .0
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level /
elevation markings'? ❑ Yes XNo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ly��No
11. Is there evidence of over application? / ❑ Excessive Pending El PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes h21 No
12. Crop type 4LA e' I 7�
13. Do the receiving crop differ with those desi hated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes �No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Ye NMO
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes tSlNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes '�.PQ0
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'? ❑ Yes No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment'? ❑ Yes 4No
Reouired 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.) - / / % 2M3 ❑ Yes /KNo
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis &damplc reports) XYes ❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at therime of design? ❑ Yes �1Qo
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? El Yes No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) IXYes No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes 0��,,t ','10
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑.Yes;KVo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes Aj No
1dVdyibla(i¢ris;ohdgficie'ncieswere04(eddpfitigthis;visit'-You;will-fecgiyetie;ruth� e; ;•.
. • . • cories oridence: abou£ this :visit:
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
P
a,.
y, Duo c
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signai
r
Date:

Facility Number: s — Date of Inspection
Odor JUM
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
VNo
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
o
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?
Cl Yes
�./
Ije7 No
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
l`
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
o
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
El Yeso
fNo
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
El Yes
C19
CI-4
Additional Comments and/or Dirfi*lng s "T' 7w".-wfKHM,!.k�..43!'...� n��V '"AV.• . 5p;x+ j.J$4rt ..'Y£, M..wi.
9 a�A3 Soil Anal s s ? /\% 0
V�'1�.r�1�-r � I e vc��h o►ti5 �hecl�-dl ?� ,
f:
`2/a.I 1 /Q0600�W6144PCy
05103101

Assistance Site Visit
Division of Soil and Water ConservatidW
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number $5 - Date: /27/03 Time: 14:30 Time On Farm: 75 WSRO
Farm Name Edsel Bennett Feeder Pig Farm County Stokes
Mailing Address 1255 Andrew Bennett Rd.
Onsite
Representative Eddie Bennett
Type Of Visit
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ Operating below threshold
® Swine []Poultry []Cattle []Horse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
® Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
sop
Teo
Phone: [phone]
Danbury NC 27016
Integrator lindependent
Purpose Of Visit
Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
Response to complaint/local referral
Requested by producer/integrator
Follow-up
Emergency
Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding []yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment []yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structural Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Lagoon
Level (Inches) 40 71
CROP TYPES Fescue -ha
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES PcC2
MR
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding []yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment []yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structural Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Lagoon
Level (Inches) 40 71
CROP TYPES Fescue -ha
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES PcC2
MR
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® 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
Structural Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Lagoon
Level (Inches) 40 71
CROP TYPES Fescue -ha
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES PcC2
MR
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

A
LI
Facility Number 85 - 1 Date:
8127103
PARAMETER
O No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8.
Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9.
Waste spill contained on site
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 10.
Level in structural freeboard
❑
❑
❑ 11.
Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
❑ 12.
Waste structure integrity compromised
P8. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
❑ 13.
Waste structure needs maintenance
❑
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑ 14.
Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
❑ 15.
Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30.21-1.0200 re -certification
[116.
Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
[117.
Deficient irrigation records
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 18.
Latelmissing waste analysis
33. Organizelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19.
Late/missing lagoon level records
❑ 20.
Late/missing soils analysis
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 21.
Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22.
Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24.
Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWO Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
:]Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation system design/installation
❑
❑
:1 Other...
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45.Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
❑
❑
Z
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5.
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 85 - Date:
COMMENTS:
Waste analysis: 3-26-03 ALS 3.6 Ibs.N/1000 gals. I, 11-08-02 ALS 3.3 Ibs.N/1000 gals. I
Records look good. Will need to get a waste sample in soon to cover the July applications.
Remember to get your 2003 soil samples in.
Suggest having the maximum liquid and spillway elevations checked by your technical specialist.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST IRockyDurham
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 9/2/03 -71
Entered By: IRocky Durham
03/10/03

Facility Number 85 �1� Date of Visit: 5/30/2002 'rime: 1315
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
■ Permitted S Certified 0 Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ......... a ...............
Farm Name:. Edset.Sex[10.ettFeedtIr.Pigkacilx........................................................... County: 8.tttkgs ................................................ \\SIiO........
Owner Name: > dsel........................................ B.emett....................................................... Phone No: d b-S93. i£35.4................................:............:.............
Mailing Address: t2SS..And .en. eunett.Eid............................................................... VAilt ulry...SIC........................................................ V.916 .............
Facility Contact:)~ddlk.8exllxett................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: ...................... :.............................
OnsiteRepresentative: C' d.djC.0.CAA£tt............................................................................ Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:HCjUry..Eddi.0....................... UeJVlEtejj ............................................ Operator Certification Number:197$Q
Location of Farm:
5 miles north from Danbury on Hwy. # 8, right onto Andrew Bennett Rd. to farm on the left at the end of road.
® Swine ❑ Poultry []Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 28 01 Longitude 86 • 10 03
Design Current
Design Current y�Destgn.„+ Current
'�:i' a °a�' iYea n -.
Ca acit jro ulation
+"�' sir
Poultry Ca acit Eo wlation ' CatUe, Uavamty I PO ulation
-"
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Layer
❑Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Dairy
ry
.max
❑Non -Layer
�.
�$
❑ Farrow to Wean
''f '. 4;�
s*`
® Farrow to Feeder
800
700
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
x
a
Total Design Capacity 800
❑Gifts
t; 41 :;
tTotaI SSLfqW,.� 417,600
[I Boars
R.
�, ,Number of Lagoons ❑Subsurface Drains Present_❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
'ti
HolUfngiPonds /Solid Traps 0 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management
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?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: .........Lagoon.........................4.............................................
Freeboard (inches): a)
05103101
® Spillway ® Yes ❑ No
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
............................................................................................................
Continued

Facility Number: 85-1 1 • Dale of Inspcction 5/30/2002
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
® Yes
❑ 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 Fescue (Hay)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
® Yes
❑ No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
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
IN No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
ants far to u lion # : Explain any a e and/or any recommendations or any othe comments.
awings o fact t to better explain situatio �u additional pages as necessary : ®Field Copy ❑Final Notes
lWaste
is 3" above maximum. Still has 21" before lagoon would overflow. Operator to irrigate within 24 hours. No significant rainted
within next several days.ntinue
efforts to control groundhogs and repair holes. Need to control broadleaf weeds and establish permanent vegetation.
8. Small leak from one flush tank. No threat to surface waters. To be fixed within 14 days.
9. Could not see marker since waste was above start pump mark. Need to also mark spillway on marker.
15. Crop looks ok, soil analysis is calling for at least one ton of lime on the fields.
22. WSRO was not notified of high freeboard prior to inspection.
_
24. Operator to call as soon as waste level has been lowered below the maximum start pump),
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melissa Rosebrock
2n
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: % Date: S 2 Q Z-
05103101 1 Continued

Fer: 85— acility Numb1 ge of Inspection 5/30/2002 •
()dor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the 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
New dead hole is now >300 feet from flowing waters.
5131102, Eddie Bennett left message that lagoon had been irrigated enough to lower waste level below maximum. He applied
,te 5130102 and 5131102. mmr
05103101

1 PM
Type of Visit jo Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit Time:
Not O erationnl ORelowThreshold
Permitted tl CertifiedR� 0 Conditionallly Certified [3Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: E !sel &f)n(2 FP,9Agr PiQ_FarCounty: Sfa ILe 5
Owner Name: s-l� \ j W Phone No: 33 �1' I 0,35 / "
Mailing Address: I d S_�] /7Yli� rely Ben ne-I-i 2J. l)a.n bur u , rV C oa Q 16
t� i
Facility Contact: r d ,f i e— 8,e))126Q Title: P hone No:
Onsite Representative- //-- d ie— Integrator: p
Certified OperatorRC A ry G • &/) Operator Certification Number: -7 % I I -I 1
Location of Farm:
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle
❑ Horse Latitude ®' ®°
®.. Longitude ®0 ®1 ®�
Design
Current Design
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity
Po ulation Poultry Ca aci
Po elation Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
I JE] Layer I
ai
❑ Feeder to Finish
1 10 Non -Layer I
❑ Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
gt�
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars I
Total SSLW
I z112 6 00 11;
Number of Lagoons p I / I' ILJ Subsurface Drains Present IILJ Lagoon Area ILJ
), g _.
HoldingPonds / Solid Traps ® ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Spray Field Area h,
Discharges & Stream Imgncts
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 D WQ)
❑ 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 84 Treatment �,/
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Lj� Spillway
`
Yes
❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 / Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: Q
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: = Date of Inspection
5.
Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
�00
seepage, etc.)
6.
Are there structures on -site which arc not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
`
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
❑ Yes
o
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
9Yes
❑ No
8.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
777i"'t Yes
4No
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
No
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pending ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yest�
No
12.
Crop type ��
13.
Do the receivin rops differ with those dcsignatM in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
rA No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
O No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
'Z No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
�1,/No
Lug No
Required
Records & Documents
/`
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
A 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
o
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
ElYesJNo
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yeso
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
ElYeso
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
Oyes
❑ No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
XNo
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[KNo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
wYes
0 No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
toomments (refer to question M) Explain any YES answers an°tl/ortan ;`recommendations or an ;other comments ? ''
Use drawings.of facility, to betteplain situations (use additional pages asxnecesseiy) y
" , .. Field Copy ❑Final Notes
no"tE
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
,r(}
Dater t7Z
05103101
Continued
0
"� r04�U4'=,' �—�A I, =g".� � . _:_q Tk

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 'CS 0
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes J&,No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes NMO
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? —G 3i;eq E3 ?i
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 to
o
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes
32. Do the Flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? Elym pi o
Additional comments and/or Drawings:

Facility Number 85 1 Date of Visit: 6/27/2001 Time: 9:00
Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
FarmNmne: ........................................................... County: S.tu.kqs.................... :............................ W..SRQ........
OwnerName: Use[ ....................................... a3MR11........................:....a......................... Phone No: Q�aQ-S43.:B3S9...........................................................
Mailing Address: R.O.IAtf..1e...ax..1S.d......i.?SS... (.1 %..G7e�X,,��.�..... Uaahry...NC......................................................... Z.7.010 ..............
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Ldse1.13.et1.0et1............................................................................. Integrator:
Certified Operator:Hvinry..................................... Ilginuit ............................................ Operator Certification Number: 1.9..7.$q.............................
Location of Farm:
5 miles north from Danbury on Hwy. # 8, right onto Andrew Bennett Rd. to farm on the left at the end of road.
®Swine []Poultry []Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude F 36 • 28 11 FU 7 {f Longitude F 8079F 10 F 0371,
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑
Wean to
❑
_Feeder
Feeder to Finish
❑
Farrow to Wean
®
Farrow to Feeder
800
725
❑
Farrow to Finish
❑
Gilts
❑
Boars
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds / SolidTraps
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I 1E] Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I I[] Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 800
-Total SSLW 417,600
Discharees & Stream Imnacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ®No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ®No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ®No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ®No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ®No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ............................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 24 _
05/03101 Continued

Facility Number: 85-111 Date of Inspection 1 6/27/2001 1 , 1 r I. �•
5. Are there any immediate threats to the it�rity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes N 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 N No
([f any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN. ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Fescue (Hay)
❑ Yes
❑Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
N No
N No
N No
N No
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
N No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ 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
N No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
N No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
N No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
N No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
®No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
N No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
N No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
N No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
N No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
(refer to uestion # : Ez Fain any YES a' Comments r q ) Explain y Itnswers and/or any recommendatious or any other comments: "'
Use drawings facility to,better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ��
�d Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
19(old21). Fields and records in good shape. Field checked start pumping marker and farmer will keep freeboard level records using 24'
as start pumping. Has been consistantly keep freeboard level records.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Margaret O'Keefe
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: 85-1 lief Inspection 6/27/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ® No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes '® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ® No
...,.,,.:....,Additional Comments,�... ...,..,. :. ,..� ..:�, i .;. ., , ..1pri 1
05103101
05103101

Dane of, Visit: 2/20/2001 Time: 1005
Facility Number 85 1
Not Operational C Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: dSel.$Rt111S.tt.kekd r.Rlg.kaCnR............................................................ County: StAcs................................................. .WSRO.......
OwnerName:..Edael....................................... UpKIN&L ...................................................... Phone No: 33.67591.83.54 ..........................................................
Mailing Address:.1.2S.S.AtadGew.B.=g.(t.B.uad........................................................... Danhurx..N.C......................................................... Z71011.6 ..............
FacilityContact: ...............................................................................Title:............................................................... Phone No:....................................................
OnsiteRepresentative: .......................................................................................................... Integrator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator:Rcltry..................................... B.RttlAett............................................. Operator Certification Number: 197.$9.............................
Location of Farm:
> miles north from Danbury on Hwy. # 8, right onto Andrew Bennett Rd. to farm on the left at the end of road.
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®• 28 Ol Longitude 80 10 03
i?
Design Current
Design Cur�r°en" De igoj" Cur
Swine '
Ca acit P,o tnlatlon
Poultry Ca taco P,o ulation' Cattle Ca aci[' P,o"ulation,
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
® Farrow to Feeder
800
750
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design C•apasity 800
❑ Gilts
Total SSI,W 417,600
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharces _& Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
01/01/01 y .9 Continued

Facility Number: 85-1
• Date of Inspection 2/20/2001 •
Waste • Collection $ Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? N Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: Lil QA.a.......... ............................
Freeboard(inches): ................2.1........................................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Fescue (Hay)
❑ Yes N No
Structure 6
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
N Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
N No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
N No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
N No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
17. Are rock outcrops present?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Is there a water supply well within 250 feet of the sprayfield boundary? ❑ Unknown
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ On -site ❑ Off -site
Required
Records & Documents
19.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
N No
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
N No
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
N No
22.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
N No
23. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes N No
24. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes N No
25. Did Reviewer/]nspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes N No
26. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes N No
27. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes N No
Odor juuea
28. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below N Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
29. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours'? N Yes ❑ No
01/01/01 Continued

Facility Number: 85-1 �of Inspection 2/20/2001
30. Is there any evidence of wind drift during landapplication? (i.e. residue on neighboringvegetation, asphalt
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
31. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon'?
32. 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.)
33. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
34. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged till pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
Printed un: 2/21/2001
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
° e ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
. Will need to pump soon.
9. Per permit, need to mark the bottom of the spillway on the marker.
19. 2001 soil samples were sent off about two weeks ago. Records looked great this year.
26. Not a concern or problem on this farm.
27. Recommend burying dead animals deeper. Dogs are digging up some remains. Dead hole is 150 feet from water. Next hole needs
to be at least 300 feet from flowing water.
Reviewer/Inspector Name 'Meli a Rose rock
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date: p�
u
01/01/01

of Visit QCompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
on for Visit X Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other
Facility Number 1 K Iq � Dale of Visit: I
APermitted XCertified ❑ Conditionally Ce{r�ti-fied Q Registered
Farm Name: rrr.A5..e.I............8�x,nn.1J,4e,•�4y,•�•.....Fe-eder...Pit
Owner Name: ........Gd.5. .I................tQ�AJ ne.. 1.............................................
Facility Contact: I.e...... 13.....Y1�. Title: ..........................
Mailing Address:
to Am
❑ Denied Access
I OOS'
ional 0 Below Threshold
ite Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
i"Unty:.................S�b.14?s..............................
�.59.:.....-.35Y.........
Phone No: ,,,,,,,,3.� ....
Phone No:
Iry .rX a70j(o
Onsite Representative:
........W..u... k........... Pe.y.l.r.1.6T.................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operatm
Location of Farm:
Certification Number: ..... i._q,,,,I, „I,,,,,,,,,,
1 Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®• ®' ®« Longitude ®•
t
Design Current
Swine _ Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
estgn . Current
1)esl�
Poultry
Ca aci :Population Cattle
Ca at
❑ Dairy
FLayer
Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design, Capacity C
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ID Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑Spray Feld Area
i. Holding Ponds /Solid Traps rl No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impact
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the eslimaled 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? x Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Struclure 3 Structure .4 Structure 5
r: IdentifieDD
............................................................. .
Freeboard (inches): p"Z
S/00
❑ Yes 4No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 0 No
Structure 6
Continued on back

Facility Number: 9S— 1 • Date of Inspection i„�/,;/p/ p/ i � Printed on: 1/9/2001
i
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (e/ treZS, 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
PNo
8.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
KNo
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 applica+❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
kNo
12.
In?
Crop type p J �' U e Tl 1 bJ i) P
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those esignated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
o
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
MNo
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
)(No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
/
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
%///
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ✓ /
El Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑Yes
0 No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
[XNo
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
XNo
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
XNo
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
4No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
jXNo
tVQ.ViVt�«itjfjs;oF• ilefjcpencies •ti gre ppCea• j>Striitg tbjs;vjsjt; • X0 watj-;ect•.iye qtZ fuj tjtgr
6iresptmdence. about this.vtsit..::..:::::....:...:::...::...:.... :
9. Per peers) I'� Yl2ec1 a mo-rK- ,ja•p o� 6ta4TL/. 040M O-P sail lhx� -
o
q • �.i �L h<-e.-d -1* P'U" 5mn .
.
Reviewer/Inspector Name f6a.i{<7 , f j h73�
Reviewer/Inspector SignaturF, nib A7 / Date: ;2A 1) e.n.,

Facility Number: . of Inspection • Printed on: 1/9/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below �] Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
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 0 No
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes )(No
❑ Yes [)&
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes PO No
ona . 9mmentsan or, rawm :�
_. � i, , i� : � .. �
� `r e �,: � �,r l ,x ., � _�
n � � i �.,�, r h �,li:.. fn •
� u`
jVo}es �. Perrnii- ass u�eci
(�,r-cOt. lq9 9.
`
1,vaS�e v�/�►�
�o da�s� v/'5
le ?
N* a tcnCemor �r0�46"
a�. P' eeomme M bU ry ► n o
a.vt i rMb dwpe r
. a.rc-
tvn Ly sou`ne remains . Ctd lolo-
N dole 4 3cb'
5100

Facility Number
Uaw or Visil: Y/20/2000 Thriv: 9:00 Primed on: 2/15/2001
85 1
Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted E Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Dale Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Edaet.Beulxett.l.eeder.l'ag.l acul........................................................... County: S.tolces................................................ W. SRQ........
OwnerName: Edsei....................................... B.t toted....................................................... Phone No: 91QrS9a.:BLS.9...........................................................
FacilityContact:.............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
MailingAddress: Ruud..x...It.Q7J5.3................................................................................ Danbury....NC......................................................... 270.1.6 .............
Onsite Representative: Eddie.8S.11Aett............................................................................ Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:nrnry.E... ............................... ijuutleft............................................ Operator Certification Number:.19.7.U2 .............................
Location of Farm:
S miles north from Danbury on Hwy. # 8, right onto Andrew Bennett Rd. to farm on the left at the end of road.
®Swine []Poultry []Cattle []Horse Latitude 36 • 28 Ol Longitude 80 • 10 03
� V� w�ur F av��e�renr
?> Caeacit P,o ulatfon
Swine
rt
Poultr. Y
r }'. q. ; S 'S:
Ueegol P,o ulation Cattle a° t
a a _, 'r a a. +.r .
Destgn:,
Ca acd „fPo ulatio°n
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Layer
❑Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer
❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑Other
a°fk
Total Design Capacity
Total N
�,+ G";' m n'•'", .- �. ;,
9 " ",+ . = -
800
417,600
® Farrow to Feeder
800
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons F-1 ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Arcs
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges R 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 ste Collection X 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: .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................. .......................... ............ .
......... I..........................
Freeboard (inches): 42
5100
Continued on back

FFaacilit Number: 85-1 Date of Ins x•clion 9/20/2000
( Y I I'rin[cd un: �/15/2001
�.�.
5.
Are there any immediate threats to the in�rity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tree0vere 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 Fescue (Graze)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Reuuired
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
ElNo violations:oe* :defeiencie$ wer'e;note,d :d,utingthis. visit.::Ytiu:'Willreceive t10 fti,rth'et : :
I.
.
corresnondeht a about this visit.:: .. .
19. 60 day window on either side of waste sample:March '00 pumping not covered. DWQ inspector informed him of sample window
specifics and he sent off a sample that came back in 6/00 as soon as he realized the problem. .
Reviewer/Inspector Name •Margaret Okeefe
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5100

Fac lity Number: 85-1 of Inspection 9/2(1/21100 • Printed on: 2/15/2001
Q dor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application'? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
®No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the 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
it nu •ommen an o awin
I
i
l
5100

Facility Number 85 Ol Date ul Visil 5/3/2000 Printed on: 5/4/2000
0 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
E Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: >adSeA tutARRt. eerie[.EiSF.acalx........................................................... County: S.tOlses................................................. W.SRQ........
OwnerName: Edul........................................ B.ctx W....................................................... Phone No: 336c593.4.35.4...........................................................
Facility Contact: Ed(1le-8.9allett................................................ Title: Q.W.IAhG................................................. Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: Il2SS..A od�eW.Bennett. Tioad.......................................................... I3,ttrtbucy...N.'C......................................................... 2.7916 .............
OnsiteRepresentative: ...................................................................... .................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator: eacy,,E ,ttnd_T.tddy..t?.. ECutlktt............................................ Operator Certification Number: 1979QnT.eddy...............
Location of Farm:
®Swine []Poultry []Cattle ❑ Hor.Latitude 36 • 28 0 .. Longitude 80 • 10 03 ..
Discharge s&Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the Stale? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection $ Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: ............................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 20.5
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Continued on back �4

Facility Number: 85—01 • Date of' Inspection 5/3/2000 Printed on: 5/4/2000
a
5.
Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tree , vere 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
❑ Yes
® No
12.
Crop type Fescue (Hay)
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
®No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the Iacility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
"
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
®No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(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
� 0' No�viblations:o� deficiencies were:noted ;dur. ing this; Visit.' Yt' u:wiIi receive t►o ftirther
cork respondence. about this visit.''.
19. No waste samples for 6/24/99 or 10/16/99 applications. Need to take sample for 03/20/00 application. No soil sample for 1999.
"--
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melissa Rosebrock

Facility Number: 85— 11 of lnsp.ction 5/3/2000 • Printed on: 5/4/2000
a
( t' 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

a torn .
Facility Number Date of Inspection Q
Time of Inspection 24It
Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Not O ¢rational Date Last Operated: ..........................
r Q I' •
Farm Name: ...E.Jse d....(J�.nnAE44....Fii2 ..........IGj... 1 �..... County:.....,.. .a.1L r ��/ _ 5..................................................
Owner Name:......FJ., ..�....... :. }4............................................................. Phone No:...... �- -- 5TO....
1 i (� , I ............
Facility Contact: ..... .Q.rile.\........
,�.:�).hle..4........... Title: ...... i�`..IA . ply ............................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: ..... �.[lZS.t••••....I..lK.1.�.rC�M �ee��ntl......:..n.b�.r. NL o?-70..(0....
... I ..................................... . .
OnsiteRepresentative: ..... t:a 1fe....:%a�:._/.._�j:—Al.................................:...... Integrator:.............................................yy....^.....................................
Certified Operator:,,,�,Q,j7,,,;., En....,Ah6-
...
,L :i " ''; D051gn.: " ,i jFCUrrent .. ' 'DOslgn Current ' n�lt '.i'�? DeSlgn F CUrrent ir?
Swine Ca aeit !'Poiulation Poultry _ Ca acit Po'iolation',; Cattle „Ca aci' `Po dhibon,,
l; ❑Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
.41 ❑Feeder to Finish ';_ ❑Non -Layer 10 Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
,�� Farrow [o Feeder I[] Other
'I Farrow to Finish
Total Deslgn,Capacfty;�
❑ Gilts
"❑Boars o � ���itgTotatisstm
r
Number of Lagoons ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area IN
-�.r, i i{
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps' ® ,h ❑ 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 T`
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? (II' 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? 0 Spillway ❑ Yes A No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S Structure 6
Identifier: qal
Freeboard(inches): ........ •••••..... ... .... /. Y...................................................................................................................................
�S/t7lf�b� �J
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of by the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑Yes p�No
seepage, etc.) / \
3/23/99 Continued on back

• Facility Number: — 0 �e of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or �•--_
closure plan? ❑ Yes No
(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? ❑ 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 1KNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ P N J ems} # 3 ❑ Yes VNo
12. Crop type fib. - N v • Ya c aa3S
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management la (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 WIN
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes WNo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes rNo
0
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
Required Records & Documents
17.. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ 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 �Io
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ANo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ),%-No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes .0490
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes XNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes VNo
IQ•Yigl�{itirjs;oj ilQfjc�encie wgreho4ed�ljttflagt�tjs;... •You ....g......... •;•
eorrespondence: abbot: this visit: • : :: :: ::::::::::::::::::
No (oasfe� Sa.lVles for (Q�a�lgq
Need -lb 9e+ 6- [t -For 3 f 0-2b%o
No Sall Sa"Ie �o►- 1999 .
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signai
r l�l��gq awl icoh
app icahion .
Date:

Facility Number: �%is�l �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
—93*er- E iMo
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? om I T, n o2OOa
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
.._/
�y 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
$/No
/`
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
No
32.
Do the Flush tanks lack a submerged rill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? aYj 1 I 1 h oZO�$Ne
'6Ae-d �nIR90
,t'�►1 Por asyr 51-orm eotnt-
I a'1
Ma-/- lt'$uid Iev4
Top p� Ja.m
(�r95+
b. 5 I frcm MO'x
q(a .-70
qs,-7l
q 7. a-
I'70'd leue-I
+o e,res+ of s p i (I

'NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND
:NATURAL RESOURCES
WINSTON-SALEM REGIONAL OFFICE
TO:
/t .:
A�
D E N R.
FAX TRANSMITTAL.
Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27107
Phone:[phone]
FAX NUMBER: 336 . sG 3.9 a 3 Z
.. FROM:
DATE: D S,
Number of pages (including cover page):
CONCAENTS:
7
Fax: [phone]

10 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ Inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number 85 Ol Date of Inspection 3/18/99
Time of Inspection 14:00 24 hr. (hh:mm)
M Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Not O ¢rational Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm Name: EdaclAclutctt.EewdetPig.karm............................................................ County: StorkPA................................................ W..S.R.Q........
OwnerName: Edael....................................... .B.cruwtf....................................................... Phone No: 4. M93435.4...........................................................
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: B.t...L.Aex.153........................................................................................ Datubury...NC........................................................ 27.0.1b..............
OnsiteRepresentative: Add1RACORctt............................................................................. Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator: Henry..E. ............................... Bennett ............................................ Operator Certification Number: .19.7.8.9.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 36 • 28 O1 Longitude 80 • 10 03
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of tie operation'?
[] Yes
M No
Discharge originated at: [] Lagoon Q Spray Field ❑ Ober
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 lie operation?
❑ Yes
M No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge'?
© Yes
M No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? [] Spillway
❑ Yes
M No
Stricture I Structure 2 Sirucbure 3 Structure 4 Stricture 5
Structure 6
Identifier: .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard(inches): ...............2..................................................................................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any inmiediate threats to tie integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
[] Yes
M No
seepage, eta)
I /(i/��
Continued on back

Facility Number: 85-01 I f Inspection 3/18/99
6. Are there structures on -site which are notOperly addressed and/or managed through a wasaanagentent 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 strictures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes H No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required unaxinnun and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste AnDlication
10. Are [here any buffers that need maintenance/improvement'? ❑ Yes No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pending ❑ PAN ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Fescue (Graze)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in die Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre detennination?
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/ WI.1P, 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 Penim?
(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 A WMP7
q •1*b• i'iolAtivns: lir:defieietieles• *' e' ?e: rioted:duFiilg :ttiis •visit:: Y•oti vylll:reCeive i_'v ttirttiee
..........................................................
. • .corresnaudence 'about •this.visit.• . • . • . • . • . • . • . • . • . • ......................... .
need pumping - water level is a ]ugh water mark
Reviewer/Inspector Name Di
❑ Yes (@ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes QKNo
M MMI
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes Og No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes H No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

gcivision of Sol'-d Water Conservation ❑ Other _VIcy
�DDivision
of Water Quality `tea
Routine OComplaint O Follow-up of DW ins ection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility NumberDate of Inspection 0 /8
•—� 0�
Time of Inspection 0 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Registered rCertified OQApplied for Permit C1 Permitted 0 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
Farm Namc:....':....5.(. Se./... vpNnl Q f ec&X ...... fix^ County:.....�(..�.�?...................................................
....................... .
�..../) sp7.. p3.........................
Owner Name:...:`.. she (! .... e..^..........................................................:....... Phone No: � f2.........../.. ?..`..C? ...... e
Facility Contact: EAS0. L._ !)°w t............................. Title:................................................................ Phone N�3�1 ....3..- 925
Mailing Address: ...... , C• 2
R .. /. o ...1................................................... <4 d.u.�.7.t. V......................................... o 6.....
Onsite Representative:... /�fnn(.t is.............................
QQ..._�e/t.!.`........................................................ Integrator:...................................................C........../..........................
Certified Operator:.. CAI fl!1. Q:......`J s „/ Q./.......................... I.......................... Operator Certification Number;z/..7.C1 9 .......................
Location of Farm:
.. .. / a
.5...1.'Yl.%.�5...../✓..D..R..7..1.s.._..G?.�.�/it�4...u!e�...P..4.(..?..7..W....�...�....�LG.��...Q.N..�i.�..C(1.lC��r_.f3.tr.�,r.��.�..G��..�a_.f4...�rlt!.. �
Unutuue L.S.(4_j L_& J. �'/ I•• r onguuue I [IV I- I /u I• I VS I••
Design a Current iDesign Current Designs Current
Swme-, N Capacity Population,, Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population-
❑ Wean to Feeder I0 Layer 10Dairy is
❑ Feeder to Finish ILI Non -Layer I JLJ Non -Dairy-
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder 10 Other
❑ Fallow to Finish Total DesignCapacity O
❑ Gilts {
❑Boars Total SSLW'';
Nnmber of Lagoons / Holding Ponds �T� ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
xi v ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System �:, p,
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
V'o
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
LL
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated Flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any pan of the operation?
❑ Yes
ONo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
)EkNo
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
C514o
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
�#No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
�INo
7/25/97
q
' � r L____

Facility Number: — fl •
W 8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (La2oons.11olding Ponds. Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
•
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes ((`O
co
❑ Yes F No
Structure 6
Identifier:..................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard(ft):.............................. ...................................................................................................................................................................................
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
o
❑ YesPNo
I t .
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
1WNo
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes to
Waste Application Q p
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? �g 5 �� `t G dO ' d� A I 0 � J'
Yes No
(If in excess of WNW, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
2
15.
Crop type r,.,;e;.....tti ............................................................................................................................................................................................................
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 No
/
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes o
Co
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes �1}l0
lyNo
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
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 ONO
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes PNo
0-No.violkiousor
deficiencies were noted during this:visit.:You:will receivebo further
: •
correspondence about #his: visit:::::: • :::.: ; :::::: • , :.::: • ::::::::

Division of Soi1W Water Conservation Other Alcy
Division of Water QualityAiZ
Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O FoUow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection p p
Facility Number
Time of Inspection 0 24 he (hh:mm)
13 Registered IpCertified E3 Applied for Permit 13 Permitted 113 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Se l3et+ ve"71 kk Pt h^ Count Sh kes
FarmNamc:...... n............................................................................`.I............. Y:.....................................................................................
Owner Name: ..... ........SP � .AAN, �........................................................ Phone Nod ). S-53 —
Facility Contact( &C/.%............................. Title: ..... 0 UNe�.................................. Phone No:
Q�^ (� ..... I� /
Mailing Address: ..Ia.S....'....�7......!,11.� ....�..�...........................^.................:............ 4_=.N.b.�...`!......N.C....r............................�-�O....I...
Onsite Representative: ..... .,0J.i.e.......... 13. f Me.k.l.................................... Integrator:.....................................................................
Certified Operator, .......... J5;.A .i..Q....................................... Operator Certification Number, .... I �7.8..7...........
Location of Farm:
Latitude =• '1-_ DD" Longitude ®D • (O , 0<<
Design Current
Design Current -
Design Current
Swme ''Capacity. Population;
Poulti y
CapacityPo ulation
p Ca Ile
� �
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
�.
10 Layer I
❑ Dairy
.�
�.
❑ Feeder to Finish
I0 Non -Layer 1
10 Non-Dairy
0 Farrow to Wean
<-
❑Farrow to Feeder
S
❑ OtherI
I
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Des)gu CapaCltyl
❑ Gilts
r .s..
❑Boars
Total SSLW
z �
Number of Lagoons / Holdmg'Ponds L
❑ Subsurface Drains Prese
ID Lagoon Area
ID Spray Field Area
_!J
,
'4
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Mk-,
x
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
NO
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
llltyiI1
No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gaUmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
WNo
mai menance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
o
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsiibblle charge?
?
El YestNo
�q
7/25/97 -' 'z4 / —3 )
L>>t

Facihtj6Number: — 1 1 •
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Laeoons.l[old ing Ponds. Flush Pits, etc)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2
Identifier: q o tv
............. t .............................
Freeboard (ft).....I..................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
u
Structure 3 Structure 4
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes XNo
Structure 5 Structure 6
Waste Application ^— jj
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? �A 5� r/,�.O 1 I 0 i Iv VYl /�1
(If in excess of W,MP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ) 11.
15. Crop type....NI..............................................................................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did ReviewerAnspector 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?
lrU No.violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. ,You will receive no further
7_10rr6pondeou about this visit: :
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes . No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes IXI No
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes P o
❑ Yes ER- No
❑ Yes XI No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes XNO
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No

10 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number —
Farm Status: Registered ❑ Applied for Permit
❑ Certified ❑ Permitted
Date of Inspection
TIme of Inspection
24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
(ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
or Inspection (includes travel and nrocessinv)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated: ...... _..... ....... ....... _..... ._...... ............... _...................... __............ ... ..... _......................
Farm Name: ...6�5J....jgev.�+t!�7�'.6c,&.R, � County:.- a�es.........
.`.ri/................................_...... / _........_.... _.......__.....__.
Land Owner Name: ..... r�ci.Scl.............. .�rN c�....................................... Phone No:-S._V.l_2).. ............................
Facility Conctact:............................................................................... Title:...................
Mailing Address: ......... 1..._I t..._�.X
pp................. _.........................................
Onsite Representative: ..... �A_1.L'3:...:......&Z'J `i 2 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_,
J�.... .............._.............._. .....
Certified Operator:......�/_P!���........Q c ; 0 k0 -- Q _
_
Location of Farm:
PhoneNo: .............................. . ....... . .................
Integrator: ..........................._.........._......................q........................
Operator Certification Number:..S:J, T............._...
LatitudeLongitude ®0 -W-1, 00-11«
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes �j No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes )4 No
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes )9:vo
❑ Yes P2 No
Continued on back
J

Facility Number: ............... . ...............
6. I�,fpcility not in compliance with any abable setback criteria in effect at the time of d*n? ❑ Yes 0
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes %N0
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes o
Structures (1 agoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9.
Is storage capacity (Freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes KNo
Freeboard (ft): Strpcsttre 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
10.
............................ .......................... ........ ...... _......... ............ _............
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
............ ...... ....... .................. _...... _
❑ Yes �6No
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes ANo
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes �6No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes $0
Waste
Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes 'F-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 Qy No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes t2CNo
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes gNo
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes o
For Certified Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No
24. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments (refer to question #)r 'Explain'any YES answersanm d/or any 'recomendations or;any other comments
Use drawings of facilityto better explain situations (use'addrtional pages as necessary)
09411
ppJ 4!0 �RO4/ohs
Reviewer/Inspector Name ` k1 i K +;►'4t%r71ly `'- it,., a a.'s "" ,,.„
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: -�A C. Date:
V
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97