860010_INSPECTIONS_20171231

(Type of Visit: (N Compliance Inspection U Operation Review U Structure Evaluation U Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: O16 Routine O Complaint O Follow-on O Referral O Emeruencv O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Z1
Farm Name:
Owner Name: m4k&
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Arrival Time: Z ' 1 Departure Time: Zi 00 County: �1Ad1Region: WJR0
i tlifw� Owner Email:
���Aff��1*2 Phone: 33G7/2����
Facility Contact: UOt„itj o/ JeA t oryyt Title:
Onsite Representative:
Integrator:
Phone: 33ly ^ /Q) —2*70
�l o —433/ A q G
Certified Operator: ,�p3 / �YI Certification Number / / 5 Zq /
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Certification Number; K r � I
Latitude: 3(Ej 3a 05 Longitude: p
52-4,� -6 .'Z- I 0.1
tj
K W.
e
Design
Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity
Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
li
Dai Heifer
a
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dr,+ P.oultr,+
C•a taci
P,o
Non-Dai
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
TurkeyPouets
Other
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? (I f 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
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ YesANo
XYes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 21412015 Continued

Vacility Number: • Date of Inspection: 2
Waste Collection & Treatment �(
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes IX I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes 77777T❑No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Stryy cture 2 Str cture 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: tAj Ys1C w 2
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): I>fu1 e'W'PAy,
Observed Freeboard (in): 36 6
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 X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? El Yes """'"X'"'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) X
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application �J'
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes Ij(I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? J�
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ElHeavy Metals (Cu, Zn, e c.)
❑ 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.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑LeaseAgreements
❑ Yes IN No ����
❑ Yes !!!" No
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No
❑ Waste Application El Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste ransfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes�No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes `V No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Wacility Number: In Date of Inspection: 211
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste app ication equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑:] No XNA ❑ 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 provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
kNo
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
A
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes lXI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
���CCCCC
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
111111�����TTTTTT
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional popes as necessary).
,SagJ anwlvw tux - olv,.f, =7,
21. �0 Wdsk afP1r4f;N ftpfdkd'r 40 2616, M&k reuek
Z 1, wcc Ar'Atyrf Cese,141 in0{' wkoej yt•+ CfAj 1W deb. 20l 7), f n Es e
5PfeAdw • r-" 4- hero y w 6J
aa- Vw4 use
y, .wed- 54ck "1 �s � h� r�""t'aly "
TO ,% rek�l �� QraccsJ � � y o��l dwwer'S If, Mwtt `b d,avc
�1.2W d�"""' a •ta.h ezfynl'i" 61aN2fS��0 ��I,
9, Ana {J'►�lJ is de /ailed �� �}. as
Fla4,ck �T� �►°
9y AA ;'Al`G" ye' '
Reviewer/Inspector Name: re)yY`i'?/�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:336-7Z--9649f
Date: L /ir L0/
21412015

Division of Water Resources 11
Facility Number ®- EA Division of Soil and Water t�ervation
0 Other Agency
Reason for Visit: Q(Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: '7 Arrival Time: Departure Time: I a , 4 0 County: St.+' T I- Region: W$Rrj
Farm Name: M LLp le, RiJa Q.i hlxl v Y Owner Email: / C
Owner Name:
IUI �� �d QPi DICE Phone: i3�6T9 7t�t��
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
OnsiteRepresentative: ` ,l�t�'� Integrator:
Certified Operator: T FinrrTrtif1 336i - [0 '^'$J Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 3 _�Q L'S� % Longitude:
u55;-N ► s-7M W�o,ct:cx.. airy o w,
P;�e/Nr✓—g� P;11� 2�ce� �_A. �ndt� 4. r-v- n
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Dry Poultry Caoacity POD.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
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 DW R)
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'?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
FA
'
��iQ�t�rkrj�7
1
f
WLAA
Of W
'E
' - ,
--
■im�
--
❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
21412015 Continued

Facility Number: . Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:��,'��[
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of tie 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?
❑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 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Pending ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
1 ❑ 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): �7 M Q I I Q? Q.t n _ 0-6m ,q I ICLQ
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
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Re
❑ Yes
�o
❑ Yes
�
�)Q•No
TT❑]
Yes
No
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. oes record keeping need provement? a epprrtprrate box�alew'— ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Applica 'on W ekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis sfrrS' ❑Weather Code
ainfall Stocking Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
,,�—'T-
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of ]� 21412015 Continued

Facilit Number: Date of inspection: 4 ,
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applic'dTon equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes WNo
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ NA ❑ NE
.5�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 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 Ejj-lVo ❑ 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
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
�[
IX I No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency'?
❑ Yes
[ 'No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
IiSrt rawines of facility to better.uplain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
O
H
Zee- )exA-e ? ` �J
('ortn�"►�t , Irvc1�=5� �y,l5brci{e iv1 vZOIS?
AvU jr5 lie r,() by 12.13i17_0i&.
Soil bPSidue, 2-b17.
^0-a vh etrl s lib ca+eJ i n ;2a (S ? (jOt UAAA
a
Ple°'Se 5d� 11)Vor mo-',- ASKP
S.Xx rb
15 L* w�
M�fi rex`n ova, sac�d �'rctn 5 Pill wa� � reams wed
r����� o� &mv\ c�ro-ljed,Se1 NlvSk
llU5-t
e* read Pa-rlorw-
5o^,4
j°a"e plye. n5
Plea5a
raise Sand lie-
V-'�XIl
iv con+o"n waste
� 501 1 in rokii,ne, I&IOC ►oQgin4 o'TD �=1nis h n4
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspec
Page 3 of 3
1 Need
tMoIkD d aLM,
t0
Lis t- TA-4111
Date: -7 2 C
a Sox t0.th Q1( le WS P?

Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Ir Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit 5 /y-7ai5 Arrrivall Time: Z /s Departure Time: /,' o County✓✓Y Region: WC)
Farm Name: �/ G. /) i�/ Y Owner Email: c�7 �j
Owner Name: //folk 1'el is ,/�/ne Phone: q� 36_ 7/9- l 7d
Mailing Address: ZZj 1� q�jJe, /fii/r,i ,/(f�//, /p"/�%' ��y, �� is 7036
Physical Address:/%�/� /f �I /' ,Y �/I/ry �r� 7O 30
y��1
Facility Contact: A41t1 11-1yn Title: Phone: --fgs(-336-7/o-1/3el
Onsite Representative://p�/fie/ c}/5� / La f/� Integrator: gq
Certified Operator: .J—0j/t �/d/Te2 Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
/ Location of Farm: Latitude: �,� � 3� 40Q S ~ Longitude: O� n ell' /S
U S 5Z / Z 7 yc✓ £r„� �G �9 feu
MF a,r7/44
P„re� l/C 89 �nc /P
Zn �/�
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish I
Wet Poultry
ILayer
Design
Capacity
I
Current Design
Pop. Cattle CapaciM
Dairy Cow oo
urnt
Cre
Pop.
A115
Wean to Feeder
I
JNon-Layer
I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
I)t, P.pultr.
Layers
Design
Ga aci
Current
P,o P.
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
I jBeefBroodCow
El
Other
Other
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part 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?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes Jallo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Ej�_No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes J;a No ❑ NA ❑ NE
21412014 Continued

Facili Number: TA - • jDate of Inspection: y /
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
S�nurccttu(r� 1 'StttrLucture/2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Structure 5
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): O
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
JZ 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
S No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
E 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
Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Aoollcation
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
-0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
LEI -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 CropWindow ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application
Outside of Approved
Area
12. Crop Type(s): '64o/
t� (mil
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
J�:[No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ 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
R 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. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑3<aste Application Ea Veekly Freeboard ✓ Waste Analysis [] S it Analysis
Q Vaste Transfers
[ Weather Code
EalCaainfall ED'§tocking [2iffrop Yield E2120 Minute Inspections [aMonthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
I —I
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
ELNA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412014 Continued

Facility Number: - / O • Date of Inspection: J— S
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes EE.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No �c NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any
Jse drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
❑ Yes
EK No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
®-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes JE�.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes co No ❑ NA ❑ NE
or any other comments.,
'bNrS I'1eede- dvr A1J OP LiG by I1-/3/1Zef6 ��jryfs�sxdatn,�arn ��.s i✓�.. w�// my-'-J4.:.
�rt S..vr+n+t
sor I f�sfi dui J�L�sa�
7. ysk-r�"Vt«? w 4,
;% vY ger Ir4rk4­S1urrj Zet5� Cadn
rr
+\.
r)uc r�'r/c.X f uu, for (I ye
11 // y rt
SG�YE / �S I/vT/4a, y
/4eeP JAL4 LA
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
i aSkllOyly�yI
Phone: `770/" !b d y/
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: 5'/ %' 2 II/S
Page 3 of 3 X 21412014

N O VM b e.- 260
Type of Visit: §0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: (Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:
I I
Arrival Time: Departure Time: E= County:
r r
Farm Name:
�L9 AQk&,
►eldLie, Dairy Owner Email:
Region: ti I S 2ro
Owner Name: F I e, t pa t r y .Z rN c— gPhone: /� j q/�� 7 9 Q
Mailing Address: 1 P 1 rN P� 62 1 Cl APED Rd-• t/�/lT • A 1 r' 4 , NC, 9 7 o-3I Q
Physical Address: pZq 9 i/O r+oY] _ 1� AVI f • /t t lL _ f' Ul/ % � ��
Facility Contact: _D&n•t e_ I H o r Ee n Title:
ti
Onsite Representative: _ o—n lB 4 �ToS h
Certified Operator: TC�S K �t6l-Toil
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone:
bar.iel Cell +{ol a qd
Josh ?r11 7i6-438/
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude:t36 '38 QS Longitude: -90 LH IS-
C)6 SRN =-7ywj 6ici-1 4p NC, 31 f-owa.r-d R4-• Aire P-I3h+onto V'l. Pine
NC- 89 L Pi r� R td e Rde "d Horton �o
Swine
Wean to Finish
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
Design Current Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Capacity Pop.
La er O
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
lf
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Design Current
Dr,+$aultr.+ Ca aei P,o
ifer Q
:Gattle::
Farrow to Finish
La ers
kerGilts
Non -La ers
Turke s
Turkey Poults
erPullets d Cow
' '
Qther
Other
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 KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes []No
❑ Yes [:]No
[—]Yes []No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
i
.i
E
Page I of 21412014 Continued

S
l�
Facility Number: Date of Inspection: Q
Waste Collection & Treatment U
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
�AS Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: n110.1-1 WSP
Spillway?: I Z
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes KNo
❑ 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 1 XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan? YYY"
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? on Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes CyNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes OeNo
❑ 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
m_
12. Crop Type(s): (
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
VNo
WNA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
:5j`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 ❑,.JOther:
JRa
Does record keeping need provement? I€3 e�appts3pria4e bex below IL] Yes No JVA ❑ NE
WasteApplication eekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis ,L—J,Was[e Transfers Weather Code
infall ❑Stocking V Crop Yield �20 Minute Inspections Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections wey-
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes &No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No P�t`NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: n Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes JWNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No tZ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes bdNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ YesdNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 11YN0
Yes eo
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes <o
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
merits (refer to question 9): Explain any.rYN;J answers and/or any additional recommendations, or, any: other comments;. -.
lrawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as aecessa . ). „
BtxlL45 owe+ 5taclo5 replo-ce-d 7 N0 was ,TaIN , COI o P12�5
�ePair wh',1L pav I
51-oc.le-piled was+t; "Pl ied
rillar&&_ �&C.5uppl j line 7 Not �eF
r�hy 4atxl� insia�tled? y�5, bl�cL ulnl� lesa5ecd ou+ ho(.L
p3� Nariv_-ve, a-dde4 AM CAW ?. Porndiin a (not
praq l; I ninYl i 1 '�o n y
i (5 C I-e5+) A u6n ao 17
Calibr&4o►1 of 6evXTill Clow•PCJ1Je_)due in aolS. &"ma4l d W
riot to use , Tru�t�- lj bruion due �O ,
-r Slurry
LA
�0.�*3 - 1ivasi-ea.pQli2oi ��e1ds no+ InwuP? Ida
9 YYl ot�t� t t.�e s.Li._P h mot- inti _LAnAA-k..�) , N
0
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3 G �_' p
Phone: 1-7 1 — S a8 9
Date: q 17 j oZo1V
4>4

of Visit: 9D Compliance Inspection
m for Visit: &D Routine O COMU
Operation Review O Structure Evaluation
O Follow-on O Referral O Emereencv
Date of Visit: �p►j Z Arrival Time: Departure Time: i 9 I�rry�County:
Farm Name T: Ivl�Q�p����Q 170..t r y , Owner rEEmail:
^'
Owner Name:^KOL O 16 Th C Phone: _719 — % 9 Q V
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 'Pla % tt e.1 N 6r-1 pn Title:
OnsiteRepresentative: Zan ('Pit +_Tp5h
Certified Operator: SUS k Horl1 or)
Back-up Operator:
Phone:
Integrator:
0 Denied Access
rru
I Region: ]L15 La
"D Ceti
Certification N4mberlt b f• % Q
S Ceti -110— 14 31a
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 6° , L /
3 �a° ?n1 DS U Longitude: '-f g 3
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
[:]Yes t�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Ibl No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 21412011 Continued
.;r

Facility Number: ot - Q • Date of Inspection: .2
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes b(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: nJF W W3jP et 6j-,CV_
Spillway?: ( 7—
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):_
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
❑ Yes Pp No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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? 0Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes W 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
WYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN [� PAN> 10%or 10lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus [3 Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside o?Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application
Outside of Approved
Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
�` No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
❑ 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
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reguired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21.JJoes record keeping need jmprovement? I€yesie-agp cip����P ti^- �� Yes No NA ❑ NE
hJ( Waste Applica ion L_ I( eekly Freeboar Waste Analysis oil Analysis Waste Transfers 2� weather Code
Rainfall [ Stocking �rop Yield �20 Minute Inspections Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 10 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No A NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 UrQh �j0.Ut} e 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: Date of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applZ anon equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No CAA ❑ 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
9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
1XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ 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.
T
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:
0 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 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
7XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommen its pr am�bther comments' —
Use ings of facility to better explain situations (use additional ages as necessary). Z 56 /oS - ` 111 21 ; E
Sn�{ial Curl %7 0Mfte}e T W6 ( u-f-sid- boom tweasuu S
(,ot-,) pro(j'Je_ zlF�j C, Ti U 500rA �r 'Coil n,gn �In AS�� o t lie ems„ �ml
4s NO irra-4i J,° 0M.0- d C� W M p ? poh.dl !�y r o ti e ?
dot proce�vres? M�f-P�y 0.v�e,,Ynvs1' b� lV\5t--Lle.,cl pigpr
}y 7 4��3 d-Lk_i. a O 150 ne+ Nie .
U P
P-Q�- �-�- P l r v� e o b� e�I� 'h w
a i a..013 _5ol15 ZJv2 °-`r\ a 01 7 •
a-/ f I ! 1 a- _ 'i • 5� Lf9 § 5 D = 4 • S6 .tap _
q ill a.xto_ for 0 : 01, lob
Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Phone: t 1 1—
Date: 11a/ / 3
Page 3 of 3 Pl.r crl/µ ,- j (x r g t t' i• /',A�
�Z.C.N)-li.d{J 4

Division of Water Quality •
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 860010 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC860010 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Technical Assistance Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Other County: Surry Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 03/08/2013 Entry Time: 10:30 AM Exit Time: 12:30 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Maple Ridae Dairy Owner Email:
WITTICK1710111111011FIT • 1
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 1174 Pine R'dae Rd Mount Airy NC 27030
Physical Address: 299 Horton Rd - Mount Airy NC 27030
Facility Status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Pine Ridge Road off Hwy. 89 8 miles west of Mt. Airy.
Question Areas:
W Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Other Issues
Certified Operator: Joshua Lee Horton
Secondary OIC(s):
Latitude:36°30'05" Longitude: 80.43'15"
Technical Assistance
Operator Certification Number: 995249
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Daniel Horton Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Daniel Horton Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: PatrickMitchellPhone:
Inspector Signature: / '' Date: 3 2l ZO % 3
Secondary Inspector(s):
Melissa Rosebrock
3/zi(zo13
Phone:
Page: 1

•
Permit: AWC860010 Owner - Facility: Maple Ridge Dairy Inc Facility Number: 860010
Inspection Date: 03/08/2013 Inspection Type: Technical Assistance Reason for Visit: Other
Inspection Summary:
On March 8, 2013 WSRO DWQ staff met with Mr. Josh Horton, OIC for Maple Ridge Dairy to review the new hose drag system
(including hydrant) and the initial calibration. Also present for this review was Mr. Joe Hudyncia (NCDA Soil & Water). The facility has
two types of hose drag application units for the system. Based on this review DWQ recommends the following:
1. An initial calibration needs to be performed on the Cadman hose drag ("boom -type" unit). DWQ strongly recommends taking at
least the two outside boom flow measurements (minimum), alternating nozzles, and calculating an average to be used in the
calibration. Proper calibration forms left with OIC.
2. DWQ strongly recommends that you perform at least two outside flow measurements (minimum) on the Gen -Till hose drag
("low -profile" unit) and calculate the average to be used in the initial calibration.
3. After the initial calibrations are completed, a narrative must be added to the WUP describing the hose drag system (including
operation of the hydrant) utilizing both a "low -profile" unit and a "boom -type" unit. This narrative should include the following
information:
- Proper operation for each type hose drag unit (i.e. operating pressures based on the initial calibrations keeping within hydraulic and
PAN limits).
- A note about "ponding not being evident more than four hours after application".
- Include safety procedures ("An operational Murphy Gauge for psi at the pump must be used during all land application events and
that someone other than the drag line operator must still be present on the farm during ALL application events."). To help extend the
life of the farm machinery, it is recommended that you also install oil and temperature gauges as well.
- Attach any flow tables, diagrams, etc. as appendixes.
4. The new field in Tract 5035 needs to be added to the WUP also.
OTHER NOTES:
- Monitor the fill area where the supply line is buried downslope to the creek crossing (waste pond side of creek). The fill is very loose
and contains debris.
- The stream is subject to relocation during the stream restoration project; proper stream crossing(s) should be installed at the final
crossing location(s), OIC was directed to obtain any necessary permits. The current stream crossing is below stream bottom, but very
shallow in places (i.e. 0 to 2" deep to top of pipe). Current stream crossing was reportedly installed via subsurface driving (not
excavation).
Page:2

Parrott: AWC860010 Owner - Facility: Maple Ridge Dairy Inc
Facility Number: 860010
Inspection Date: 03/08/2013 Inspection Type: Technical Assistance Reason for Vislt: Other
Waste Structures
Type
Identifier
Designed Observed
Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
aste Pond
LARGE (NEW) WSP
02/16/07
48.00
Neste Pond
WASTE POND
Net Stack
WET STACK #1
et Stack
WET STACK #2
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 thefe 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?
Otherissues Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document 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 DWO of emergency situations as required by 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 ❑
If Other, please specify
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 on -site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 3

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 860010 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC860010 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Follow-up County: Surry Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 10/2912012 Entry Time: 10:40 AM Exit Time: 01:05 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Maple Ridae Dairy Owner Email:
• Maple : ••o D 904
Mailing Address: 1174 Pine Ridge Rd Mount Airy NC 27030
Physical Address: 299 Horton Rd Mount Airy NC 27030
Facility Status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Pine Ridge Road off Hwy. 89 8 miles west of Mt. Airy
Latitude: 36°30'05" Longitude: 80°43'15"
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other Issues
t
Certified Operator: Joshua Lee Horton
Operator Certification Number: 995249
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name Daniel
Horton
Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Daniel
Horton
Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Patrick Mitchell
Phone:
Inspector Signature: ��'G
A
L j
Date: Ldl L
Secondary Inspector(s)
Page: 1

Permit: AWC860010 Owner - Facility: Maple Ridge Dairy Inc Facility Number: 860010
Inspection Date: 10/29/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Inspection Summary:
3) Silage leachate is ponding/running off below the silage pits. No observed impact to surface waters at time of inspection. This is to
be remedied through relocation of silage facilities (EEP project).
4) Wet Stack #1 and Wet Stack #2 both are nearly full. Directed D.H. to land apply as soon as conditions allow and/or transfer soon.
7) Waste Pond #1 ("Upper") is still overgrown with to leaf weeds. Reminded D.H. to mow, treat and reseed as needed.
21) Records were not on the proper Division forms. D.H. to record information onto the forms.
21) Another waste sample was collected -Oct. 22nd, results not back yet; the previous sample was reportedly 0.88 lb N.
NOTES:
- The freeboard marker in the "New Waste Pond" was reset by G.G. and T.D. of Surry County NRCS and S&W.
- DWQ observed fields (5035-1 and 5035-9) that had waste recently applied using the new dragline waste irrigation equipment.
Observed activities were compliant... G.G. (Surry Co NRCS) was present for the previously occurred application event to determine
Flow rates/irrigation design. G.G. stated that the rate used is approx. 10,000 - 13,000 gallons/acre or -0.5"/acre (an allowable rate).
G.G. has approved the proposed irrigation design/dragline waste irrigation equipment. G.G. also stated that an update or amendment
to the WUP is not necessary for this equipment (i.e. treating it same as surface application).
"DWQ to send Permittee written approval and recommendations for the subject new waste application equipment.'
- Wheat/Rye small grain or hayliage was planted or in process to meet the 30 day vegetative requirement.
'DWQ to follow up w/ Permittee on installation, calibration of the proposed waste application equipment, and record keeping for this
equipment.
Page: 2

Permit: AWC860010 Owner -Facility: Maple Ridge Dairy Inc Facility Number: 860010
Inspection Date:. 10/29/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Data Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Waste Pond
LARGE (NEW) WSP
02/16/07
36.00
Waste Pond
WASTE POND
-
24.00
Wet Stack
WET STACK #1
6.00
et Stack
WET STACK #2
6.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWC860010 Owner - Facility: Maple Ridge Dairy Inc Facility Number: 860010
Inspection Date: 10129/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Follow-up
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 Stale? (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)
❑
❑
0
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
❑
■
❑
❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
■
❑
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
■
❑
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Pollding?
Hydraulic Overload?
Frozen Ground?
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
Page: 4

Permit: AWC860010 Owner -Facility: Maple Ridge Dairy Inc
Facility Number: 860010
Inspection Date: 10/29/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 Ibs ?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
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 Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
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
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
❑
11.
■
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
"
WUP?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWC860010 Owner - Facility: Maple Ridge Dairy Inc Facility Number: 860010
Inspection Date: 10/29/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Fallow -up
Records and Documents yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Lease Agreements? ❑
Other? ❑
If Other, please: specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
■
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
Cl
■
❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑
■ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑ ❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
❑
❑
■ ❑
box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a PDA for sludge levels ❑
Non-compliantsludge 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? ❑ ■ Cl ❑
Page: 6

Permit: AWC860010 Owner -Facility: Maple Ridge Dairy Inc
Facility Number:
860010
Inspection Date: 10/29/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Follow-up
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑
❑
Otherlssues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report ❑
❑
❑
■
mortality rates that exceed normal rates? '
29. Al 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? (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
If Other, please specify
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 on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
E
Page: 7

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 860010 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC860010 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comoliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Follow-up County: Surry Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 10/05/2012 Entry Time: 09150 AM Exit Time: 10,30 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Maple Ridge Dairy Owner Email:
remmakvl- - 57:4611-T-78F.TG7 k7�bfF•bl-lL'�
ITRUIM ' 1" - UrlFMWIT&2�l r
Physical Address: 299 Horton Rd Mount Airy INC 27030
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant E Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Pine Ridge Road off Hwy. 89 8 miles west of Mt. Airy.
Question Areas:
W Waste Col, Stor, 8 Treat Other Issues
Certified Operator: Joshua Lee Horton
Secondary OIC(s):
Latitude: 36°30'05" Longitude: 80'43'15"
Operator Certification Number: 995249
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Daniel Horton Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Daniel Horton Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Patrick, Mitchell
L� Phone:
Inspector Signature: ���`�� Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

•
Permit: AWC860010 Owner- Facility: Maple Ridge Dairy Inc Facility Number: 860010
Inspection Date: 10105/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Vialt: Follow-up
Inspection Summary:
On October 5, 2012 DWQ conducted an unannounced follow-up compliance inspection at the subject facility. Mr. Daniel Horton
accompanied DWQ during this inspection. The purpose of this inspection was to follow-up on the waste level in Structure #2 (New
Waste Pond).
The waste level was observed to be an estimated 14 inches from the spillway elevation and approximately one and one-half inches of
freeboard was showing on the marker. The elevation of this freeboard marker was questioned (i.e. the design suggests that there
should be 1.3 ft or greater than 16 inches elevation difference between the top of the freeboard marker (max level) and the elevation
of the spillway. This evidence suggests that the freeboard marker has been tampered with and is not correct. DWQ contacted Surry
County Soil & Water staff on 10/05/2012 to discuss and request that the marker be checked and reset accordingly as part of the
Technical Specialist review required in the October 1, 2012 NOV/NO1.
While the waste level was observed to be reduced by two inches since the previous inspection... it is estimated to still be above the
max level for this structure. Therefore the Permittee is still noncompliant with the permit and additional follow-up is warranted.
Reminded Mr. Daniel Horton to continue to remove and apply waste from this structure as conditions allow to reduce the waste level.
Page: 2

Permit: AWC860010
Owner -Facility:
Maple Ridge Dairy Inc
Facility Number: 860010
Inspection Date: 10/05/2012
Inspection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Reason for Vialt: Follow-up
Waste Structures
Deal nod Observed
Type
Identifier
Closed Date Start Date
Freeboard Freeboard
Neste Pond
LARGE (NEW) WSP
02/16/07
14.00
Neste Pond
WASTE POND
)y E
Net Stack
WET STACK #1
N E
et Stack
WET STACK #2
MONSON
N E
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes No NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard? ❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
improvement?
Citherissues Yes No NA NE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document 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? (i.e., discharge, ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? 111100
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 CAWMP? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page: 3

for Visit:
Date of Visit
Routine
Inspection
Operation Review O Structure
Referral
O Denied Access
t� (� Departure Time: OV County: Su'rly
Farm Name: MA i Q t i {\� i �, Qatiry T
Owner Name: t°totj)E Ri�.t l/aifa lnc,
—I p q
Mailing Address: l 1 7� ?i n.t: d i M
Arrival Time:
Owner Email:
Phone:
kI f u . iJ G 2—'7 0
Region: W'5 K0
p,p, I
Physical Address: Z 1 I p f 46
a��11 Z[/ Facility Contact: �nlr t 0(4Vt Title: Phone: Cam) "/n1- J
y0
Onsite Representative: 7-of 1i + "J�IIt tn' 1e Integrator: �T "ii) 71 D - 11301
Certified Operator: O,tN-'k L, '� r-e/` ., Certification Number: %q 5-2 Lj� 9
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Certification Number:
Latitude: 3E m36' 05- Longitude: w' 1f 3 " 15-
EIWy 891—b
Plne. RtLJ�e_ Pd.
Swine
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Wet Igy-ELR—Pac-iqM
Design
Current
Design
apacity
Current
Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
Dairy Cow
3 $
Wean to Feeder
[Non -Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
I)r, P,oultr,
La ers
Design
Ca acl �
Current
P.a P.
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
zoo
?_p
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
I
jBeefBroodCow
Other
Other
Turke s
Turke Pon
10ther
md
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State?. (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 1No
❑ Yes [-]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ANo
XYes ❑ No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 21412011 Continued

-ility Number: Ti, - (� • Date of Inspection: D L
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? XYes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1
Structure 2
Identifier:
u ppty W5p
—r
oe. j wv
Spillway?:
��
Yes
Designed Freeboard (in):
Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Observed Freeboard (in): 3 21
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes P(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 fi�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) y�
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes 1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? ✓`t
Waste Application j�
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes III No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? yT
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes I)(I 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): (yln
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?
Reguired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑ YesXNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
TT❑\�No
J*NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
lllXNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ YesANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ YesENo
❑ Waste Application ❑Weekly Freeboard ❑Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste ransfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ANo
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain minbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes [:]No
Page 2 of 3
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
�<NA ❑ NE
21412011 Continued

Facili Number: fe, o • Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? Vr ❑ Yes LCI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes /`❑ No 1$J NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [:]Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes k No
❑ Yes J�No
❑ Yes
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? 0Yes
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
U:1
■ •
M •
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments. (refer to question 0): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional.. recommendations or any other. comments.
Use drawings of facility to better 'explain situations (use additional' ages as necessary):
2011 5ai1 CKAIJ,i� �o„�, forte (T.� rye6�or. 2DIZN`� ur���i. nwl✓G .
CLe 0r r 201Z ,
F - Race 2 tvL4 o+ y�-1 ei�
ek �At,Jil Sea�rl� clIePe/ata/ 4-6vu-J1
14.4-32. WUP �pd� l� arvd a �M�� d, � W"If be-
lreJ. J�&gfe, ;AAAA!rA�0A of i�'•e subsu� ;rr �4tay. Sys�crt,
r ({„
3, lJa on f�rr� -Fr,,,l,� k II� __-- � 0V&4,j NW e.4 r,r i -ille.
3, ednuc� lnMv�l nal 1 4
y�JPrt W�� level 2_ over M*X leve-1 A"J
h/rfl tk �� If nzar �ul��a�P�y los/1, Nd�/
!(0
/
I(��/A+T�A+iAtiYaf *c,l,.d D.+1-,h-91�z
0 I� '�- 0'-/ flJ h4 6-ok �A,, 0,J
PM
n7/36/.li = 0,e911n� N,9G�btJ
I) _ 3.9itN
Reviewer/Inspector Name: �q i t I �1 Nit Phone: (336) "/ 71 's2SS
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: � ' «— Date: r7 2,5-2.01 2----
Page 3 of 3 214,12011

(Type of Visit ACompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit � Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ElDenled Access
Date of Visit:
Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: SU—�r.11 Region: u LTV
Farm Name: b
e e ZC6 r Owner Email:
Owner Name:. ��P
(�F'l�
� T— ,/ (`('
R1do� 11Q 1Y U Sn_Y�C Ph/o�ne: 33(- 19 • %90Y Qf- I c¢
Mailing Address:
\-7
/� I
3�
Pi 2.cPot,
•� D�tnn•
Physical Address: _.
IIAl/�ra7
+"rg—• 2 q q O r'-}'0 11 2d • <7yI T • A I - �l IyC. a 70 3 0
Facility Contact:
�0.111 10-� 40 (-+O r) Title: Phone No: 6 — ;L 4q o
Onsite Representative:
So5Y1 d- i)016t \ Integrator: n' b
Certified Operator:, yQ r�fn Operator Certification Nt —I `f �a q
nber:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: ae c ® I Or Longitude: ® c ®, ©
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
0
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
*o
❑ NA
❑ NE
[� Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page / of 3
1
12128104 Continued

1�
Facility Number: — Q • Date of Inspection( .
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes �fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 L Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: U pMLJ5(' K)EIN LIL .))e�� 1 2+5}cx� —
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): —
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes U(,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 O(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? 0 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ANo ❑ 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 �4Yes ❑ No El NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? N
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
It. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. - ❑ Yes []No ❑ NA XNE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload. ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of AccfFtable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
C_l
12. Crop type(s)
13.
Soil type(s)
14.
Do tlieyreceiving 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
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
❑ No
9 NA
[3NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
ElYes
o
`No
[I NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
X,
❑ NA
❑ NE
3
Comments ('refer to question #) Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other,l comments f2 s L
q ,+ Alt
#t4m °l,e
ssary) F Use drawrnfa'sk c'
:§ 'tlr§-b. i , ',(tr#'k•Iikd
�4kk(ti„
�vI�z
fay, f= i .t it i�i. •j
ea i,i
,IIoon dt6 5{arUu�v);~°���le-ave-5 on too iti&yt19 t�Kwieh�s
o� �sP
4'i. u"lUs Q'ptWQ5i-e- V)e-kr- V ri'0.CP- 0. r aItj 4,
� 0. Cp
nc,r•-�`�-�-�-ee-_��rpado- � _ �-►--��x�
.
e
. Y 8 A4a $i 4 T
Reviewer/InspectorName ( s ''< .: , , ,. =lt;l. Phone:
a�
Reviewer/inspector Signature. Date:
' \, age 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — i Q JSof Inspection I I t •
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 L�CNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists TT``
21. Do s record keeping need i provement? If yes, c app ate box elow. ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
aste Applica ion Wee ly Freeboard Waste An sis Soil Analysis /Waste Transfers 8
;y Rainfall 03 Stocking pQ Crop Yield 120 ute Inspections Monthly and V Rain Inspections eather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[ANA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
`l'" No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
[�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
L)SL 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
0Io
❑ 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
t9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
;No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
'"' ,b
a libra-Fion noF- d Una 16. aol� _ pLI. ,��
l . 02 l ( So I +e5 F ? • L' 9 e— "�� 1 5►�ls�l l9raiM
u i- e'y Ge' de wasi e {r' o �, v-
c"" vv� 5 -c-t'ce rain heo,
ar9e new) wa5i-e. P0ndo Ta � eow�letebp
c 1c-�+6 -etc- "d he � 1��f oC' %e m
l i Igo
„Fo&'L t y s ocv,. ,cj u� IEC= �Su 1 i e C a lnI l I) � P--ervi ce
1
® v� �.�.�e. �'10W1._ �2P,I�,iVI � B � Ids PA�•�.,r�, i' �t bull l�S:
cin - rF. LuOSIOV)-y W Ste umu� t�.�lOv) I � t 3
h, u,,
� flAnAl d onokd a
vA_ w U P o
a� s. uj G°redi due 0131113 e
Page 3of3 ` 1 �—_ I ���T S�03S �S � 0.���� tRb Vje-012 1jAA S(KCO_
�� r2G2%�eA u_-xlt,sfe S-ep+. JO (0 -Pr SMO( grial n

Aivision
•
of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 860010 Facility Status: Arrive Permit:
AWC860010 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Operations Review Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: , Surry
Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 09/09/2010 Entry Time:01:30 PM Exit Time: 02:45 PM
Incident #:
Farm Name: Maple Ridge Dairy
Owner Email:
Owner: Maple Ridoe Dairy Inc
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address:1174 Pine Ridoe Rd Mount
Airy NC 27030
Physical Address: 299 Horton Rd Mount
Airy N 27030
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36°30'05" Longitude: 80'43'15"
Pine Ridge Road off Hwy. 89 8 miles west of Mt. Airy.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts M Waste Collection & Treatment
Waste Application
Records and Documents 0 Other Issues
Technical Assistance
Certified Operator: William L Horton Operator Certification Number: 21410
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title
Phone
24 hour contact name Bill Horton
Phone:
On -site representative Bill Horton
Phone:
Primary Inspector: Joseph Hudyncia
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Certified Operator: Josh Horton will be taking the CO test this Fall. Current OIC is Maurice Smitherman.
21. Waste Analysis: 3/24/2010 Slurry = 4.5 IbN/1,000g Scrape = 5.4 lbN/t
21. Soils: 4/21/2010 Good,
24. Calibration: 3,300g truck tank, 4,200g Houle and Gehl Box spreader done 7/1/2010.
Records and waste management system well -kept for this visit.
Page:1

Permit: AWC860010 - Facility: Maple Ridge Dairy Inc • Facility Number: 860010
Inspection Date: 09/09/20'10 Inspection Type: Operations Review - Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current Population
O Cattle - Dairy Heifer
100
98
O Cattle - Dry Cow
26
Cattle - Milk Cow
600
390
Total Design Capacity: 700
Total SSLW: 940,000
Waste Structures
�.b..use. rimnd Date Start Data Deslaned Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Neste Pond
LARGE (NEW) WSP
02/16/07
28.00
Ellie
Neste Pond
WASTE POND
18.00
et Slack
WET STACK#1
30.00
el Stack
WET STACK #2
24.00
Page:.2

Permit: AWC860010 ter - Facility: Maple Ridge Dairy Inc
Inspection Date: 09/09/2010 Inspection Type: Operations Review
• Facility Number: 860010
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) 111100
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 (Le./ large trees, severe
❑.
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan? _
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? Cl
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page:3

Permit: AWC860010 Owner - Facility: Maple Ridge Dairy Inc
Facility Number: 860010
Inspection Date: 09/09/2010 Inspection Type: Operations Review
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crap Type 6
Soil Type 1
Congaree
Soil Type 2
Fairview sandy Gay
loam, 2 to 8% slopes
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
❑
■
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? _
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check theappropriate box below.
Page: 4

Permit: AWC860010 tr- Facility: Maple Ridge Dairy Inc • Facility Number: 860010
Inspection Date: 09/09/2010 Inspection Type: Operations Review Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
WUP? ❑
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking? _
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑
■
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25, Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑
■
❑
26. Did the.facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
■
Cl
Other Issues
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?
Page:5

Permit: AWC860010 owner • Facility: Maple Ridge DairyInc •
Inspection Date: 09/0912010 Inspection Type: Operations Review
Facility Number: 860010
Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑
■
❑
❑
Quality representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0
❑
❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0
❑
❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
N
❑
❑
Page:6

0
TypeofVisitIOtCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit %Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: p7 0 Arrival Time: °e Departure Time: 4icounty: SU ri' V Region: �V
Farm Name: QQ,,1'0 Q Q I IY �p—h C o �— Owner Email:
Owner Name:/ tQ� d1 1 l l.� l Pf`5� Phone: A'1 11 go I— Odd-.
Mailing Address: T�1 P��� e R 1. i
4r U . N(—
IQ
e.
Physical Address: �a_m
140
�AILU�Qi Title: PhoneNoNo:: 401 —
Facility Contact: 1 —
Onsite Representative: Da4\16\ Integrator:
Certified Operator: I I Q rn 0 f Operator Certification Number:
Bill - 4 hrs?
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number: '
Location of Farm:
(V
Latitude: � ®' Longitude: �° Fo%3n
00 wo5te 5"ta- u-5i R (po o� ld(�6/t0? ix P co
7A 9�rlri�
-
Swine
❑
Wean to Finish
DesignCurrent
C•ap„ acih
Populatt�on
Wet Poultryacity
❑ La er
rDigns
aurrent�'r
1'o�puulat�on'
Cv�attle 9 A 'i�cap
Dairy Cow
Design
city
Current
Population
❑
Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La et
Dairy Calf
❑
Feeder to Finish
-
u
Dry Poltry ,µ
❑Layers
❑ Non -Layers
a
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
K'
Dairy Heifer
Q Q
ME
❑
Farrow to Wean
Cl D Cow
❑
El
❑Gilts
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
❑ Non -Dairy
El Beef Stocker
`
', ❑Beef Feeder
`u ❑Beef Brood Cow
❑
Boars
Other
Gi---}'
a Nu1.mberof Structures: I H I
❑Other
❑ Other
3�:. tt R
1¢
t ilt+ABF§Y,
ivTW
�iitt't
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ 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)?
0
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes
❑ NA
[I NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes ONo
❑ NA
[I NE
ere there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑NE
other than from a discharge?
2),
< /
/02 ��/Q �s i1= � V / kS .
/N(/Tt71/1 /04
Continued

Facility Number: 5j �/ I /� • Date of Inspection •
Waste Collection &Trreeat-meentt
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
Structure 1 nn Structure 2 Structure 3L Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: T 'Mo-Inti P A_l°fSIQC�� H� -%P_ 5�711t( aZ
Spillway?: �r—
Designed Freeboard (in): \q��kyy�
Observed Freeboard (in): W 3b
t G-
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? l , ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) c'
6: Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed U Yes
El No El 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? WYes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? XYes
❑ 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 Rl 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. ElQ(I Yes
�,._
No El NA El NE
El Excessive Pending 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
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
6Yes
❑ No
❑ NA.
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
❑ No
XAIA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
1;No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
to 4 1j1
Reviewer/Inspector Name ` ro Phone: a
brewer/Inspector Signature. L_ Date:
A

Facility Number: —lip ae of Inspection •
Required Records & Documents
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes `-Y No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design [I Maps ❑Other
J`I21. Do s record keeping need improvement? I , e Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application t W kly Freeboard;Waste Analysis Soil Analysis Waste Transfers �catio�
Rainfall 7®`L Stocking I][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 )O'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No XA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? Yes ❑ No •XNA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ,§ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes eNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Otherlssues
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 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 'XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? VYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
g a _ 6 . -a3�ia tl
Additional Comments and/or Drawin s: s ech5C I S
CR lO KV —
31) Ioov�, N�1(�v 4 1n�5 ®n 3l I�� loe 1AI— t'' Q -D

Type of Visit
Compliance Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
xRoutine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: I County: — �Ur r ►� Region:o
Farm Name: U i Owner Email: /
Owner Name: Phone: U pQ�o � 11 -!1'
Mailing Address: I 1 ( nQ. �P, f �• r r y , NL of 7� 71
V
Physical Address:40
Facility Contact: QJ(� 1 l Title: Phone No:`,e
Onsite Representative: 1 Integrator: ---— /
V�JI�nM L r rs•
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number: �9
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number: 1
Location of Farm:
Latitude: ®e ®, IS17.1 Longitude: MOM, [El"
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
10 Non -Layer I
Dais Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
Dais Heifer 1001 100
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Laers
❑Beef Stocker
❑Gilts
Non-LayersEl
❑B eef Feeder
❑ Boars
El Pullets
❑Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Turkey Poults
Number of Structures:
❑ 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?
❑ Yes �i(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes []No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes �No
Yes ❑ No
12128104
El NA El NE
❑NA ❑NE
El NA ONE
Continued

Facility Number: — 1� • Date of Inspection M I o1-�N tJ41 •
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes jkNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
� �Structure� I����� /\Sttructure� 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: V Ee E
Spillway?: t
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):_
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
No ElNA
ElNE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed XYes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? Yes
El No ❑ NA
El NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need El Yes
El
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
t
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. IBYes
❑ No El NA
El NE
El Excessive Pending El Hydraulic Overload [I Frozen Ground El Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, ettcc.)��
❑ 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
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
� (No
1151 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #) Eiplam any YES answers and/or/any,recommnd t>tttontssor aany other Comm
Use drawings of facilityltibetter explain situations (use additionallpages§gasAnecessary) ; �§ ) _ °
(p New a 4ul't,io,,)� ~ er (I LL)kp
w/tY/
1 ilk" 57 t
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: v� U
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date: ILL0169
(ti49
a)' a6l 119
w5V 0 's' 6e=3.k
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
•
❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ YesIo ElNA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ElWUP ElChecklists ElDesig
n ElMaps ❑ Other
21. Doe record keeping need ittt�rovement? If yes, chec the appropriate box elow. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
����Waste Appli�c ion [� W�e/ekly Freeboard�� aste Analysis so—il/Analysis Waste Transfers r I "-_.•�i CWAfie ft4,,.,
[gRainfall IlStocking R Crop Yield pd 120 Minute Inspections I�Monthly and V Rain Inspections Leather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
�(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
9NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
9NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes P(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
0Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
JE(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
1% No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28/04
oil

`i: is- 'a, c)t
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit A Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
� A Q
Date of Visit: � Arrival Time: � Departure Time: � 'T'�..IJ County: U f f Region:
Farm Name: AXo Lo E 1 dQ e, Q 1 f Owner Email: p / 1_
Owner Name: IQ II Phone: l o b— S 7 2 3 PA,,40'ck
Mailing Address: �1��IhF_t�lQQt � ��• �jt'N .'vL
Physical Address:fill
/
Facility Contact: Title. Phone ��o — SC(a A
�nie l — q6/ -2y9b
Onsite Representative: � Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ®o IUJI Longitude: Mo©' [;�,
i.l31y1�1�1�
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
DairyCow 6
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer I
Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
I I I
airyHeifer Q
❑ Farrow to Wean
DPoultry
ry
Dry Cow
ElFarrow to Feeder
ElNon-Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
El Layers
El Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
ElNon-Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
El Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
[ITurkeys
Other
❑ Turkey Poults
Number of Structures:
❑ Other ❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ 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)? 0
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or poten ial adverse impacts to the Waters of the State Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
0
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection oZo2
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I S•t�ructureh2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: -Uoa IyEWowP (J��' S1C�-$I (eF :i oZ—
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 ElNE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) /
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental t reat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes $No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes Ll➢.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? pA
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. El Yes *0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Excessive Pending El Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground [I Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.) ``
[]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes LEI.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes tNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No X NA ❑ NE
P1No El NA El NE
4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
IComments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. I
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
I , I I t t q • /�/ I , I �
It ,/ r/-/ / I l / / l / ✓ / F
Reviewer/Inspector Name 1 (' vocxI Phone: " I I (' S a$ y
Reviewer/Inspector Signatures Ah 0 i y1A A U A 0 )7 & Date:
�of . k' n" . 12128104 Continued
J vt'x' t.r21t l[��Q t L) / t T fro M PPS o he t,om "A

Facility Number: — tate of Inspectiono �g
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes �rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes . NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Doe record keeping need improvement? Fei4Yes❑No ❑NA ❑NE
Lid W to Appli @VC kly Freeboard <aste Analysis Soo�il Analysis Wa t
Ramffl Stocking ❑ Crop Yield eetiens- �.�lC9onthly and I" Rain Inspections eather Code
Any,-C.oineJ hil "5
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 KNA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No IZNA ❑ 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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes �<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 KNNo ❑ 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 KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes M<O ❑ NA ❑ NE
AAdItional Comments and/or Drawings:
a • �-,�J $��¢ • N 07
Mtt-4) LOS PS ?
d alpb�c�(►oil �ve� 0.�0- tv, oc+. aoo�
qOC)c 56(l ems{ gyres u N s
Vs? M u6k rn'� ry
�.�' a�c�n�ne.a het-��rs r n r
L 10/19/07- 1.1 (oV
aR LeaUD0_1 rarm s - 5 feVe t6q 77 3 - ao7a
Oil
Pin
Page 3 i 4
I

Division of Water Qualit)'.'I
Facility Number Q�Q `"' O Division of Soil and Water unservation
F rl yl
0 Other Agency Z � 2
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine Q Complaint O Follow up 0 Referral O Emergency 0 Other ElDenied Access
Date of Visit: 0 Arrival Time: Departure Time: of . l70 ounty: U t' t" Region: Ic ]S Rb
Farm Name: le. 7n t✓ Owner Email:
Owner Name: Gwe- Phone: 1 $ (o — S 7 ? 3
Mailing Address: 1 7 q P i Y,P, 121 Qoe- Fd • nq . A I r u, to a 2 03 0
Physical Address: 450 rv) P,
Facility Contact: ?)1l I `' — Title: Phone No:
.
OnsiteRepresentative: .�f)S In �—�`1I I Integrator: -ce-[I q01- ?4qb
Certified Operator: 'PV1 ` \ Operator Certification Number: 2114 1 o
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Other
❑ Other
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: MU ®, or, Longitude: Fs-31 u
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity
Population
❑der__.
❑ Non -La ei
Dry Poultry
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
00
L
Dairy Calf
KDairy Heifer
Job
Aare-)
Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: PEI
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 9 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)?
0
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
J�'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes INo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: U e Ne_4Jl,.jSP I_>Sinry. jr,--) S*&oL-
Spillway?: -1 ! I Z
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): r C)
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
'es El No El NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ,Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
/0
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Pending ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu,
Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN> 10%or 1016s,❑ 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) -4-1ri 14
13. Soil type(s)
I
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ICI No
'
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
/
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
❑ No
N'�A
❑ 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
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
IComments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. I
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name
saxra.c4 1FniaIrzwrn�rarrfr

q'-ropo�dorvl
FacilityNumte of Inspection Cb 7
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes LMVo El NA ❑ NE
❑ Design El the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists g Maps Other TT�,
21. Does ord keeping need im ro heek the a re rate boz b Yes ❑ No ❑ INA ❑ NE
Wa to Applicafon Weekly Freebo Was7AnaIysi's>/Soi1 Ana is as[e Transfe ❑�
ainfall S[ockin rop Yield �li^ "�€r,.pecno.m onthly and l" Rain Inspections Bather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA [:1 NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes V] 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 to No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Otherlssues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? XYes ❑ 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 '4'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 1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
a 1. wa4ke (, � '� I►'l a rc� �5 c,�c1e „r E> -
le(l ud — tF� b - I I ct3 fi'o N %11'F 167 = 3. (9 41 (0501 = 13 . S
-200<
Say Q 4.�� % "4a 0 oo? ? - .
n_
l ��L.� yi[i.�'►u�O'ireL
tflee�l t0 0 �t�Qrs over Lee+ S+a_c44-5,_Tke_se_ t Dx Strut 1
Oure, r)0 1 f) W U 10 of neea }e be_ 5 i ncP_ _44i care e'+; l I u W .
AA,Pf � �• (`�1ust CroY) to v3 waste a o . 3 0 �-s . I�
I -,(JA �t�✓

a. •
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 860010 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC860010 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Surry Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Vislt: 1112812006 Entry Time: 10:15 AM Exit Time: 12:00 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Maple Ridge Farm Inc Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address; 1174 Pine Ridge Rd - VouitAiv VC 27030
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Pine Ridge Road off Hwy. 89 8 miles west of Mt. Airy.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Certified Operator: William L Horton
Secondary OIC(s):
Latitude:36.30'05" 1 Longitude:80.43'15"
Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Otherlssues
Operator Certification Number: 21410
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Bill Horton Phone:
24 hour contact name Bill Horton Phone:
Primary Inspector: Meliss Rosettrock Phone:
Inspector Signature: 0 �� Date: 1
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
3. Need to remove bedding waste from ditch and the manure near the dry stacks and land apply.
3. Evidence of 4-6" of sediment in creek from construction of new waste pond. ""Notified NRCS and SWCD and sediment basins
were re -dug and enlarged the next day. Disturbed land was seeded and mulched.
20. SWCD to send new WUP to Mr. Horton upon cmpletion of PLAT.
21..Soil samples pulled in December 2006 for PLAT may count towards 2007 requirement since this was the second set of soil
samples obtained for 2006.
24. Calibration completed. Not due again till Oct. 2008.
8/16/06 waste analyses: #1=3.3 and #2=1.6
Page: 1

Permit: AWC860010 Owner - Facility: William Lawrence Horton
Inspection Data: 11/28/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
•
Facility Number: 860010
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
O Cattle - Dairy Heifer
100
100
O Cattle - Milk Cow
600
210
Total Design Capacity: 700
Total SSLW: 940,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
asle Pond
WASTE POND
20.00
Net Stack
WET STACK #1
6.00
Net Stack
WET STACK #2
72.00
Page:2

Permit: AWC860010 Owner- Facility: William Lawrence Horton Facility
Number:
860010
Inspection Date: 11/28/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
■
❑
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
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

•
11
Permit: AWC860010 Owner - Facility: William Lawrence Horton
Facility Number:
860010
Inspection Date: 11/28/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yea
No
NA
NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Small Grain
(Wheat,
Barley,
Oats)
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?
Cl
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? Cl
■
❑
Cl
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
E
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
E
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
Cl
M
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC860010 Owner • Facility: William Lawrence Horton Facility Number: 860010
Inspection Date: 11/28/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after> 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
0
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
Cl
❑
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: AWC860010 Owner- Facility: William Lawrence Horton Facility Number: 860010
Inspection Date: 11/28/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
tlthar lccuna Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑■❑❑
Page: 6

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit
Compliance Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
Routine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: arrival Time: Departure Time: 0-0 County: it Region: +r�-V
Farm Name: ,, // (� e Farts -En C " Owner Email:
Owner Name:. 0*1 Horton 'n tPhone: i 9 6 S 7 � -
Mailing Address: 1 e �� �� y U� j1q r N2_ -7 CL3 0
Physical Address: —a"
L 1 / c
Facility Contact: 8ItI albf-+6 n Title: Phone No: 7
Onsite Representative: I �I I � r+o 11 Integrator:
Certified Operator: (I I 6 rfb rl Operator Certification Number: q I O
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
Back-up Certification Number:
0
Latitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -Laver
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: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Longitude: ®°
Design
Cattle
Capacity,'
Dairy Cow
a
] Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
10111
r
IL Beef Stocker I 1 II
ILI Beef Brood -Cowl -
Number of Structi
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
❑ Yes []No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
IYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

�s
Facility Number: — d • Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes r❑_ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure Structure 2 ' J ' ,Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: �� Sq&Ckj)Eq�CV_ J\JW Y:f'
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): OCV � it
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes IXI,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) �I,.�(
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed El Yes �y No El NA El NE
through a waste management or closure plan? CCC
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental reat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ElNA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ElYes 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 l� No El NA El NE
maintenance or improvement? /
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes �(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No I�NA El NE
�JNo /❑NA El NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
3.aC
t96
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu 1VMDate:
Phone: — Sod$
02$ 106
Pagelo// f3_ fW/ /L1� /� 4' Continued

'Facility Number: — We of Inspection ""fir % •
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 hav components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. P ❑ Checklists g ❑ Maps
rr Fwr
❑ Desi n p ❑Othery,�,, //21. D es record keepin neeovement? If yes, the the appropriate box elow. / ❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑NE
Waste Applic ion ly Freeboard Waste Analysis Sml�nalysis CVWaste Transfers II
Rainfall SttH=g E Crop Yield cim ions 6 Monthly and V Rain Inspections 94eather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Comments and/or
S / /(0 (o (V LLDa5+e "a I � S 15
Q�w *-.
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes O(No
❑ NA ❑ NE
VNA ❑ NE
❑NA El NE
XNA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
o
to
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soll and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 860010 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC860010 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Inactive or Closed Date:
County: Surry Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 04/07/2005 Entry Time: 09:30 AM Exit Time: 11:45 AM
Farts Name: Maple Ridae Farm Inc
• TWil WETHUMPI ..r•r
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 1174 Pine Ridge Rd Mount Airy NC 27030
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Pine Ridge Road off Hwy. 89 8 miles west of Mt. Airy.
Question Areas:
® Discharges & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Latitude: 36°30'05" Longitude: 80"43'15"
Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Other Issues
Certified Operator: William L Horton
Operator Certification Number: 21410
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
Title Phone
On -site representative Bill Horton
Phone:
24 hour contact name Bill Horton
Phone:
Primary Inspector: Melissa M Rosebrock
Phone: [phone]
Ext.383
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
3. Silage leachate is still observed in the creek and needs to be addressed with expansion.
3. Suggest water boxes/drinkers for heifer lots and fencing to keep vegetated buffer along creek. May need heavy use area?
15. Crops look excellent.
28. Applications onto small grain were slightly outside the windows stated in the WUP. Operator stated that he had good weather
and needed to pump.
3/7/05 waste analyses:
ALD= 2.2 lbs. N/1000 gal
SSD= 1.9 lbs. N/ton
Facility wants to expand to 400-600 cattle. Are working with CET on design. May start this Summer.
Page: 1

11,
• W
Permit: AWC860010 Owner -Facility: William Lawrence Horton Facility Number: 860010
Inspection Date: 04/07/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle -Milk Cow 200 210
Total Design Capacity: 200
Total SSLW: 280,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Waste Pond WASTE POND
Wet Stack WET STACK #1
Wet Stack WET STACK #2
Page: 2

Permit: AWC860010 Owner -Facility: William Lawrence Horton Facility Number: 860010
Inspection Date: 04/07/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Disnharges & Stream Imnant. s
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Yes
❑
Nn NA
0 ❑
NF
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
M ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0 ❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0 ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse Impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
M ❑ ❑
Yes Nn NA
❑
NE
W.aCiP. Collection, Storage A Treatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, Is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe erosion,
❑
0 ❑
❑
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑
M ❑
❑
closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑
M ❑
❑
and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
0 ❑
❑
improvement?
Yes
Nn NA
NF
s iP ApplicationI
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or Improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P2O57
❑
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
Small Grain
(Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 2
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 3
Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

•
•
V
I,
Permit: AWC860010 Owner - Facility: William Lawrence Horton
Facility Number: 860010
Inspection Date: 04/07/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Wastes Annication
Crop Type 6
Vas
No NA
NE
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan(CAWMP)?
00
❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
N ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Recnrds
❑
Vas
E ❑
No NA
❑
NE
and nnr umentts
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other
❑
21. Does record keeping need Improvement?
N
❑ ❑
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to Install and maintain a rambreaker on Irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑ E
❑
24. Did the facility fall 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 permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 Cl
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC860010 Owner • Facility: William Lawrence Horton Facility Number: 860010
Inspection Date: 04/07/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
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 Alr Quality
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
7xia7.k'•.Id
Page: 5

Type of Visit ?�C mpliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
/�/�
Date o ,i i[: Q1 Arrival Time: r® Departure Time: �� County: Jur rlj_ Region: L-v RV
Farm Name: .p4 &-p l — Fowm I 1:h C Owner Email: p2
Owner Name: _��,(,�,n � . � do Phone: -7 3 & — 5- 7 a-3
Mailing Address: I I 1 r t �1{ E IPim
a. .Cl- a I mT • 6t cm t 1y� c2:7 0 3 b
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representai
Certified Operator
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to
U Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone No: % v 6— o 6 6 O
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: I I O
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ®o M I QJ Longitude: ® o Fall
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
I, ❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Capacity Population
y Calf
y Heifei
Cow
LJ Beef Stecke
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: all
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
0
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Y s
Xo
❑ NA
❑ NE
s
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number. — • Date of Inspection
111
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? El Yes
)No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
❑ No U�]A ❑ NE
Structure Structure 2 3 Structure 4 Structure
5 Structure 6
' 'Structure
Identifier: V �1 roZ
Spillway?: N U o� 0
_
Designed Freeboard (in): � e
!
Observed Freeboard (in): 10 W —I (N
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
Wlo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
o ❑ NA El
(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
� lo� ❑ NA [I NE
maintenance or improvement?
�\
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. El Yes
1I'//o
'IVo ❑ 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 Drill ❑ 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 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
3 :
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination'![] Yes �(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑Yes N ❑ NA El NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
IBM
en@t�s refer'to queWonj#) ,Explain any YES answers*,apd/orsapy recommendations or any
other comments.
01
awings df facilityrto"bettergexplatmsituattons r(use:ad'didonal p g s as tie es ary):
,..:a, ':a. ,, ,. , .4dt,v�,f...c.e't"b..Yf °.'"vt�''NgI,Stae bt:,.
Reviewer/Inspector Name (� " ,;a Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: —
12128/04 Continued
�-► dos

Facility Number: — 0 Ddoinspection — V./ 7)*--
Reguired Records & Documents �$, ��'�WNo
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage &Permit readily available? V,�ept,2jY Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Ma s
p ❑ Other ///
21. Doe recordkeepingneed �mprovem ent? If yes, YVWaste
k the appropriate bo below. y ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste A I' anon v1}}���eee\ekl Freeboa(r�� Anal sis S I Analysis Waste Transfers eFC� tefi�ttttetr
Rainfall Stocking �LM.Qrop Yield V`�L)20 Minute Inspections�Aonthly and I" Rain Inspections eather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a ram gauge? 19 es o ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes XNo XNA ❑ 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 survveey'as required by the permit'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
1XNA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
[/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
*Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
j*o
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
Io
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Pennit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
*o
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
t
i
' ` I
1,0l
NI -Ern r) '
12/28/04
ssJ I-9

I- Jechnical Assistance Site Visit
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number $6 - 10 Date: 10113/04 Time: 9:30 Time On Farm: F 85 WSRO
Farm Name Maple Ridge Farm Inc County Surry Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 1174 Pine Ridge Road Mt. Airy NC 27030
Onsite
Representative Bill Horton Integrator
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
Purpose Of Visit
Routine
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
Purpose Of Visit
Routine
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
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
200
170
71
❑ 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 Li uid WSP Wet -stack 1 Wet -stack 2
Level (inches) 72 40 60
CROP TYPES Icorn, Silage
Ismail grain silage
Fescue- raze lFescue-hay
Isorghum
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

r
Facility Number 86 - 10 Date:
10/13/04
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
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
❑
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
[115. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. 21-1.0200 recertification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. 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 removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
[124. 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 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 • A new heifer barn has been built for calves up to
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
breeding age.
2.
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
$
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 86 - 10 Date; F 10/13/04
Waste analysis: 9/10/04 SSD 2.0 Ibs.N/ton 1
6/04/04 SSD 1.7 Ibs.N/ton B
Soil samples dated 3/31/04
Mr. Horton has capped the sink drain at the office.
The feed trailer has been moved away from the creek bank.
The maximum liquid marker has been reset on the waste storage pond.
The facility and records look good overall. Good farm.
Mr. Horton has received his new COC and permit.
* Remember to start using the new permit forms.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham rony Davis
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 10/15/04
Entered By: lRocky Durham 77-71
03/10/03

1FacilityNumber 86 10 Date of Visit: 4/8/2004 Time: 0930
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: . .. .. .. ......
Farm Name: MmplRMdg%: acm.lns.......................................................... County: %t xy...................._............_.... WS.R-Q.....
Owner Name: WilllamJLalyxucv-_-_._ Hoxtnn_._._.-•-.-•-.-.-.-----•---• Phone No:(33b17Rb:@72V3--------------------•---•--•
MailingAddress: .1.1.7ARJA9.l jAU.RQmd....................................................................... J.!'lLAiry... NC.......................................................... 77.030..............
Facility Contact: Rill.klQr:tou........................................Title:............................................... Phone No: 33C.7.06.06.8..................
Onsite Representative:JILHtutitp.-----.-.-.-•---•-•-•-•-----•-•-•---•---- Integrator:.-•-•-•---•-•-•-•-•-•-----.-.-•-.-.---.----.
Certified Operator: W..illiam.l.............................. Hart0a.............................................. Operator Certification Number: xl,4.1.4.............................
Lnrntinn of Farm:
Pine Ridge Road off Hwy. 89 8 miles west of Mt, Airy.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • t 30 1, 1 . 05 " Longitude 1 80 • 43 ' IS "
Design Current
bwme ua ractt ro mauon
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
M Farrow to Finish
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Ca city Population
❑ Layer ® Dairy 200 190
❑ Non -Layer I airy
❑ Other
Total Dcsign,Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field OR Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge`
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
200
® Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
I gal./dav
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Identifier:._.- Astakond.........WeLstack.0L...._.W.etstack.d2_-
Freeboard (inches): 48 36 42
12112103 q��/� Continued

Facility Number: 86-10 • Date of Inspection 4/8/2004
i
5.
Are there any immediate threats to the integrity 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
❑ Yes
N No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
8.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
N Yes
❑ No
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
N Yes
❑ No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Hay) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CA WMP)? ❑ 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
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 N No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes N 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 N No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Comment§'(refer to question 9): `Explain any YES answers and/ur any recommendations or any other comments y '„`; y,
ulti
'Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary). ,
C] Field Copy N Final Notes
4 ,
1. and 8. Direct discharge of gray water was observed from the farm office sink. To be capped immediately.
3. Need to move the feed trailer away from the creek to allow vegetation to re-establish near creek.
7. Suggest using broadleaf weed control on embankment to help establish permanent grass cover.
9. Marker came out during recent agitation and pumping event. To be re -installed by May 1, 2004.
3. 2004 soils are back and are ok.
/19/04 waste analyses:
rite pond=3.7 lbs. N/1000 gal.
et stack=4.1 lbs. N/ton.
9. T-5035 F-I is no longer in strips of 7.2 acres. Operator added two fields together for his application records. Need to amend waste
Ian to reflect field change.
_fie i CC
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melilsp RQsebrock ' A
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur • Date: c
12112103 t / v Continued

Facility Number: 86-10 DOf Inspection 4/8/2004 •
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form [-]Rainfall []Inspection After V Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ®No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
12112103

Type of Visit iP Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time:
Q Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified E3 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: A� ....F..'i4je...... �� m.l. .nC..�..................... County: ........ 5......................................... _.........
Owner Name: ... 1.Y...1.��...iw......V:.......H.0 jJD.............................................. Phone No:., �J 3�0 :.._7...........:....
Mailing Address:..........! 1 e r—� AIC NCi a %d
I tf .......P...►a.............9.......................................J..1) I...................�.....,...................................................3..................
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title: ................................................................ Phone No: ,11j_[t.......3.�J .:. �$6:
........ ...... ........1.............. Integrator: .... .................................................................................
%.... .... Operator Certification Number:..... �.1.1,1.0..........
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Wcattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®• ®l ®11 Longitude ®• ®' Q�ffl
71 7oli �n���., u...°�eSlgll ��ll�th.Cnil'entiildi Ott i�i: �ii t��t �� �i�ir�,•, �emg113 n���CUirent i�tR �w.f itiiv 7 �i ��,�a�>�DeSigll.i rC11ITefit,
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Dischanes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? O(Yes j No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field AI OOther
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes XNo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) XYes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gaVmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) es ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes tKNO
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes 0
Waste Collection & Treatment T
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes No
Stru to I S uct re 2 'Sttrugturre 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identif er: ._1.....-K C.!... ... ...
..2 ........................ .
j
Freeboard (inches): 3to Z
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: — I D 1 • Date of Inspection 41
5.
Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (i�ie// trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
XNo
seepage, etc.)
6.
Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑ Yes
I0
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?
XYes
o
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
Yes
X'
❑ 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
00
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground [ICopper and/or Zinc
12.
Crop type AQ o--��%i A—{6I G ! _'Itl
13.
Do the receiving crops differ withlose designated in the Certified Animal fste Management Plan (CA )?
❑ 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
1910
1��
Odor Issues
17.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
o
P
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
XNo
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
x o
Air Quality representative immediately.
`
„:1
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
" /
Reviewer/Inspector Signal
Date:
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: — l�of Inspection
Required
Records & Documents
21.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
O<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
Vas[e Application Freeboard ❑ -"—Waste Analysis [I Toil 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?
❑ Yes
'&No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
'o
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ YesjNo
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
XYes
❑ 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 V Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
0
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
�3. 6 rO-vd 4r °Wean ? OP46
ex-ee�c? lhxjw 'P AAZ&�
J
w-4,* - 40, 11s -A,) j-&� .
11/ai/o3 uo,45
MAI
an
12112103

nical Assistance Site Visit
DIi %ion of Soil and Water ConservatiotT
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number $6 - 10 Date: 9I10I03 Time: 12:40 Time On Farm: = WSRO
Farm Name Maple Ridge Farm Inc County Surry Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 1174 Pine Ridge Road Mt. Airy NC 27030
Onsite
Representative Bill Horton Integrator
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
OO Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
1200
185
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
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 Ono
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 Liquid WSP j Wet -stack 1 Wet -stack 2
Level (Inches) 361 72 72
CROP TYPES jCom, Silage j Ismail grain silage Fescue -graze ISorghum Fescue -hay
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 86 10 Date:
9110/03
PARAMETER
O No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
El 10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
El
❑
[315. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. 2H.0200 re -certification
[116. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/rnissing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
[121. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Reaulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
design/installation
❑
El
El
43. Irrigation system
Date:
44. Secure Irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45.Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
El46.
Wettable Acre Determination
El
The feed alley between the two barns has been
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
paved with concrete.
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
2. One of the cross -tie walls has been replaced with
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
a concrete retaining wall.
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. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 86 10 Date: 9/10/03
analysis: 9-05-03 LSD 2.2
7-18-03 ALS 2.0 "
3-18-03 ALD 1.5 "
S. I, JJU L. / iDS.IWton
SSD 5.3
" SSD 4.1
Facility and records look good.
The trench silos had very little leachate coming out.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham rony Davis I ICameron Pardue
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 9/17/03 Entered By: lRocky Durham
3 03/10/03

II stomof Water Quality • II
OWsion of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit O• Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit O• Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 86 10 Date of Visit: Ol/16/2003 Time: 0945
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: KQA19..Ridge..F.acxn.ltls.............................................................................. County: Suxa'.y................................................... W..S.RQ........
Owner Name: W..illianu. AWX.euce............ Nurtau........................................................ Phone No:Q3j6)t.7.86.-.5.7.Z3 ........................................................
Mailing Address: 1174.Pifle..fud9e.iiA.9d...................................................................... Ut,..Ait:x..Kc......................................................... V93.0 ..............
Facility Contact: Bi.II..HU19.13 ......................................................"ritle:.............................................................. .. Phone No: ...............
Onsite Representative: $Atl.&.Rr.ISc111a.11A.t.RfA.......................................................... Integrator:
Certified Operator:..Ai11AamJ .............................
.
Location of Farm:
?ire Ridge Road off Hwy. 89 8 miles west of Mt. Airy.
Operator Certification Number:2,,19.1.0..............................
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 30 05 6 Longitude F 80 • 43 11 F 15 11,
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Ca tacit Po ulation
❑ Layer 0 Dairy 200 190
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 200
Total SSLW 280,000
Subsurface Drains Present II❑ Lagoon Area J❑ Spray Field Area
No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharees & 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 -matte? ❑ 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: ...... 1N.aste.Pond..... ......Wet.stack.#1..... .....Wc stackJ2..... ................................... ......... .......................... ............... I .......
............
Freeboard (inches): 28 48 60
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 86—[0 • Date of Inspection 01/16/2003 -
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ treoevere 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 M No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes M No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes M No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pending ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes M No
12. Crop type Fescue (Hay) Fescue (Graze) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Alfalfa
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? M Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes M No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes M No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes M No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reauiretl Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes M No
■ �1
AN �•m
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #)r Explain1any^YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): M Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
3. Pastures along creek are pretty denuded. Need to re -seed as soon as possible to avoid potential run-off of soil and/or animal waste.
Are still getting silage leachate into ditch that leads to creek. Operator is to install gravel trench to contain the daily leachate.
13. Application of animal waste was made onto orchardgrass and alfalfa but orchardgrass died -out. Need to add alfalfa to CAWMP
when it's revised.
Facility wants to raise certified number to 150. 1 instructed him to contact the Sorry SWCD far assistance.
New concrete between the wet stacks and the new guttering looks great! No waste concerns in this area.
8/29/02 ALD = 0.72 and SSD = 2.6 lbs. N/1000 gal. 11/27/02 ALD = 2.0 and SSD = 5.3 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melissa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 86-10 Datf Inspection Ol/16/2003 •
Odor Issues I'
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ 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'Commentsan orDrawings:
26., 29., 32. Not applicable to this facility at this time.
05103101

• 9:
Ant
Type of Visit ACompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 3, Routine Q Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Irate of Visit:
Time:
0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered
Not ODerational Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name:
1 Q.
FQ
c •
County:
Owner Name:
Q
% hOn
Phone No:: ' 8 — S % 3
Mailing Address:
12
Ed
�'
1 r w t !0C Oc
Facility Contact:
Title:
191�I %D(Q g�AW 1S
Phone No:
Onsite Representative:
I
1 4— Pri, e,
a 46 r46
Integrator:
Certified Operator: in
111 L •
HbOm
I Ll I
Operator Certification Number:
El Swine ❑Poultry VQCattle ❑Horse Latitude ®•®•®" Longitude ®•�' •®`
Swine' `'•
❑ Wean to Feeder t
I otfll Ue
,0
�� �� .�,n ❑ Subsurface Drains Prese
t_
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gaUmin?
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
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 A 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 X No
`• (rS tur S�trnuclmr Strucctu_r�e 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: Y�l IA llrl �xl X�T7f1I('y 41 %
Frceboard(inches):
05103101 Continued
t�

• •
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection I 1 / I /n /6,1'S
5.
Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
No
seepage, etc.)
6.
Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
El Yes
rr����,CCC'''
�p tvo
-
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
XNo
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
YNo
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
ElYes
` bgNo
11.
Is there evidence ILWer application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
12.
Crop type U Q 1 n I
nn
,<o
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those deVig;utjA in the Certified Animal Waste Mankiement Plan (CAWMP)?
$j Yes
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑YesfNc
c
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
ANo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
,No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
YNo
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
*1�0
Renuired
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
���,,,...//(
Ljg No
,
18.
Does the facility fail -to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
/tNo
19.
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) / �
Does keeping improvement?
❑ Yeso
record need (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ..
❑ Yes
���,,,[[[��-o
L�1vo
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
' `
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
o
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
,� No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit. .
Comments (refer to question 4 Ezobrin anyiYES answer1. s'and/or apyrecommenda`tioos or,aov othei" commentsN
Usc drawi'11ngs of enIty to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary) '" "� f Field Conv ❑ Final Notec
W anC;t¢ AP ✓mac
Cut 'So e'b C4 0M�P��
13. ✓2�d�utp B �-�-
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued
ci� CAik)AP A'�e r�

Facility Number: —
DO, Inspection I 1 /
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there anv 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?
<6 / aq /o a -
A �O o �a
OS/03.OJ
0
/
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes );6o
a- ss'0 a-( I bs. N1/oo(o7 0-�.
ZMA04aj G)ey"
U

Facility Number 86 10 Date of Visit: 6/25/2002 Time: 13:30
W Not Operational O Below Threshold
E Permitted a Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: lY.laple..l3idgUJArMJ=............................................................................. County: S.urjry .................................................. W5RQ........
Owner Name: Wit. IAm.Lawr.cace............ Ha tau ........................................................ Phone No: G?3G),I86.-S7.2]........................................................
Mailing Address: 117.A.Pit[e-Ridge.li0.0d...................................................................... HI...tilt:y...N.C......................................................... 2.7.03.0 .............
FacilityContact: ..............................................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative:$lll.H9x.ljRit.................................................................................. Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:,.Wjj110ML............................. RQPlotl.............................................. Operator Certification Number: ZI.4lQ.............................
Location of Farm:
Pine Ridge Road off Hwy. 89 8 miles west of ML Airy.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle [IHorse Latitude F 36 • 30 05 « Longitude F80 • 43 15
Design Current
Swine Canacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons I
Holding Ponds/ Solid Traps C
Design Current
Poultry Capacity Pop
o m
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
Design Current
Cattle Ca acit Population
® Dairy 200 175
❑ Non -Dairy
Total Design Capacity 200
Total SSLW 280,000
Subsurface Drains Present ii❑ Lagoon Area i❑ Spray Field Area
Discharges i 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 stone storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ............W.SP............. ................................... .................................... ................................... ......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 36
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 86-10 1 4j Date of Inspection 6/25/2002 - - q
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tre0severc 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 strictures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
[]Yes
® No
Waste
Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
®No
12.
Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Fescue (Graze)
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
®No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (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
® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
7. Mr. Horton has a cost -share contract to install a gutter and pour concrete in the feed lane to help reduce any run-off from the
y-stack and feed bunk area.
acility and records are in compliance.
he dry -stacks are approx. 114 to 113 full today. The irrigation field is counting less than 75% of the total acreage.
Reviewer/Inspector Name IRGcky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 86-10 1 DIN Inspection 6/25/2002 •
t)dor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes IN 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
analysis: 4-10-02 SSD 3.2 Ibs.N./ton B, ALD 1.4 Ibs.N./1000 gals. B
6-12-02 SSD 5.1 " "
1-02-02 ALB ALD 1.7 lbs.N/1000 gals. I
05103101

(Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 86 10 Date of Visit: UII;/2002 Time: 1015
0 Not Operational O Below Threshold
N Permitted 0 Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 17 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Haple-Ridge.FArm.1m............................................................................. County: S.urrY................................................... !\5RQ........
Owner Name: W..011A n.l.aasa: ixt:............ Hartatt........................................................ Phone No: G?JG).7$b.:S7.2J........................................................
MailingAddress: xt7.4.P..1.ite.Ridge..Rnad...................................................................... Ut,..Airy..N.C......................................................... 2.7.03.9 .............
FacilityContact: I1111 JItt ROA...................................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
OnsiteRepresentative: P.Ili.Hpi:twx..................................................................................Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:W11141JU i3.11i)..t.................. Ruloilk ............................................. Operator Certification Number: j141.9..............................
Location of Farm:
Pine Ridge Road off Hwy. 89 8 miles west of ML Airy.
[]Swine []Poultry ®Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 30 05 1, Longitude 80 • 43 15
Design Current
Swine Ca acit P,o ulation
Design Cu^'r-r at De-ig Current `
Poultry Ca acit Popmlation : @attle Ca tacit Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Layer
®Dairy
200
183
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑Other
Total Design Capacity 200
Total SSLW 280,000
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 0
Hold®g Ponds /Solid Traps
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System 7�
Discharges _&Stream Impacts
t. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated Flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: ...... Waste.P.and..... .... Dry.StackAl..... .... .Dry...Stack.#3.................................................................................
05103/01
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
.

Facility Number: 86-10 • Date of Inspection 1/18/2002
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 Annlicatinp
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pending ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Fescue (Graze) Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
[]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
[]Yes ® No
[]Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
C ments refer I on # : Explain any E ans a - orlanvirecorn daup or any other commen ,
t drewin of fa i , o better explain situation . additional pag as ace sary ® Field Copy ®Final Notes
3. Keep an eye on any silage leachate. Potential for it to enter freshwater drain, especially during rain events.
7. #2 Dry stack is still leaking. Operator plans on guttering area above exterior wall and putting sawdust in first to absorb leachate.
Check next visit.
19. Need to seperatc waste forms by crops (corn silage, small grain, sorghum silage, etc.)
25. New dry cow barn will hold about 40 cows. Waste and bedding waste to be applied by spreader. May want to add a heavy use area
out back. Is not a problem, just needs to be added to CAWMP.
Reviewer/Inspector Name [MelissaRosebrock n
Reviewer/InspectorSignature: A /Q(�/a t /y ' Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 86-10 1 1)0f Inspection Fl—/1-8/-2002-1 .
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge actor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the Flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes []No
❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101

Type of Visit 1jfCompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Vlslt k4outine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time:
0 Permitted 0pp Certified Q Connditionally Certified 0 Registered
!Farm Name: _IUI"Iv_ �1Qm, 1-7(4rm.1--nc
Owner Name:
Mailing Address: I
Facility Contact: �&
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
County:
Phone No: 3 3 —7k In . S-7d 3
Z30
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry bf Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude l o n l' ®' =.. Longitude ®O ®1 ®"
to Wean
Boars
Design Current Design Current Design Current
lapacily Population Poultry Ca raci Ponulation Cattle Ca aci Population
❑ Laver Dai Q
❑ Non -La Layer Non -Dairy
1 - --. ...
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW-.Ib
Number of Lagoons ' ?;� -,H— i' 3*I❑ Subsurface Drain
:;;Holding Ponds / SolidyTiaps I ,, I� k ❑ No Liauid Waste
Discharges & Stream Imoacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
5 a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
l� 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?
�V d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
h 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
StructureA Structure 2 trtuar,)3y / - Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier. *j' t .n"-t"It CFI"
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
❑ Yes >6No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes ��A,,,///No
El Yes t� No
Structure 6 /
Continued

• •
Facility Number: — j 0 Date of Inspection
5.
Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
,pl No
seepage, etc.)
/ -
6.
Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
❑ Yes
No
7.
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
AYes
❑ No
8.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
9.
Do any smcmres 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
Jt�K-N''o
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pending El PAN [I Hydraulic Overload
Yes
1KN0
12.
Crop type (, , ( I
!`
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with t osc designated in tfiUCertified Inimal Waste Mana ement Plan (CAWMP)
Yes
No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
4No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
El Yes
No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
k No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
Required
17.
Records & Documents
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Cerr.tied 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)
'AYes
❑ 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
�/
IlO No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
foNo
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
*0
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
9Yes
❑ No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
.. n Ada "1 e �P z A T za"3
Comments (refer to.question #): Explain any"YES answers and/or any recommendations or any, other comments.
vr r.:¢:F
Use drawings of facility to better edditlonaly'piige
explain situations. (use s„ays necessary) Field CODY Final Notes '
' •+xe s3
Reviewer/Inspector Name.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 v Continued

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

Facility Number 86 10 Date of Visit: 1 9/19/2001 'Time: 9:30
0 Not Operational G Below Threshold
Permitted E Certified [3 Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: MmimIe..Ridge.fArm.lur........................................................................ :..... County: S.ur.Tx.................................................. WS.RO........
OwnerName: W..illiaaa.L............................ Hoy:tout........................................................ Phone No:(33M.M.-.57V ........................................................
Mailing Address: 117.4.Pi.uv Ridge.A9..ad...................................................................... lYK.Airy...N..C......................................................... 27.03.0 .............
FacilityContact: ..............................................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: )1 i1110ut1.r%t.1 01YA eltce.HO[toAt............................................. Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:..W.Allatit................................. Horton ............................................. Operator Certification Number:21419.............................
Location of Farm:
Noe Ridge Road off Hwy. 89 8 miles west of Mt. Airy.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 30 05 Longitude F80-JOF43-1, E 15 1,
Design,;
Current,- .
Design Current
Design, Current
Swine tCa self `
Po ulatioo Poultr'.y' _
Ca acit •;Poiulation ,; Cattle
Ca tacit Po tulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Layer
;;
(1 Dairy
200
170
❑ Feeder to Finish
Non -Layer
❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑
Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
200
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
280,000
Number of Lagoons I J❑ Subsurface Drains Present JJ❑ Lagoon Area J❑ Spray Feld Area `I
Hordingg Poodn / Solid Traps 0 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑Yes'®No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes []No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Identifier: ............................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 48
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 86-10 Date of Inspection 9/19/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, A 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 Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Fescue (Graze) Fescue (Hay)
[:]Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
❑ No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® 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
❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
19. Remember to get the 2001 soil analysis.
ther records looked good.
'r. Horton has addressed the issues that were of concern during the DWQ inspection.
IReviewer/Inspector Name lRocky Durham I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

1 Facility Number: 86_10 ate of Inspection 9/19/2001 •
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
analysis: 3-19-01 ALD 3.4lbs.N/1000 gals. B, SSD 4.2 Ibs.N/ton B
6-20-01 SSD 1.4 " "
8-30-01 ALD 1.4
8-31-01 SSD 3.8 " "
to Mr. Horton about changing the application method on the ALD to irrigation instead of broadcast.
05103101

(Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 86 10 Date of Visit: 3/8/2001 Time: 1210
10 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
E Permitted ■ Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 1❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Maple.tiidaYar'm.1fic.............................................................................. County: Starry................................................... )i'.SR0.......
Owner Name:.WMI1ata.L............................. RQrjlj.a........................................................ Phone No: L3 b)..7.SG-.S72.......................................................
Mailing Address: 11.7.4..R.irte.Rhd&e.l{.Qatl...................................................................... Mt,.Airy...IN.C......................................................... VON ..............
Facility Contact: LawrelUCl;.Uorlon.........................................Title:............................................................... Phone No:....................................................
Onsite Representative: l a>rreace,.B.ill,.attd..Rrissllla.ilQrlQxt ............................. Integrator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator: h',ilii m................................. HQ..CtQrt.............................................. Operator Certification Number:21419 ............................
Location of Farm -
Pine Ridge Road off Hwy. 89 8 miles west of Mt. Airy. A
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry 0 Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 30 05 .. Longitude 80 • 43 15 11,
'' Desig
rrent
tin urren t
t`
)sg,gi
ine Sapacit
japj
a
acxn P,o ulation r
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
1®Dairy 200 160 t
�''
❑ Feeder to Finish
In Non -Layer
❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Total Design Capacity 200
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
otal SSLtt1U 280,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drai-n-s-P—r-e-se-iufjo Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Arca
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps 3� ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & 'ram Im a '
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 0 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 t1ow 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 N No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
�01/0//01 Continued

Facility Number: 86-10 Date or Inspection 3/8/2001
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:.... iquids.ion..... ..... Ary..Stack,.l...... ...... 1)Xy..Stack.2......................................................................
Freeboard(inches): ...............33b................................7.2............................... �4................................................................................
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 Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Sorghum
❑ Yes
® No
Structure 6
............................
.............................
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
® Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
®No
® Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ®Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
17. Are rock outcrops present?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ 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
® 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
® No
21.
Does record keeping need improvement'? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
22.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
®No
23.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®No
24.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) I
❑ Yes
IN No
25.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
®No
26.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
27.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
Odor Issues
28.
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?
29.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
®No
01/01/01 1
Continued

Facility Number: 86-10 �c of Inspection 3/8/2001 • Printed on: 3/9/2001
30. 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) .
31. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
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.) ❑ Yes ® No
33. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No
34. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? []Yes ❑ No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Final Notes
Dry stacks are seeping, especially #1. Operator plans to pipe seepage to waste pond by this summer. Need to connect gutter run-off
to the drain pipe going under the road to keep waste from getting into the fresh water drain.
Marker, per permit, is to be installed within 30 days.
10. Getting some streambank erosion on the heifer pasture. Keep an eye on it for now.
14. See I I / 13/00 letter from Nancy Keith to Sonya Avant. This facility utilizes both irrigation and spreader for waste applications.
19. Per permit, need to also include Cu and Zn in soil test analyses.
No waste analysis available within 60 days of October or December applications. March I, 2001 sample results have not come back yet.
r-5064 F-I is strip cropped. Half of the usable acres is listed as 26.69 acres in the owner's latest maps and records. WUP lists acres as
23. Several other fields don't match maps and WUP. Newest maps tend to have slightly more usable acres than the WUP.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signal
Date:
01/01/01

n
IZ:36PM
II r; Wt Lrvrsron or ciou ano vvarer a,onservauon i ti ,:+rain
OotheCAgenC!i
?,i i
.t
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: O Time.
Facility Number ��
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted Certified 0 Conditionally
Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above.Threshold:
`Farm Name: M.....�� .1.L......k..1.C1. e ....Fa-.c% ......Th�.................. County:.......��� U.C.G.....................................................
""I V Owner Name: ►ll.t Ho.r .an..... Phone No:......, 40 4 5 %
Facility Contact: .... L+a1...�.e(V�i.�..Q ........1..j...codooitie................(.......1.........../.................... Phone No:
No:.........................I..�...../..�..............
Mailing Address: .... 11.... 3..-1.......... A....'n.e....1Z.��.q.e.................:../......... LL.t.A..:...1X..L..r..li....1..!.... ........a7 �J
Onsite Representative: .�..�....... t.Qn.o..h........ Integrator: ......................................................................................
Certified Operator:... ,, �I,�Q„hl� ,,,,[Aa.r w._ r
............ I,l; ,,,,, Operator Certification Number:,_a,'/..0 ...............
Location of Farm:
E
❑ Swine ❑ PoultryCattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®•
®
®• Longitude
®' [3M, ®"
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry
Design
Capacity
Current
Pooulatioa Cattle
Design Current„tii i
Capacity Populatipn ' j
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Other If!
Total Design Capacity
Ttital SSLN*
Number of Lagoons I J❑ Subsurface Drains Present JjC1 Lagoon Area I❑Spray F�e1d Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps IIV
CJ ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ,� Spillway
Structgrc I Structures 2 1, S4g4tructurre'3 Structure 4 Structure 5
_ Identifier: ...0 4. A.5.... �.r�..5+a w Ir. t]TAA.1..............
Freeboard (inches): 3' 9 Z 1
5/00
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 0No
❑ Yes O(No
Structure 6
Continued on back

Facilfty Number: — ♦7 Date of Inspection Printed on:
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie ees, severe erosion,
seepage,� etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management of
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
1 /9/2001
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 Anolication
*Yes JQNo
❑ Yes %No
10 Yes ❑ No
[]Yes ((No
Yes ❑ No
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding [I PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes o
12. Crop type 0 nrw\ Id n nn <n n �c N ti . , G 1 n nO InA.r id , .
13. Do the receiving crops differ with Mose designateWin the Certified AXima1 Waste Managtgnent Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes �rvo
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
J 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
KNo
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
-Kyes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
..V,,,///No
y���...( No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
A No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
kNo
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
K No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
J�No
P.
Nq-Yt410ti01js;or. a$tjcpenctes •ivgre P9t:ed. a(WI tjtjs;vjspt; Y00 wltl•tec$iye no. I ther •: •:
cories' mdence.about:thuvisit:.::::::::::::::::: :
' dU 11/13/Z000 (e#P-r TOM NOL"CAJ ILA,% 48 S6nyq Av&n+•Ai5Qed,
AV%U,s bad irr�4lion� Spreader. )�or S+e c pl�ca`li'ons .
c,I�-5 &_rL SPz p tn , e s " try r �I ow5 p e
Ise, e f wots+e- �nj by ,s s(-)vnrne�l Need
L`o'AV1e-( gUt+p_. r`Uo-a9C1V-att1n-1- itrn,t� n,no.-)An
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature 4 'BOA _
Date:
Ff[ia

Facility Number: -76 — 10 1 to 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 WNo
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ YesXNo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ISf"N0
roads, building structure, and/or public property) 777���
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? -fes -Ef ! o
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 XNo
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? fifes E3 ? o
Notes Crop wi ndouus ?
was�t/so( IS a000/aool 2
.9 o IY1o�xY�.�r �� P-,, lV\A-) '� be �v►5`�ll� �i n 36
10.
19. T-s00 r1 t4
vA:ea- l a- a 6- & qA ✓t.e e,etol w u P Jk44
m� a-aiJKAA �' LADO Po Mom, c�
uzv", A�� �-UP OUP
M
5100

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection 0. Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason Tor Visit *Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date nf' Visit: 1l/30/2000 Time: 9:30 Printed on: 2/22/2001
86 10
0 Not Operational O Below Threshold
e Permitted 0 Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ......................
Farm Name:]YTaD.It..iiidge.FaGm.Jnc.............................................................................. County: S.urt3..................................................
... SRO ........
Owner Name:William.L............................ Marion ........................................................ Phone No:03.611M-.5123 ........................................................
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: 117.4.P1ne..R1dgc.R9.ad........................:...............................I............. lYat..,thin..XC......................................................... 2.7.03.0 .............
Onsite Representative: 1..8.W.CCIU>:.f..aAtd.PAl1..k1.RA'.t9.tl................................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:.Willllattt................................. HQr.t9.t1.............................................. Operator Certification Number: 2141Q.............................
Location of Farm:
Pine Ridge Road off Hwy. 89 8 miles west of Mt. Airy.
[]Swine ❑ Poultry ®Cattle []Horse Latitude 36 • 30 OS Longitude 80 • 43 15
D sign Current Design @u`rrentD'estgn=Cue
Swme Ca acit� .Population Poultry Ca tacit P,o ulation Cattle j Ca acd -j,P,o ulation
g ❑ Wean to Feeder IN Dairy 200 160
"` ❑Feeder to Finish ❑tion-Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
:.
❑ Farrow to Wean
�1- ❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other s:
y: ❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity 200
.!0 Gilts
❑Boars . W 280,000 E?i
Total SSL
Number of Lagoons 0-❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps I ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection R Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: ............parlor....................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 72
5100
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Continued on back

Facility Number: 86-10 1 1 Date of Inspection 11/30/2000 o Printed on: 2/22/2001 '
5. Are there any immediate threats to the• - egrity of any of the structures observed'? (ie/ Ito
severe erosion, ❑ Yes C9 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
(►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 ® 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 ADDliC11i0a
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Hay) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Sorghum
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?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reuuired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
vi6latitius'oT &'r16encie$ were Y6u:wil noted :du�igg this: visif.::.l :receive it6 further
corresnotidence about this.vtsit. .
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
[]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
25. Waste plan is currently being revised on the charts to allow for application during all crop windows.
25. Applied on stubble(approximately 1/4 acre), the rest applied on Barley. Corn will not be planted until Spring 2001 on stubble area.
19. District will be available to anwser questions on pumping windows. Waste sampled Mar and July `00, soil test 7/99.
7. Recommend resloping driveway to remove puddling by drystack and allow vegetation to be established.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Margaret Okeefe Greg Goings Tony R. Davis
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5100

Facility Number: 86-10 Dal' Inspection 11/30/2000 printed on: 2/22/2001
( do 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
• . ittond -ommen an or awmgs:
5100
5100

Facility Number g6 10 Date of Visit 4/4/2000 Printed on: 4/5/2000
Not Operational C Below Threshold
0 Permitted N Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ........................
arm Name: lY ApIr..tiidgc.Farm.1uf............................................................................. County: S.urjry .................................................. WS.RQ........
OwnerName: J,Aw re0.ce .............................. HO. tutl........................................................ Phone No: (3 6).,7#b.:S7V........................................................
Facility Contact: L awir.carc.HQ.rtutA........................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: x L7.4.>'tue..Rldge. RAOd...................................................................... IY L Airy...1N.C......................................................... 2.7.03.0 .............
Onsite Representative: PA iSCt11u,.SOW.reAtce..0Ax1.Bi11.Horton ............................. Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:..Wjdlllam..L.............................. HQrjilon ............................................. Operator Certification Number: 7,14)iQ.............................
Location of Farm:
F
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Hor:Latitude 36 • 30 OS .. Longitude g0 • 43 IS ,,
y Ott DesigmCuere t De ign Gurr t
nt " '� Desgri
'=Swore " Ca acit .,P,ovulation , Poultry . Ca acit Po ulaatttoti CatHe _ ` aCa tacit" 'oo ation
E] Wean to Feeder CM Dairy
q [I Feeder toF nosh ❑ NoneLayer ❑ No Dairy 140 176
y ❑ Farrow to Wean JIVAMAk*
❑ u "w t
❑Farcow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish ��"
❑ Gilts Total De,§ -1pk'.$licit 140
, ❑ Boars Tota1,SSLW 19ti,000 4
of
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 113 Spray Field Area
,z Hol�dtngPonds /Solid Traps 0 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischorees & Sdream 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: .......Wastr Rand..........Dry...S.tackAl.........Dr.y.StacILA2................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 102 28 72
/ j Continued on back

Facilit Number: 86-10 Date of Inspection 4/4/2000 Printed on: 4/5/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the in�ty 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?
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?
It. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
u' No violatiotis;or deficiene e5 were:noted:during this; visit: ;Yctu;will receM.hd.ftirther ; •;
corresuotideh& about this visit..:....... .
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Facility has a waste storage plan written by Nancy Keith in February 2000 that includes the new dry stacks. The waste plan is not
Led and is not signed by anyone. New dry stacks and expansion were completed 3-4 months ago and are for 60day storage. New
ste plan is for 200 cows. P*om
"; uy 9iLt-— o�}�alIDbFreeboard on waste pond is meal rf 6 inch discharge pipe. There is 24 ' ches above this point. Need marker for
Reviewer/Inspector Name iM,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Rosebrock
Date:

Facility Number: 86-10 1):�' Inspection 4/4/2000 • Printed on: 4/5/2000
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge actor below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
® No
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
® No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
❑ No
ona �omtitents en or rew ngs:

l : 60
Facility Number I Date of Inspection low zop
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
E3 Permitted Certified
❑ Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered
Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ..'y{ i I.Qr........E.1AA.L....�%��.!i7.l.�.hG
...............
. .... ....................
Cnunty:..........�.� l.r.�L-5-7.)-3
i..........................
Owner Name: ........ L.a .l�..rel(
ce..........7.�.g1�
f
n..................................
—i
Phone No:..33k.... . I..._..............
.....
FacilityContact: ... :......... O..................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
I Ali.
Mailing Address: ... ..`'...I�J.S(..........Pl..1he...�j... .I.j/n:.........R«v%..............J.'.41..:....lT:t.f.1�.....,../..1!.�............... 27...o.3S..l....
Onsite:.............................................................,...1......................
Certified Operator:,.O.I„U.1,(,T;,wv...... L.,,;, o�
..r ...................I ................. Operator Certification Number: ..... �o.,�.,, �, `I /
....................
Location of Farm: } �s p ( �p
1nt...Pi.......P...I=C�!.:.Q`. .......�1a .._._ ?...1.............�..m.l�5.....C.T.........f.1..4:�:..:.....,.r....................................................... �
y,........................................................
Latitude L*Laaj' L (y" Longitude L%.0J0 Lqaj' �'"
'� '' Destgn '1!' Cur'rent. 1
De'stgn ,1Curreptt" Destgn 1 Curr'ent
�;
Swine Capacity "Population
Poultry Ca act Po ulahon ,Cattle;,'. , (,p.,,,Capacity1-Po mlation
❑ Layer Dairy 1,1
I�f
❑ Non -Layer Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Destgn CapacUyy'.
Total`SSi W
Number of Lagoons ®
❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area
_'
'Holdin Ponds / So lid Traps'
g
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System „
f l'-`
❑ Wean [o Feeder
❑ Feeder Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow [o Feeder
❑ Farrow [o Finish
Gilts
❑ Boars
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ANo
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 Slate'? (II' 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? ❑ YestNo
o
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes No
Structure 4 t Structure 9 }p Sitmetttle 3 St ucture 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: t (� it' �rWr i 's�1 A w`
Freeboard (inches): ..........
i_.
1 V`
................... ...............................................................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediatethreatsto the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
^� seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 �� % Continued on back
a

Facility Number: — I f inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are no roperly addressed and/or managed through a e 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 Annlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Exces
__si
__ve Ponding ❑ PAN�t �/�
12. Crop type 1.)1'yat9k r,kovvr /C4' kONOA l0l CorV1
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those desighated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre. determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? N %�
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
�: Q Yi9�a(igrjs of ilgtjciencie �v$re Poked fp h)g this;visit'.- Y60:will •Ke&¢iye 00: fui•th$r; ;
.' . • corresnoridence: about this :visit: :::::::::::: :
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 4lNo
XYes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑p No
❑ Yes l(7�No
❑ YeSANo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes;No
No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes �No
ElYes No
❑ Yes []No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes Vo
❑ Yes .KNo
❑ Yes),/No
❑,
Yes ! No
❑ Yes YNo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes X No
Cgam' Cdrwpl�e 7 C�1
i. Froe board 1,5 s'n�ASu Q -F_r'nm *p D� �0 pipe -
Need Mary-e� - a r prMi4*
(. ry 5- aeKS ? Ar'e v) Aeu) Loote plan . /1 re far d rouqje
toa�,fe plan far aob Coto (5 _
Reviewer/Inspector Name � l � n�. .. C)C. —
I Reviewer/Inspector Signatur 0 ly Ap P Date: nl.G /�UICZ , I

Facility Number: — IJtf Inspection [60 •
Odor Issues �%`'�
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below p�
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? OM nr l 1 7T abM
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 bells, 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?om 1 -r a5W6
❑ Yes )(No
❑ Yes xfqo
❑ Yes )(No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes No
J

Farts 86-10... over numbers??
Subject: Farm 86-10... over numbers??
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 08:40:40 -0400
From: Melissa Rosebrock <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR Winston Salem Regional Office
To: Sue Homewood <[e-mail]>,
Sonya Avant <[e-mail]>
Did an inspection yesterday at Maple Ridge Farms. Please see inspection that I entered this morning. The
database says they are certified for 140 and there were 176 there yesterday. Nancy Keith gave Lawrence
Horton (owner) a waste plan in February. The waste plan was not dated and did not have a place for any
signatures. Per Tony Davis (SWCD-Surry) the owner was to have sent the plan by November 15, 1999. 1
do not have a copy of the letter from Raleigh stating this. Two questions:
1. Could you send me a copy of any correspondence asking /stating a deadline for the waste plan to be
submitted for my files?
2. What do I/we do now? He was definately over his design capacity with no plan submitted.
Thanks. Melissa
Melissa Rosebrock
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: [phone] ext 265
FAX: [phone]
I of 1 4/5/2000 8:40 AM

NORTH CAROLINA .10
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
WINSTON-SALEM REGIONAL OFFICE
FAX TRANSMITTAL
�... Aja
D E N R`
Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27107
Phone: [phone]
TO:
FAX NUMBER: 3��
FROM:
DATE: S 60
Number of pages (including cover page):
COMMENTS:
S
Fax: [phone]

Facility Number 86 10 Date of Inspection 5/27/99
Time of Inspection 13:00 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Permitted ® Certified E3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Not O erational Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm Name: Mnle..RidgC.Farloa.Jaic..............................................................................
Owner Name: Lafxrsnce ..............................
Facility Contact:
Title:
County: S.urr.Y.................................................. W..S.RQ........
Phone No:(33b1.7,W5.723............. :..........................................
Phone No:
Mailing Address: 6.46..Pause.lodge.RoAd......................................................................... b1t...t)Ia.1N.C......................................................... 2.7,030 .............
Onsite Representative: BIll.H9rtQtt.................................................................................. Integrator:
Certified Operator:,yyilliatu..t.............................. HortAA.............................................. Operator Certification Number: 2141.9.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude F 36 • 30 OS Longitude 80 • 43 15
ti r, ii Design Current
v 5wme f Ca acit P,o ulationg
Design Current ; Design Current-'
PonitGw
Y Ca acit P:o u4lahon 9Cattle _Caaci y uPo ul lion `;
❑ Wean to Feeder
' ❑Layer
�®Dairy 140 160
. ❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer
❑Non -Dairy
- ❑ Farrow to Wean[]Farrow to Feeder
❑Other ? 'Y'
^t Total Design Capacity.' 140
Total SSL'W 196,000
_ ❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds %Solid Traps 3�
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ 1.agmn Area 10 Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discha[ges.& StreamImpacts
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)
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ 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
Structure I Structure 2
Identifier: Liquid Dry stack
Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Dry stack
Freeboard(inches): ...............3.6.............................72..............................Z2................
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
❑ Yes ® No
Continued on back

Facility',Number: 86-10 of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are Oroperly addressed and/or managed through a w ste 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 Pending ❑ PAN
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
5/27/99
❑ Yes
® No
® Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
® Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
o yiolatitiris:oT deficiencies were'noted ;dui ing this; visif::You; Will �ecewe.it6 ftirtHer ;
. corresporideitcti about this .visit..... .
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
18 Need to have a copy of the certification with other records and also certified operators card with records.
19 Need to have waste analysis within 60 days of application. Annual soil samples need to be taken. Need to balance N on crops.
7 Need to mow around WSP for easy visual inspection. (18" or less).
8 Curbing could be higher at lower end of barn , around drains. To prevent runoff.
25 Numbers are higher than what the facility is certified for.
peration utilizes two dry stacks that waste is scraped into. The WSP only gets milk parlor water, water and urine from the barns,
id rainfall on the WSP.
IReviewer/Inspector Name IRGcky Durham Tony Davis I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
3/23/99

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
WINSTON-SALEM REGIONAL OFFICE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
October 9, 1998
Mr. Lawrence Horton
646 Pine Ridge Road
Mt. Airy, NC 27030
SUBJECT: Animal Feedlot Operations Inspection
Maple Ridge Farm, Inc
Facility No. 86-10
Surry County
Dear Mr. Horton:
An Animal Feedlot Operation Inspection was performed on Maple Ridge
Farm on October 5, 1998. Tony Davis from the Surry County SWCD as well as
myself were present for the inspection. Enclosed is the inspection form.
On the day of the inspection, the waste management systems appeared to be
well maintained. There was, however, some runoff coming off the concrete pad
where the drystack manure is loaded onto the spreader. The stock trail from the
barn to the pasture needs to be addressed since it is heavily used and denuded.
Please contact the Winston-Salem Regional Office if you should have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Jenny Rankin
Environmental Technician
cc: WSRO
58S WAUGHTOWN STREET, WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA 27107
PHONE336-]]1-4600 FAX336-]]1-4631
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

le Routine p complaint p hollow -up of owtl ufspecnmf p rouow-up of v'�wt. review p viuer 1
Facility Number r ;i, ,•, =, i;� rug.,:
l;inr of I:,..... m,.. 24 hr. (hh:mm) -
io Registered 0 Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted 113 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Maple.Ridge.F.arm.lAc.............................................................................. County: Sorry WSRO
OwnerName:.Lawrence .............................. Rorlon ........................................................ Phone No:(3,36.)..7.8.6r.5.723 .......................................................
Facilitv Contact:
Title:
Phone No:
Mailing Address: b4li.P.iue.Ridge.Raad......................................................................... ML.Airy...NC.......................................................... 270.1a ..............
Onsite Representative: Daniel.HortAa........................................................................... Infegratnr:
Certified Operator:.W..illiam.L........................... Horton .............................................. Operator Certification i\'mnber:.L..1..............................
. Lucalion of Farfn:
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
p arrow to can
❑ Farrow to Fee er
p Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
p Boars
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
p Layer I I I IMLairy
❑ Non -Layer 1 1 1[3 Non -Dairy
p Other
Total Design Capacity 140
Total SSLW.196,000
Number of Lagoons / Holding Ponds IE3 Subsurface Draj JE3 Lqgoon Area p SIray ie r rca
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
® Yes
p No
Dischor_c orieinatcd ac p Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ®Other
a. I I'dischargc is obscrvcd, was the conveyance mm11-made:'
p Yes
®No
b. If discharge is obscrvecL did it reach Surthce Water? I lfvcs, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
®No
c. II discharge is obscrvcd, what is the estimated flow in eat/min?
d. Does discharge hgpass a lagoon sysicnt? 01 yes. notify DWQ)
Yes
MNo
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
❑ No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes
®No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
®No
7/25/97

,.act t y um er: 86_10
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on si ich need to be properly closed? • ❑ Yes a No
Structures 1Lasumtc,Hol(Iim,, Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Yes a No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Sn'ucttue 4 Snuctme 5 titructwe 6
Identifier: 1 2dry stack 3drystack
Frceboa rd (I i ):............ 4..feet............ ............ 4..feet............ ............41ca............ ................................... ................................... ...............................
.
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes a No
I I. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? p Yes a No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(if any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .......C.orn.(Silage.&.Cirain).............................................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Ou1v
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?
7. p*viO Ions.Or.deici'encies,were.noted.durtngthis visit.. You. will.receivenoturtner.'.
::: co'rrespo.nk►i0 abbot tflis;Visj�c : : : : : : ::: : : : ::::::'.:::::::::::: ; :::::::::::::::::::: ; ::::::::::: ; : ;
was some
manure
was also a heavy use area outside of the barn that was denuded and needs to be addressed.
p Yes a No
p Yes a No
p Yes a No
Yes a No
p Yes a No
p Yes a No
p Yes a No
[]Yes IN No
p Yes a No
p Yes a No
p Yes a No
p Yes a No
p Yes a No
ditch was discovered that appeared to divert water and parlor water from the barn through a grassed buffer. It was dry on the day
inspection and there was no evidence of discharge in it.
IReviewer/Inspector Name Jenny Rankih. - I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: It NL1ui �d,tiL AM Date: (o.-S —q W

„ : Division of Soil Water Conservation p Other Ag� iu'v'l,
Division of Water Quality
"I��alhz
cr�' ijr!(,{bf'1(ii,�: fli��xioi
Facility Number
Farm Status: ® Registered p Applied for Permit
p Certified p Permitted
in Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Maple Ridge Farm Inc
Time of Inspection
24 hr. (hh:mm)
(ex:1.25 for I hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
or Inspection (includes travel and. processing)
County: Snrry.................................................. WSRO........
OwnerName: Lawrence .............................. Harlan ........................................................ Phone No: .7.8b-S7.23....................................................................
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone No:
Mailing Address: U&Pine.Ridge...Ruad......................................................................... Mt.Airy...NC......................................................... 2703il..............
Onsite Representative:
Integrator: .......................................................................................
Certified Opera tor:William.................................. Rorlan ............................................. OperatorCertitication Number:21.41.0 .............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ®• ®' �” Longitude ®• ®, ©a
Poultry,..
❑ arrow to ee er t' Total D6ign`Ca'paeity.'
p Farrow to Finis
Total SSLW
r3 Other
„
General
I. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ® Yes p No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ® Yes p No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field N Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? R Yes p No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify D WQ) ® Yes p No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/ntin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ® Yes p No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? N Yes 13 No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? 13 Yes ®No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ® Yes 13 No
maintenance/improvement?
4/30/97

11'jAcility, Number: 86_10
6. Is facility not in compliance with any a0able setback criteria in effect at the time of don?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (it): Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Suvcturc 4
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .......Corn.(S.ilage.&..Gcain)..................................................................
® Yes
p No
p Yes
®No
p Yes
®No
p Yes
p No
Suucture 5
Su-ucnuc 6
p Yes
p No
p Yes
p No
p Yes
p No
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For Certified Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified A WMP?
p Yes p No
p Yes ® No
p Yes (3 No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes p No
p Yes (3 No
24. Does record keeping need improvement? p Yes ® No

s , + p Livision or
p Division of
■
1* reuunne p e-omprauu p ruuuw-up ur vvvy uupecrwn p runuw-up ur vavv� review p vtrter 1
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
'Circe of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Registered p Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted in Not OperationalDate Last Operated:
Farm Name: Maple.Ridga.F.arm.Inc.............................................................................. County: Surry
Owner Name: Lawrence .............................
Facility Contact: ...............................................................................Title:
UAT MIS
PhoneNo:.7.8b-5723....................................................................
Phone No:
Mailing Address: fa4b.Fina.Ridge...Raad......................................................................... Mt.Airy...NC......................................................... 27.1131I..............
Onsite Representative: Daniel.l:torlatL........................................................................... Integrator:
Certified Operator: ..................................................
Location of Farm:
Latitude =.=, ®"
Operator Certification Number:
Longitude ®• ®' ©"
tSwme .'
estgn ,-t urrent
Capacity'I'opulation';
imsrgn„ t,urrent vesrgnr t,urrent
Poultry "` Capacity Population •.` Cattle,,. Capacity e Population
❑ Layer I ® Dairy
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ ee er to rimsE
❑ on- ayer ❑ Non -Dairy
:
❑ THErow to T can
❑ ter
❑ arrow to ee er
+
Total Design Capacity, 230
❑ Farrow to Fmts
'" ' ' '' Tota1,SSLW 322,000
❑Gilts
❑ Boars
+ -
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? R Yes ❑ No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ® Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (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
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 ® No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ® Yes ❑ No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes ® No
7/25/97

A
act tty Number: 86_10 0
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons. Holdln¢ Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Strnetm•e I Stricture 2 Structure 3 Stricture 4
Identifier:
Freeboard (11):
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
•
p Yes N No
p Yes ❑ No
Suvctine 5 Structure 6
15. Crop type ....... C.om.(Silage.&.Gxain).............................................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified A WMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
pr.. 1N.o-vialations. oreticrenvievs'iWei:re.neaaunng. nls isit. O. wrt.reeelve. nor rrtner.-.'
ivY un
•cerrespo.nde6ee aWtjt tbis:s:::::;
p Yes p No
p Yes N No
p Yes ® No
p Yes N No
p Yes ® No
p Yes p No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:

CkU 1TY SECTION TO
7tl-sa-i9tt'S 15'34 VIM
• Site Requires 1M=dittent3
Facility No. Nr775
DIVISION OF EA'WtON N`TAL MANAGEMEAT
ANIIruL SLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: N d 1995
Time:
Farm
bum _
faooaty: Surr
blew. . Sm
tOa Site Repteseatative:
Pbyaieal Addrrssltoeation:
Pboae:
Fhone: ` ,,, r7' . 5223
Type of opemon: Swine Poultry 6alc L � . I
200 Number ofAaiarals oo Site: 2 t0 IkerS
Deagr Capamty DEM CDEM t.a of cation Number. Certification Number ACI;_.__ m er. A
A : _�.J'�
Latinae: 3 '' 3 C Longitude: _ _Q,_' N 3 1- t
pBsv 22-2-0 CirsieYes orNo
ram. us, Animal Waste Lagoon have saScieat freeboard of I Foot + 25 year 24 how stone event
(approximmely 1 Foot + 7 inches) Yes or No Aetatil Freeboard:._-PL Inches
laud available far sp
Was any seepage observed from the Iagooa(s)? Ya of No was my erosion oburM47 Yes or No
Is adequate ay'! Yes or )- Is the cover CfOP adequate? Yes or No
CrWs) being utilized:
Does the facility meet SCS �aimam setback criteria?Fw from 110000 Feet iram went?Ye's oror No
Is the mlmal wte stlx#llad within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Liao Streaat? Yes or No
as
Iswuu )and applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line? Ye; or No
is animal watts discharged into Haters of the stars by man-made drub, flushing srstera. as other
patilar man-made devices? Yes or No Id Yes, Please Ercplain
Does the facility maintain ate adequwaste magem
naent records (volumes of mamas land applied,
8F,y h j ptsd ba specific acreage with cover clop)? Yes or No I
/�{7i�lW/.��� �,r 1+ I has 2ye1manure. s 2rr1
Additi� 1 !. • A A.o treat/\.
Oe: Facility Assessmew Us it
Use Atncbmeats if Needed.

.. ,.. e!u!Sl!A uo peseq s11oo pug lool-000'o1 'u0Ij3*ojd 3iucoAlod
MS 9 tY I l 8961 pa4oa43 plaid 'L961 uayel s4delsolo4d
—
• gA QSI8.7 ad wA le!m well spo4law o!gawwwsolo4d Aq ALIdelSodol
•D•H7
WON/SON Put SOSn Aq IaluoO
OT-99 AaiunS IniSoloa9 a43 Aq pa4spgnd pue'pal!pa 'paddepy
II0410$ 80ua2MerT 01u ante 04 rw sr 'mll v va
Lis „OE a ► s I'VA) 1333 00004E 7 j l9v 09
An
pa >' \1�"% ill• ^ p� /00'00-
d
uoaut;or aozuoW
a \ • O>, /. s6�j`. x — �' �� �C' dz i1B I - _." _
*AWE) SJWR
• yr • .b � 11
x
/ \ \
"pa
bn / ,r �Opfi m>• dV01'1 • _ •-� 7 � eC .
- Ina as^ 6 \ / /i �s � r �• y 1 _ fM
OZ/ST-98
jeaSa • $ /1011
01
/—mil_. n a i ' �� � ij,11"-'�• " � J/ i \J c / g •!
� - � IaI • _—_ � l �'' i \fir %j�1 r��, %° i `ey♦ '�a i� -�•

State of North Carolino
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Steve W. Tedder, Chairman December 5, 1996
Lawrence Horton
Maple Ridge Farm Inc
646 Pine Ridge Road
Mt. Airy NC 27030
1s17MUTra.M$ R 1
[DEHNFR
Subject: Operator In Charge Designation
Facility: Maple Ridge Farm Inc
Facility ID #: 86-10
Surry County
-_ RECEIVED
N.C. Dell;.. of :i-iNR
DEC 12 1996
WinStion-F, ilelr
Regional Office
Senate Bill 1217, An Act to Implement Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Study Commission on
Agricultural Waste, was enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly on June 21, 1996. This bill
requires that a certified operator be designated as the Operator in Charge by January 1, 1997, for each animal
waste management system that serves 250 or more swine, 100 or more confined cattle, 75 or more horses,
1,000 or more sheep, or 30,000 or more confined poultry with a liquid animal waste management system. Our
records indicate that your facility is registered with the Division of Water Quality and meets the requirements
for designating an OIC.
A training and certification program is not yet available for animal waste management systems involving
cattle, horses, sheep, or poultry. Owners and operators of these systems will be issued temporary animal waste
management certificates by the Water Pollution Control System Operators Certification Commission
(WPCSOCC). The temporary certificates will expire December 31, 1997, and will not be renewed. To obtain
a permanent certification, you will be required to complete ten hours of training and pass an examination by
December 31, 1997. A training and certification program for operators of animal waste management systems
involving cattle, sheep, horses, and poultry is now being developed and should be available by the spring of
1997. The type of training and certification required for the operator of each system will be based on the nature
of the wastes to be treated and the treatment process(es) primarily used to treat the animal waste.
As the owner of an animal operation with an animal waste management system, you must designate an
Operator in Charge and must submit the enclosed designation form to the WPCSOCC. If you do not intend to
operate your animal waste management system yourself, you must designate an employee or engage a contract
operator to be the Operator in Charge. The person designated as the Operator in Charge, whether yourself or
another person, must complete the enclosed application form for temporary certification as an animal waste
management system operator. Both the designation form and the application form must be completed and
returned by December 31, 1996.
If you have questions about the new requirements for animal waste management system operators, please call
Beth Buffington or Barry Huneycutt at 919/733-0026.
Sincerely,
FOR
Steve W. Tedder
Enclosures
cc: Winston Salem Regional Office
Water Quality Files N
Water Pollution Control System �� Voice 919-733-W26 FAX [phone]
Operators Certification Commission V #7 An Equal Opportunity/Afflrmative Actlon Employer
P.O. Box 29535 Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 1 ate-- . 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

OPERa7IONS BRANCH - WO Fax:[phone]
4 Jul 19 '95 14:52 P.15/15'
x
�+ ii:= Immediate Auention
)
n4ellny iYomber: g6 - � a
S17E VISITATION RECORD
DA FE: 1995
Owner: Pardo Nan=
Catmtq: _.. - A) Lr�
Agent Visiting
� Phomc; _�6 • B! nq
Operator:.. &�wtrrrr 1I Pbovo:
On Site Repm_centativo; it Ho^ice Phoao:
M�ysies! Address: /.y�$�i_�.y
M HO& ACC:r s:
Type of tficratioo; Swine J poultry ter_ Cattle
17taignCmpneiry; ago Number ofAnimnlsonSitd;
l t;rode: 3 _0 1i0 S Loagitudc; 8U o ! 3 + IS
Type of Inspeclicn: Grouud ✓; Aerial _____
amic Yea or NIC
VCCS Lbc n:uu'-d %I/rate L4Ce n ha',T suISC;CAL heetocd of l Foot + 25 yew 2 _,..., ; . �rr� . vwt
(1pFro,eim 0y 1 Foot + 7 inches) '; or No Acluel r'=baard: I4t • imkAa
^ faciiiticx WILL moth tin cee lagoro, p!csse Adores: t4C gd,Cr IsCcoal I inzbvnrd nndcr the
leas any : e •pnac o5scrved L-om the ta,00n(s) es x ro 'VaY Ricre c[ocion oP ttc dam1: Y� ot�
Is sdrr;ue;e !Ord ivtl)abla :'ur iand applic;atit�n? es Nu Is the atrt;r crop ldcgaat:.^for Na
AdJitfonal(ou:ments,
I'm to (119) 715•35.9
Pcl Sri H,�